test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Red Letter Media on Disco S2

2»

Comments

  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    Voyager's main problem is that it was designed to be a tense survival type drama but as the show went through run-up and various executives insisted on pet ideas and nixed their personal peeves the show morphed into a very procedural-heavy mix similar to TNG which made a lot of the original key concepts (like the Starfleet/Maquis interaction and the torpedo scarcity problem) mostly irrelevant by the time they actually started filming it. It took them a few seasons to get anywhere near a reasonable balance for the situation.

    This is why SGU was better than Voyager in at least one way. It took a few episodes for the Destiny to be habitable while Voyager was perfectly fine after the series premiere. If only SGU didn't have those lousy communication stones.
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,459 Arc User
    edited July 2019
    artan42 wrote: »
    A big part of why DSC has so many plot holes compared to the other Treks is that it is the only series done in action movie style.

    Leading question. It's in fact, dosn't have any more plot holes than any other Trek.
    Actually it does have more plot holes than other Treks, but that is typical of the action format. Nor it is necessarily a bad thing, though it does tend to annoy some fans who are expecting the deeper styles.
    artan42 wrote: »
    That style is gag-driven (I do not mean comedy here, "gag" is what they call stunts in the industry), it is all about the special effects and stunts, the plot is very much secondary though the more clever writers can conceal that better than others. Regardless, the style pays the least attention to plot and character detail for much the same reason that '40s musicals did, it mainly serves as a bridge between gags (or songs in the case of the musicals).

    This is again incorrect. The visual effects are how the story is told, no different from ye olde wooden models on string and tinfoil used for laser effects. Again, you start with the assumption DSC is full of plot holes, then try justify that with some cra.p about how special effects now remove the need for story. Have you got a date for the exact switch point form visual effects you consider to enhance the story and the ones you think replace the story? Have you got some actual objective evidence for it, statements from writers saying how much easier their jobs now are? Complaints from VX artists about how lazy writers now are?

    It is not the first time Trek has changed styles and it always causes a division in the fanbase to some degree. TOS was what they call a "control room drama" which is heavily character driven and often tense and active. TNG was a "space procedural" which is more plot driven and has more threads of mystery in it (sort of like CSI in space tone wise).
    The rest were pretty much a mix of the two though not always in the best proportions. DS9 was the most balanced and part of the effectiveness of the show was how they would shift the balance back and forth over a season to build tension for key episodes. ENT pretty much returned to the classic TOS control room drama style though they were not as centered on the actual bridge as TOS often was.

    Ad DSC is a action series in series 1 and a mystery series in series 2. Being able to spell out the styles is not a point.

    I can see you have no idea what I am talking about.

    TV shows and movies have distinct formats that govern how they are written and what kind of cultural/literary shorthand they use to tell stories, and usually what style of camerawork, lighting, and whatnot that they use. No show is totally pure in any of them but they all have a primary type (or sometimes two, rarely more) with elements of others mixed in. Also, they do not change that base format from season to season or arc to arc, the fact that DSC season two had more mystery elements than season one is irrelevant to the series base style.

    I am not going to try to compress a semester or two's worth of writing technique into this comment so either you trust me on this or you will have to look it up on your own. One video that makes a good introduction to a part of the idea is here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGi8j_slU_E&t=4s

    Don't just look at the title and blow it off as someone's rant because it is not a rant at all, and it is rather long but it is the shortest it can be for the amount of material covered. The video only lightly touches on the writing end and uses slightly different terminology than I do but goes surprisingly deep into scene setting, camera, and lighting for the length of the video (much more succinct than lectures and textbooks).
    artan42 wrote: »
    Voyager's main problem is that it was designed to be a tense survival type drama but as the show went through run-up and various executives insisted on pet ideas and nixed their personal peeves the show morphed into a very procedural-heavy mix similar to TNG which made a lot of the original key concepts (like the Starfleet/Maquis interaction and the torpedo scarcity problem) mostly irrelevant by the time they actually started filming it. It took them a few seasons to get anywhere near a reasonable balance for the situation.

    Congratulations, you've finally said something sensible. You've pointed out what the original concept of VGR was, what the situation should lead to, and finally, what we got. So why are you unable to do that with DSC?
    Compounding Discovery's problem is that it is technically a historical piece but looks and feels totally different from the historical look, feel, and to some extent events established in previous shows,

    The previous show was ENT and the last film was the KT trilogy, so no, DSC does not look or feel totally different at all.

    Again you missed the point entirely. I was referring to setting chronology, not real world series airing order. That setting chronology is ENT > The Cage > TOS > TAS > TMP, etc. However, ENT may be a bit iffy in that progression since it is possible it was an artifact of the temporal cold war, the "First Contact" incursion, or both (personally I do not think so, but it is a somewhat popular theory).

    Kelvin does not even enter into it except that the first scene in the 2009 movie may have shown as much as a split second of Prime 2233 before it branched off into its own timeline with the branch USS Kelvin seeing the "lighting storm in space" and getting destroyed by the Narada while prime USS Kelvin likely sailed past in clear space and probably did not even notice as much as temporal ripple.
    artan42 wrote: »
    and the action format is by far the worst format to try and explain those differences due to its inattention to detail (outside of the gags themselves) and generally shallower dive into characters and plot.

    DSC does not need to, nor will explain these 'differences' as you seem to think exist. Even if it was a 'sit around and wait for interesting things to happen' series like TNG. TMP was the point the series fully committed to ignore TOS wholesale, they explained buggerall about why things were so different from TOS and the franchise never looked back (aside from Trials and Tribble Ations and In a Mirror Darkly which both plyed on how unlike all of Star Trek TOS looks).

    Your forgot TNG "Relics" in that list. The fact is, they did not ignore TOS at all, they just moved past it. You are ignoring the fact that every single time they have shown something from the TOS era has looked, WITHOUT FAIL, the same way TOS showed it. TOS, TNG, DS9, and ENT have all confirmed that TOS looked like TOS.
    artan42 wrote: »
    DSC does have massive issues with underdeveloped characters because it is trying to be too much like TOS or ENT. We know all about Burnham, Saru, and Ash and sweet sod all about the rest of the crew. TOS barely made its characters distinct from the wallpaper and DSC should learn from that bad storytelling and pick up a DS9 style approach.

    None of DSCs writing issues with characters are related to the fact the entire franchise pretends TOS dosn't exist so stop trying to link entirely unrelated concepts.​​

    If anyone, you are the one trying to link in "unrelated concepts" here. I never said DSC's relatively shallow character treatment had anything to do with "imitating" TOS (it doesn't even come close to imitating it), I said it was due to the action movie format that DSC uses. In fact, both TOS and ENT did quite a bit of character development of the central characters though, in the tradition of control room style dramas (as opposed to some of the other drama types), most of it was in the form of reveals into their pasts and how they got to be who they are at the time of the show rather than the characters changing a lot over the course of the series itself.

    Both styles are perfectly valid, and the various shows were good (and bad) in their own ways. You seem to think I hate DSC or something when I do not, though I am a bit disappointed in the anti-TOS exclusionary direction Moonves pushed it in when they could have done so much better with an inclusionary one that ties the different series together.

  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    In fact, both TOS and ENT did quite a bit of character development of the central characters though, in the tradition of control room style dramas (as opposed to some of the other drama types), most of it was in the form of reveals into their pasts and how they got to be who they are at the time of the show rather than the characters changing a lot over the course of the series itself.
    Except that wasn't something that actually happened all that often in TOS. Most episodes didn't have any of that at all.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,459 Arc User
    edited July 2019
    In fact, both TOS and ENT did quite a bit of character development of the central characters though, in the tradition of control room style dramas (as opposed to some of the other drama types), most of it was in the form of reveals into their pasts and how they got to be who they are at the time of the show rather than the characters changing a lot over the course of the series itself.
    Except that wasn't something that actually happened all that often in TOS. Most episodes didn't have any of that at all.

    True enough, most focused on the matter at hand, but the point is that TOS and ENT did not ignore character development the way some seem to think they did. Various people from Spock's family (including his betrothed) showed up in several episodes for instance, people from Kirk's past often dropped in for an episode (including Kodos the Executioner which revealed that Kirk, Riley, and Dr. Thomas Leighton were all part of a conspiracy to track him down and bring him to justice, and other people from his past like Finney, Finnigan, Janice Lester, and others). There were also a number of brief references to things in their pasts which also count.

    Bones had the least of that, but he did have his moments like in the Unada episode where he talks about himself. If the show was not cancelled his daughter was supposed to join the crew in the next season so he would have had more reveal potential through her and possible long range arguments over her safety or whatever with his ex wife.

    Character development does not have to happen every episode for characters to be reasonably developed over time.

  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    Character development does not have to happen every episode for characters to be reasonably developed over time.
    You can argue that quantity doesn't matter, but the more times you discuss a character's past the more you learn about them. As you mentioned yourself, we learned very little about anyone's past in TOS.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,459 Arc User
    Character development does not have to happen every episode for characters to be reasonably developed over time.
    You can argue that quantity doesn't matter, but the more times you discuss a character's past the more you learn about them. As you mentioned yourself, we learned very little about anyone's past in TOS.

    Actually we learned a reasonable amount of Spock's and Kirk's pasts. Of the big three only Bones was really shorted (and that was supposed to be taken care of in the next season but the show was cancelled). The information is all spread around in little bits but it is there. It is also not quite as obvious as modern shows usually have it since it is worked into the storyline or in the form of a line or two of random dialog instead of the "heart to heart" talks that are currently fashionable where the characters dump fairly large chunks of background information in one scene.

  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    Character development does not have to happen every episode for characters to be reasonably developed over time.
    You can argue that quantity doesn't matter, but the more times you discuss a character's past the more you learn about them. As you mentioned yourself, we learned very little about anyone's past in TOS.
    Actually we learned a reasonable amount of Spock's and Kirk's pasts. Of the big three only Bones was really shorted (and that was supposed to be taken care of in the next season but the show was cancelled). The information is all spread around in little bits but it is there. It is also not quite as obvious as modern shows usually have it since it is worked into the storyline or in the form of a line or two of random dialog instead of the "heart to heart" talks that are currently fashionable where the characters dump fairly large chunks of background information in one scene.
    And what about the other 20 or so characters? that's the other problem when it's a single one-liner per episode. One character gets a tiny bit of development, and only one.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,459 Arc User
    Character development does not have to happen every episode for characters to be reasonably developed over time.
    You can argue that quantity doesn't matter, but the more times you discuss a character's past the more you learn about them. As you mentioned yourself, we learned very little about anyone's past in TOS.
    Actually we learned a reasonable amount of Spock's and Kirk's pasts. Of the big three only Bones was really shorted (and that was supposed to be taken care of in the next season but the show was cancelled). The information is all spread around in little bits but it is there. It is also not quite as obvious as modern shows usually have it since it is worked into the storyline or in the form of a line or two of random dialog instead of the "heart to heart" talks that are currently fashionable where the characters dump fairly large chunks of background information in one scene.
    And what about the other 20 or so characters? that's the other problem when it's a single one-liner per episode. One character gets a tiny bit of development, and only one.

    That's true, the ensemble was probably too small by today's standards.

    Also, it was a tiered ensemble arraigned in threes instead of a true ensemble. Essentially it was the hero (Kirk) bracketed by two very close sidekicks (Spock, Bones), surrounded by an inner circle of the next three (Uhura, Scotty, and Sulu) surrounded by extras and guest characters (though the later addition of Chapel and Chekov as regulars threw that into disarray outside of the center three).

    On the other hand, they did do some episodes that revolved around that kind of information without going to the coma-with-flashbacks schtick that is a standard that every series seems to do at least once nowadays. Also, some of the episodes, like "Shore Leave" developed several characters at once, though of course the main ensemble got the lion's share. Then again, part of the multiple character development in "Shore Leave" could have been that it was largely ad-libbed (the network hated the "fantasy script" as they called it and Roddenberry re-wrote it on the fly to tone down the points the network objected to the most) which meant the actors were playing the bios more closely than a writer (who would be thinking more of the plot itself) probably would have them do.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    Also Shore Leave would have had no B plot otherwise. The script was boring. Also I'm pretty sure it didn't actually say much about the characters.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    Actually it does have more plot holes than other Treks, but that is typical of the action format. Nor it is necessarily a bad thing, though it does tend to annoy some fans who are expecting the deeper styles.

    It does in fact not have any more plot holes than other Treks and you just saying it without quantifying them in any useful way doesn’t make it any more true through repetition.
    I can see you have no idea what I am talking about.

    That is entirely possibly, you have been completely vague in all your posts hoping to ‘win’ by obfuscation.
    TV shows and movies have distinct formats that govern how they are written and what kind of cultural/literary shorthand they use to tell stories, and usually what style of camerawork, lighting, and whatnot that they use. No show is totally pure in any of them but they all have a primary type (or sometimes two, rarely more) with elements of others mixed in. Also, they do not change that base format from season to season or arc to arc, the fact that DSC season two had more mystery elements than season one is irrelevant to the series base style.

    So now actual style matters and not just how fancy it looks. This invalidates your point about how DSC differs from the other Treks
    I am not going to try to compress a semester or two's worth of writing technique into this comment so either you trust me on this or you will have to look it up on your own. One video that makes a good introduction to a part of the idea is here:

    If you’ve actually taken creative writing at university I hope they gave you your money back because your analysis is so arsebackwards to the point of ridiculousness. You’ve started off by convincing yourself there’s a significant difference between the pre-2017 Trek and the post-2017 Trek (for whatever reason) and are misrepresenting both in the most absurd way possible to bare this conclusion out.
    Action is how the plot is show in DSC (As in ENT and in most of the franchise in fact), it is not the structure
    Don't just look at the title and blow it off as someone's rant because it is not a rant at all, and it is rather long but it is the shortest it can be for the amount of material covered. The video only lightly touches on the writing end and uses slightly different terminology than I do but goes surprisingly deep into scene setting, camera, and lighting for the length of the video (much more succinct than lectures and textbooks).

    Oddly enough I don’t need the YouTube circlejerk to tell me how something I can analyse for myself is structured, I can, you know, analyse it for myself. And I’ve determined there’s been no evidence presented by anyone that is convincing enough to simply divide the franchise into a pre-2017 era and a post-2017 era without dumbing plot construction down the most superficial level.
    Again you missed the point entirely. I was referring to setting chronology, not real world series airing order. That setting chronology is ENT > The Cage > TOS > TAS > TMP, etc. However, ENT may be a bit iffy in that progression since it is possible it was an artifact of the temporal cold war, the "First Contact" incursion, or both (personally I do not think so, but it is a somewhat popular theory).

    No, you’re missing the point. The previous series was chronologically the ENT era followed by the Kelvin era, both of which the DSC era resembles a development of. Therefor your point of ;
    Compounding Discovery's problem is that it is technically a historical piece but looks and feels totally different from the historical look, feel, and to some extent events established in previous shows

    Is, again, demonstrably wrong.
    Kelvin does not even enter into it except that the first scene in the 2009 movie may have shown as much as a split second of Prime 2233 before it branched off into its own timeline with the branch USS Kelvin seeing the "lighting storm in space" and getting destroyed by the Narada while prime USS Kelvin likely sailed past in clear space and probably did not even notice as much as temporal ripple.

    Kelvin timeline is the entire film series as well as the name of the timeline. In this case the prime Kelvin obviously did reach Earth for Kirk to be born there. However the Kelvin herself and her related ships as well as the flashbacks to Edison and the Franklin are all still Prime Timeline and influence the look of DSC.
    Your forgot TNG "Relics" in that list. The fact is, they did not ignore TOS at all, they just moved past it. You are ignoring the fact that every single time they have shown something from the TOS era has looked, WITHOUT FAIL, the same way TOS showed it. TOS, TNG, DS9, and ENT have all confirmed that TOS looked like TOS.

    You’ve conveniently ignored that the point is that TOS is pointed out in-universe to not look like the other eras and instead tried to paint it as me saying TOS has been retconned despite it being a silly thing for me to say whilst giving examples wouldn’t it.
    Add to that that DSC is not TOS and therefore should not need to look anything like TOS.
    If anyone, you are the one trying to link in "unrelated concepts" here. I never said DSC's relatively shallow character treatment had anything to do with "imitating" TOS (it doesn't even come close to imitating it), I said it was due to the action movie format that DSC uses.

    Why are you claiming I said you said that? I said that as me. DSC intentionally hampers itself by trying to be too much like TOS at times instead of doing its own thing. And again with the ridiculous ‘format’ thing, I really want to know who’s YouTube video you watched to keep parroting that without adding your own evidence, was it the one you posted above?
    In fact, both TOS and ENT did quite a bit of character development of the central characters though, in the tradition of control room style dramas (as opposed to some of the other drama types), most of it was in the form of reveals into their pasts and how they got to be who they are at the time of the show rather than the characters changing a lot over the course of the series itself.

    ENT did for its main trio sure, TOS didn’t until the films and there it was only the main trio again. You’re confusing background with development.
    Both styles are perfectly valid, and the various shows were good (and bad) in their own ways. You seem to think I hate DSC or something when I do not, though I am a bit disappointed in the anti-TOS exclusionary direction Moonves pushed it in when they could have done so much better with an inclusionary one that ties the different series together.

    I have no idea if you hate DSC or not because I don’t really think you understand the structure of the show to be able to hate it or like it. So far you’ve not spelt anything about the show out beyond constant repetitions of ‘action movie format’ and ‘more plot-holes than anything else’ with no attempt to quantify, prove, or otherwise support those beyond repartition.

    I’m not going to bother with the rest of your posts in this thread as they all relate to you not comprehending how the development of only three characters in a TV show of dozens of recurring characters is somehow not an example of poor character development.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,459 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    Actually it does have more plot holes than other Treks, but that is typical of the action format. Nor it is necessarily a bad thing, though it does tend to annoy some fans who are expecting the deeper styles.

    It does in fact not have any more plot holes than other Treks and you just saying it without quantifying them in any useful way doesn’t make it any more true through repetition.
    I can see you have no idea what I am talking about.

    That is entirely possibly, you have been completely vague in all your posts hoping to ‘win’ by obfuscation.
    TV shows and movies have distinct formats that govern how they are written and what kind of cultural/literary shorthand they use to tell stories, and usually what style of camerawork, lighting, and whatnot that they use. No show is totally pure in any of them but they all have a primary type (or sometimes two, rarely more) with elements of others mixed in. Also, they do not change that base format from season to season or arc to arc, the fact that DSC season two had more mystery elements than season one is irrelevant to the series base style.

    So now actual style matters and not just how fancy it looks. This invalidates your point about how DSC differs from the other Treks
    I am not going to try to compress a semester or two's worth of writing technique into this comment so either you trust me on this or you will have to look it up on your own. One video that makes a good introduction to a part of the idea is here:

    If you’ve actually taken creative writing at university I hope they gave you your money back because your analysis is so arsebackwards to the point of ridiculousness. You’ve started off by convincing yourself there’s a significant difference between the pre-2017 Trek and the post-2017 Trek (for whatever reason) and are misrepresenting both in the most absurd way possible to bare this conclusion out.
    Action is how the plot is show in DSC (As in ENT and in most of the franchise in fact), it is not the structure
    Don't just look at the title and blow it off as someone's rant because it is not a rant at all, and it is rather long but it is the shortest it can be for the amount of material covered. The video only lightly touches on the writing end and uses slightly different terminology than I do but goes surprisingly deep into scene setting, camera, and lighting for the length of the video (much more succinct than lectures and textbooks).

    Oddly enough I don’t need the YouTube circlejerk to tell me how something I can analyse for myself is structured, I can, you know, analyse it for myself. And I’ve determined there’s been no evidence presented by anyone that is convincing enough to simply divide the franchise into a pre-2017 era and a post-2017 era without dumbing plot construction down the most superficial level.
    Again you missed the point entirely. I was referring to setting chronology, not real world series airing order. That setting chronology is ENT > The Cage > TOS > TAS > TMP, etc. However, ENT may be a bit iffy in that progression since it is possible it was an artifact of the temporal cold war, the "First Contact" incursion, or both (personally I do not think so, but it is a somewhat popular theory).

    No, you’re missing the point. The previous series was chronologically the ENT era followed by the Kelvin era, both of which the DSC era resembles a development of. Therefor your point of ;
    Compounding Discovery's problem is that it is technically a historical piece but looks and feels totally different from the historical look, feel, and to some extent events established in previous shows

    Is, again, demonstrably wrong.
    Kelvin does not even enter into it except that the first scene in the 2009 movie may have shown as much as a split second of Prime 2233 before it branched off into its own timeline with the branch USS Kelvin seeing the "lighting storm in space" and getting destroyed by the Narada while prime USS Kelvin likely sailed past in clear space and probably did not even notice as much as temporal ripple.

    Kelvin timeline is the entire film series as well as the name of the timeline. In this case the prime Kelvin obviously did reach Earth for Kirk to be born there. However the Kelvin herself and her related ships as well as the flashbacks to Edison and the Franklin are all still Prime Timeline and influence the look of DSC.
    Your forgot TNG "Relics" in that list. The fact is, they did not ignore TOS at all, they just moved past it. You are ignoring the fact that every single time they have shown something from the TOS era has looked, WITHOUT FAIL, the same way TOS showed it. TOS, TNG, DS9, and ENT have all confirmed that TOS looked like TOS.

    You’ve conveniently ignored that the point is that TOS is pointed out in-universe to not look like the other eras and instead tried to paint it as me saying TOS has been retconned despite it being a silly thing for me to say whilst giving examples wouldn’t it.
    Add to that that DSC is not TOS and therefore should not need to look anything like TOS.
    If anyone, you are the one trying to link in "unrelated concepts" here. I never said DSC's relatively shallow character treatment had anything to do with "imitating" TOS (it doesn't even come close to imitating it), I said it was due to the action movie format that DSC uses.

    Why are you claiming I said you said that? I said that as me. DSC intentionally hampers itself by trying to be too much like TOS at times instead of doing its own thing. And again with the ridiculous ‘format’ thing, I really want to know who’s YouTube video you watched to keep parroting that without adding your own evidence, was it the one you posted above?
    In fact, both TOS and ENT did quite a bit of character development of the central characters though, in the tradition of control room style dramas (as opposed to some of the other drama types), most of it was in the form of reveals into their pasts and how they got to be who they are at the time of the show rather than the characters changing a lot over the course of the series itself.

    ENT did for its main trio sure, TOS didn’t until the films and there it was only the main trio again. You’re confusing background with development.
    Both styles are perfectly valid, and the various shows were good (and bad) in their own ways. You seem to think I hate DSC or something when I do not, though I am a bit disappointed in the anti-TOS exclusionary direction Moonves pushed it in when they could have done so much better with an inclusionary one that ties the different series together.

    I have no idea if you hate DSC or not because I don’t really think you understand the structure of the show to be able to hate it or like it. So far you’ve not spelt anything about the show out beyond constant repetitions of ‘action movie format’ and ‘more plot-holes than anything else’ with no attempt to quantify, prove, or otherwise support those beyond repartition.

    I’m not going to bother with the rest of your posts in this thread as they all relate to you not comprehending how the development of only three characters in a TV show of dozens of recurring characters is somehow not an example of poor character development.​​

    I will not bother to answer your post point by point this time as there is nothing in it that is worth that much time.

    In general though, if you cannot see any difference between a primarily action movie style and a drama style with some action in it then so be it. I have tried to explain the difference from the writing point of view, and posted a video that does much the same from the production point of view (mainly camera work and lighting in this case) but as the saying goes you can only lead a horse to water and all that. So since we have no common frame of reference to discuss the subject it is probably best not to drag this exchange on.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User

    I will not bother to answer your post point by point this time as there is nothing in it that is worth that much time.
    Thank god, you guys should really stop that, it's fruitless anyway and makes things unreadable.
    In general though, if you cannot see any difference between a primarily action movie style and a drama style with some action in it then so be it. I have tried to explain the difference from the writing point of view, and posted a video that does much the same from the production point of view (mainly camera work and lighting in this case) but as the saying goes you can only lead a horse to water and all that. So since we have no common frame of reference to discuss the subject it is probably best not to drag this exchange on.

    I think the question is, even if there is such a difference, is that actually important for anything?

    It is well know that most Star Trek movies tend to be way more into the action movie style then the TV. But we still consider them Star Trek movies that are a part of the franchise. (Even if each us has some that they don't like, but that is not different from some series or episodes).
    If all goes well, in a while we'll get to see a new Star Trek animated series with a comedic focus, which is yet again something different.
    Also, Star Trek were always happy within its series to change genres. We have action-heavy shows, sometimes we even have horror shows, some shows are more comedic (TOS and DS9's Tribble Episodes or most later Ferengi Episodes, ENT's Risa episode), some are dark serious (In Pale Moonlight).

    The only franchise that does it even better tends to be Doctor Who.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    I will not bother to answer your post point by point this time .

    Oh thank the gods. I was getting really bored of listing all the different varieties of how massivly lazy and superficial your summation of Trek was.
    In general though, if you cannot see any difference between a primarily action movie style and a drama style with some action in it then so be it.

    And if you can't see any depth beyond that then there's no way the rest of your analysis will matter. You cannot broad strokes a franchise down an arbitrary line set at 2017 and expect to be taken seriously.
    I have tried to explain the difference from the writing point of view

    Well actually all you did was insist it to be the case and ignore any attempts by anybody else to point out instances of your supposed criteria in other instalments in the franchise to maintain your arbitrary distinction.
    and posted a video that does much the same from the production point of view (mainly camera work and lighting in this case.

    The distinction is that modern productions use modern approaches to filming and lighting. That's not new evidence, that's just how things are done now. It's you who assumed that it was somehow significant and in doing so had to pretend the styles used in the 60s were the same as those in the 80-90s and in the 00s in order to pretend that the 10s are in any way different. I've actually pointed out massive differences in the structure of TOS compared to tNG but you sidestepped them to continue pretending pre-2017 Trek was one amorphous block. I don't know why you dislike pre-2017 Trek to that extent but it's really bizarre.
    but as the saying goes you can only lead a horse to water and all that.

    And there's only so much dressage you can do with that horse. Tap dancing around any point you want to ignore in order to misrepresent changes in filming style to portray a split in 2017.
    So since we have no common frame of reference to discuss the subject it is probably best not to drag this exchange on.

    Oh please! We never had one to start with. You started off with the conclusion and had to find evidence to back it up later. It's not like that only became apparent several weeks and multiple threads later. You've already convinced yourself DSC is 'different' and no amount of evidence to the contrary will matter because you made that decision years ago.
    I think the question is, even if there is such a difference, is that actually important for anything?

    Obviously not because there is no such thing in play here. Phoenixc is completely unable to separate the construction of media per-decade from the structure of individual episodes within that framework.

    Sci-Fi in the 60s was stationary and relied on dramatic lighting and focus to draw people in as plots and narrative continuity were scarce due to the unavailability of TV and the development from older genres. That doesn't mean that every episode is styled the same; in Doctor Who, compare The Gunfighters to The Tenth Planet or Power of the Daleks, in trek consider WNMHGB against MM.

    The fact that the style for Sci Fi from the 00s to the 10s is for a cinematic look and constant motion likewise doesn't mean episodes in general need follow that. A Night in Sickbay to Azati Prime, or A Magic to Make the Sanest Man go Mad to Into the Forest.

    The way DSC is constructed is typical of all sci-fi from the 00s to now and is the same as ENT with better graphics. It does not have a 'action film' style because there is no such thing. TWoK is an action film, as is BEY, neither are particularly similar in construction despite being in the same genera.

    Imagining a split appeared in 2017 and only 2017 requires lying about the past (by pretending it's all significantly similar) and lying about the present (by pretending it's significantly different) and this achieved by reducing the idea of structural style to something so vauge it becomes utterly useless for anything beyond fulfilling the pre-assumed conclusion that DSC is significantly different and the others are significantly identical.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,459 Arc User
    edited July 2019
    artan42 wrote: »
    I will not bother to answer your post point by point this time .

    Oh thank the gods. I was getting really bored of listing all the different varieties of how massivly lazy and superficial your summation of Trek was.
    In general though, if you cannot see any difference between a primarily action movie style and a drama style with some action in it then so be it.

    And if you can't see any depth beyond that then there's no way the rest of your analysis will matter. You cannot broad strokes a franchise down an arbitrary line set at 2017 and expect to be taken seriously.
    I have tried to explain the difference from the writing point of view

    Well actually all you did was insist it to be the case and ignore any attempts by anybody else to point out instances of your supposed criteria in other instalments in the franchise to maintain your arbitrary distinction.
    and posted a video that does much the same from the production point of view (mainly camera work and lighting in this case.

    The distinction is that modern productions use modern approaches to filming and lighting. That's not new evidence, that's just how things are done now. It's you who assumed that it was somehow significant and in doing so had to pretend the styles used in the 60s were the same as those in the 80-90s and in the 00s in order to pretend that the 10s are in any way different. I've actually pointed out massive differences in the structure of TOS compared to tNG but you sidestepped them to continue pretending pre-2017 Trek was one amorphous block. I don't know why you dislike pre-2017 Trek to that extent but it's really bizarre.
    but as the saying goes you can only lead a horse to water and all that.

    And there's only so much dressage you can do with that horse. Tap dancing around any point you want to ignore in order to misrepresent changes in filming style to portray a split in 2017.
    So since we have no common frame of reference to discuss the subject it is probably best not to drag this exchange on.

    Oh please! We never had one to start with. You started off with the conclusion and had to find evidence to back it up later. It's not like that only became apparent several weeks and multiple threads later. You've already convinced yourself DSC is 'different' and no amount of evidence to the contrary will matter because you made that decision years ago.
    I think the question is, even if there is such a difference, is that actually important for anything?

    Obviously not because there is no such thing in play here. Phoenixc is completely unable to separate the construction of media per-decade from the structure of individual episodes within that framework.

    Sci-Fi in the 60s was stationary and relied on dramatic lighting and focus to draw people in as plots and narrative continuity were scarce due to the unavailability of TV and the development from older genres. That doesn't mean that every episode is styled the same; in Doctor Who, compare The Gunfighters to The Tenth Planet or Power of the Daleks, in trek consider WNMHGB against MM.

    The fact that the style for Sci Fi from the 00s to the 10s is for a cinematic look and constant motion likewise doesn't mean episodes in general need follow that. A Night in Sickbay to Azati Prime, or A Magic to Make the Sanest Man go Mad to Into the Forest.

    The way DSC is constructed is typical of all sci-fi from the 00s to now and is the same as ENT with better graphics. It does not have a 'action film' style because there is no such thing. TWoK is an action film, as is BEY, neither are particularly similar in construction despite being in the same genera.

    Imagining a split appeared in 2017 and only 2017 requires lying about the past (by pretending it's all significantly similar) and lying about the present (by pretending it's significantly different) and this achieved by reducing the idea of structural style to something so vauge it becomes utterly useless for anything beyond fulfilling the pre-assumed conclusion that DSC is significantly different and the others are significantly identical.​​

    Wow, I never thought anyone could get something that long and rambling 100% off the beam.

    Look, it is obvious that you and I are taking about entirely different things, and that is not going to change any time soon no matter what I say, so I will make this a brief as possible.

    You are the one who is only looking on the surface without seeing the underlying structure of styles, the structures that the entire series are built around and not the relatively superficial differences episodes have between each other in the same series. Writer's rooms are different for different styles/genres/whatever you want to call them (they are actually two distinct things but are all too often mixed up and used interchangeably) and they focus on different goals and use different techniques to get there.

    Also, your analysis of science fiction of the '60s compared to today, though not entirely off, still confuses production values with styles way too much.

    As for the "2017 line" nonsense, you are the one who seem to be obsessed about there being one. As I have said previously THERE IS NO SUCH THING, there is only the balance of action and drama, and in this case the way DSC writers are doing the series in an action movie style, essentially the same style that Star Trek movies have used since Wrath of Khan (TMP was a kind of mugwump of styles which is not surprising since it was a series pilot episode script inflated into a movie). The DSC showrunners and production people have said that they are doing it in the action style of the movies so often that I have no idea how you seem to have missed it.

    And the IS a style/genre/subgenre/whatever you want to call it, that is called "action movie". Just look it up.

    Anyway, this mess has drifted so far away from the original subject I probably will not reply to it further unless something actually relevant comes up.
Sign In or Register to comment.