🐱 Star Trek needs less logic and more crying

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
CatParty


“Who do we want to be?”

Captain Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) poses that question to the United Federation of Planets council at the climax of “… But to Connect,” the seventh episode of Star Trek: Discovery’s fourth season. The council has convened to address the presence of a new species whose arrival in the galaxy has planet-destroying consequences, perhaps intentionally. Some council members consider an aggressive response, but Burnham urges diplomacy, recognizing a unique first contact opportunity.

Disagreements such as these are hardly new to Star Trek. In fact, the paradigmatic Star Trek scene involves a group of people peacefully debating possible complicated issues. But Discovery takes a decidedly unique approach to this trope. The camera glides around Burnham as she speaks, capturing every creased brow and pleading smile, underscoring her feelings even more than her words. Martin-Green pours herself into the moment, lowering her voice to a whisper when being sincere and raising it an octave when marshaling hope. She finishes the speech a near wreck, barely fighting back tears.

For its detractors, scenes like this are everything wrong with the series. Over its 3 ½ seasons, Discovery has established itself as the most openly emotional Star Trek series, in which characters talk about their trauma, give each other meaningful hugs, and shed tears in nearly every episode. Discoveryexplores pathos more thoroughly than any other series in the franchise. In doing so, it underscores an important aspect of humanity, one too often downplayed by the franchise.

Michael Burnham is hardly the first Trek character to shed tears on the final frontier. After all, who can forget William Shatner stifling a cry during Captain Kirk’s eulogy for Spock(Leonard Nimoy) in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan?

Right from the start of Star Trek, Doctor McCoy (DeForest Kelley) was there at Kirk’s side, countering Spock’s cold logic with a passionate outburst. Many of the all-time best Star Trek episodes mine the emotional core of their characters, letting them be messy and human instead of demanding that they adhere to logic in every moment. The Deep Space Nine episode “The Visitor” captures the longing and joy Jake Sisko feels as he grows to an adult, only seeing his time-displaced father in short intervals every few years, while the bittersweet final moments in the life of George Kirk reverberate not only throughout 2009’s Star Trek, but all three reboot films.

But as powerful as these moments may be, Trek usually treats empathy as a challenge, a problem to overcome for the greater good. Take the classic episode “The City on the Edge of Forever”, in which a delusional McCoy disrupts the timestream, inadvertently preventing the death of social worker Edith Keeler, thus allowing her to found a humanitarian movement. But her work has the unintended consequence of delaying the U.S. entry into World War II, which allows the Nazis to kill far more people than they otherwise would have. As Spock describes it in his characteristically blunt manner, “Edith Keeler must die.”

To be sure, the death scene honors the pain and sorrow Kirk feels as he prevents McCoy from saving Keeler. But the message is clear: Because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, Kirk’s emotions take a back seat to demands of logic.

Similar plots reoccur throughout the franchise, a fact that can be traced back to Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry. Roddenberry imagined an ideal future for humanity, which had evolved past issues such as capitalism or racism and sexism. While Roddenberry didn’t explicitly outlaw emotion, he did reject plots that dealt with emotional issues, including interpersonal conflict, irrational responses to trauma, and grieving death. In a world where everyone could heal themselves and survive without struggle, he thought, logic would — and should — always win out.

Even when Trek series attend to the feelings, they either mishandle it or lose interest. As an empath and ship counselor, Deanna Troi seemed primed to fill the McCoy role on The Next Generation (TNG), but the writers too often relegated her to describing other characters’ obvious feelings. By the time Voyager’s Neelix matured from a manipulative coward into an empathetic morale officer, the show had turned its attention to hologram The Doctor and ex-Borg Seven of Nine. The same problem plagues Enterprise’s genial Captain Archer, who was often overshadowed by the Vulcan T’Pol.

After Roddenberry died, the Star Trek shows were able to let emotions build up more throughout their shows. Deep Space Nine let its protagonists carry traumas and have romances. It even takes a nuanced look at the feelings associated with 20th-century racism (“Far Beyond the Stars”) and PTSD (“It’s Only a Paper Moon”).

The other three current ongoing Trek series each embrace emotion more consistently than their predecessors. Picard uses audience nostalgia for the title character as a contrast to Starfleet’s callous bureaucracy, while the young Delta Quadrant outcasts in Prodigybubble over with childlike wonder as they become the crew of the abandoned USS Protostar. Lower Decks finds comedy not just in references to the goofier parts of Trek lore, but also in the foibles of its neurotic ensigns.


In each case, these series work precisely because it counters the franchise’s usual focus on logic over emotion. Picard becomes the principled leader that we know from TNG when he defies the Federation pragmatism to help synthetics by assembling a new crew. As much as Holographic Janeway tries to get the Prodigy kids in shape, the pleasure of the series comes from watching them learn how to make Starfleet regulations meaningful for themselves. Lower Decks is funny precisely because its characters undercut the standard image of the constantly professional Starfleet officer. But because these series go in a new direction with its characters, they end up being exceptions that prove the rule. Picard’s rag-tag crew, the kids on the USS Protostar, and the Lower Decksgoofballs indulge their feelings; members of the real, proper Starfleet do not.

Of the current ongoing Star Trek series, these “real, proper” Starfleet personnel can only be found on Discovery. And in many ways, the actions of Captain Burnham and her crew carry more weight than those of even Enterprise Captains Kirk or Picard, as the USS Discovery-A plays a central role in rebuilding the United Federation of Planets in the 32nd century. It’s a flagship vessel, both for the show and the greater series. Viewers have to take notice when Discovery breaks from the standard Star Trek portrayal of human emotion.

One of the clearest examples of the difference in Trek’s approach to emotional issues can be found in the season 2 TNG episode “The Measure of a Man.” Taking the form of a courtroom drama, the episode centers around a debate about Commander Data’s personhood status, prompted when Starfleet defines him as mere property. Captain Picard argues for Data’s sentience, while Commander Riker has been ordered by Judge Advocate General Phillipa Louvois to contend that Data is property, fit for experimentation by Commander Bruce Maddox.

Unruly feelings abound: Riker feels guilty for prosecuting his crewmate, Picard and Phillipa Louvois have complicated feelings from a past romance, and Maddox has aspirations for his experiments. During the trial, Picard passionately states his case, with Patrick Stewart bringing Shakespearean gravitas to the speeches he delivers. “Starfleet was founded to seek out new life,” he declares in his booming baritone, pointing at Data; “Well, there it sits!

But while Picard states his case lovingly and movingly, it’s a fundamentally logical argument that he wins with. If Starfleet defines life according to forms it knows and if Starfleet exists to seek out new forms of life, then it must alter its definition according to those new forms. Moreover, everyone involved must overcome their own emotions to accept Picard’s claim. Arguably the first great episode of TNG, “The Measure of a Man” chrystialized the focus on logic found in TOS and the early movies. From that episode forward, Trek would make explicit what was often implied: evolved humans do not use feelings to solve their problems.

The Discovery episode “…But to Connect” has clear parallels to “The Measure of a Man,” but the more recent episode emphasizes feelings over reason. Once again, the characters debate the distinction between personhood and property when Discovery’s computer Zora gains sentience, and Adira even echoes Picard when they call Zora an “entirely new lifeform.” But while there is certainly a logical structure to the various positions, director Lee Rose focuses on emotions. Arguing they should follow Starfleet protocol and put Zora into a new form, Stamets recounts the fear and mistrust he feels when she refuses a direct order from Captain Burnham to protect the crew. Contending that Zora should stay in Discovery, Adira and Gray relate their own feelings of rejection and acceptance for failing to fit social standards. Even Zora describes her affinity toward the crew and her worries for their safety.

In fact, Zora and her supporters win the debate not with a steel-tight syllogism, but with an ethos appeal. While investigating Zora’s memory structure, Adira finds a new section, which they identify as Zora’s subconscious. Within this field are images of Discovery’s crew, connecting with and caring for one another. In part, this fact wins over Stamets and Kovich because the existence of a subconscious means that Zora cannot be considered artificial intelligence. But as the music and camera movements make clear, empathy for Zora drives Stamets’ decision.

For some of Discovery’s critics, this plot resolves too easily, the equivalent of “hugging it out” instead of facing the issue (if they apply the same level of rigor to the fallacies in “The Measure of a Man”, I cannot say). But that reading misplaces the focus of the Zora debate. The goal of the debate isn’t to comb through legal proceedings, but to allow the participants to have their feelings recognized and validated. “It feels marvelous … Being seen,” Zora says after her official status is changed.

In these scenes, Discovery revises the utopian future that has always been at the heart of Star Trek. The humans of the future reach their best selves not by overcoming their emotions, but by recognizing them and caring for them, in themselves and others. Discovery insists that empathy is an effective way to seek out new life and new civilizations.

Michael Burnham asks the Federation council “Who do we want to be?” Discovery answers, boldly, firmly — and, yes, tearfully — “Fully human, both logical and emotional.”
 
The DIS show currently feels like it is being written by some unholy alliance of black radfems ( men ( especially white) , bad ) and troons ( majority of DIS main characters fags, and a pair of troons )
 
For a show with no audience, on a service nobody is subscribed too, journos sure do love to write about it constantly. I wonder why that could be???
 
For its detractors, scenes like this are everything wrong with the series. Over its 3 ½ seasons, Discovery has established itself as the most openly emotional Star Trek series, in which characters talk about their trauma, give each other meaningful hugs, and shed tears in nearly every episode. Discovery explores pathos more thoroughly than any other series in the franchise. In doing so, it underscores an important aspect of humanity, one too often downplayed by the franchise.
When you show your characters bawling their eyes out in every fucking episode it lessens the impact something like this should have, the writers really expect you to just see crying and have your monkey brain make you feel sad about it.

In a way Discovery is easily the most regressive Trek to date, it pushes the idea that all difficult problems can be solved by crying and talking about your feelings without any difficult decision making. Emotion and logic are both valuable tools for problem solving and old trek makes a good attempt as showing the shortcomings of both where as STD just says "well cry about it and everything will work out in the end". These writers are deluding themselves if they think their show is exploring moral quandaries with any degree of nuance because it exists in a fantasy world where having feeling on an issue is the most powerful and special thing in the galaxy and everyone will just stop being big meanies when they see how much you care. If only Captain Sisko knew he could have stopped the Dominion from trying to violently conquer the Federation by telling them how sad it made him!
 
When you show your characters bawling their eyes out in every fucking episode it lessens the impact something like this should have, the writers really expect you to just see crying and have your monkey brain make you feel sad about it.

In a way Discovery is easily the most regressive Trek to date, it pushes the idea that all difficult problems can be solved by crying and talking about your feelings without any difficult decision making. Emotion and logic are both valuable tools for problem solving and old trek makes a good attempt as showing the shortcomings of both where as STD just says "well cry about it and everything will work out in the end". These writers are deluding themselves if they think their show is exploring moral quandaries with any degree of nuance because it exists in a fantasy world where having feeling on an issue is the most powerful and special thing in the galaxy and everyone will just stop being big meanies when they see how much you care. If only Captain Sisko knew he could have stopped the Dominion from trying to violently conquer the Federation by telling them how sad it made him!
One of the most poingant things I remember from TNG is Picard stating

"It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life.”​

Actual, genuine wisdom.
 
Discovery was a huge departure from the legacy of OG Star Trek. In their quest to re-invent the show for the younger generation, they decided to gloss over the original purpose the show had - to instill wonder and philosophy in an episodic format. While the special effects are (obviously) dated, graphics weren't remotely the point. The point was to challenge biases and make you think critically. Additionally, Discovery's characters are very one-dimensional and don't really have much in the way of personality traits or distinguishing features. I would say even a random red shirt from the OG Trek had more in the way of character development than any of the Discovery characters.
 
It's almost as if having restraint in the writing room makes the moments where tears do come out, moments where the stoic mask almost comes off (or it does) all the more impactful.
If you make characters cry every single episode, it doesn't feel real. Crying isn't even the only way to express grief, depression, all the negative emotions that fall under the sadness umbrella. It varies depending on the person. And diplomacy isn't solved by crying really loud, at least not in a civilized environment. Constant BWAAAH feels as forced as a soap opera, which is what this writer wants. This writer has shit taste.
 
Last edited:
It's almost as if having restraint in the writing room makes the moments where tears do come out, moments where the stoic mask almost comes off (or it does) all the more impactful.
If you make characters cry every single episode, it doesn't feel real. Crying isn't even the only way to express grief, depression, all the negative emotions that fall under the sadness umbrella. It varies depending on the person. Constant BWAAAH feels as forced as a soap opera, which is what this writer wants. This writer has shit taste.

I haven't watched the show, but I assume they are supposed to be star fleet officers? I guess this is what you get with equity in the 31st century.
 
In addition to what’s been said, psychological fragility is a death sentence for a military. And these people are all technically in a military. How there can only be one generation of difference between the rough as nails Lorca and the faggot crew of the Discovery defies sound writing to me.
Also, tilly is fat and wouldn’t be serving on any ship unless she were in the galley.
 
In addition to what’s been said, psychological fragility is a death sentence for a military. And these people are all technically in a military. How there can only be one generation of difference between the rough as nails Lorca and the faggot crew of the Discovery defies sound writing to me.
Also, tilly is fat and wouldn’t be serving on any ship unless she were in the galley.
When you think about it, a fair amount of classic media has been produced by people who, at some point in their lives, have dealt with war first hand. Rod Serling, J. R. R. Tolkien, Gene Roddenberry, etc. Through their hardship and life experiences, they internalize much of what they learned and they put it to use in their creative works. Every single one of these men have had their passion projects retooled, rewritten, and utterly corrupted by people who have had comparatively easier lives. I think that's why the conflict in these reboots seem so artificial. It doesn't come from any real place.
 
Starfleet crew are the military of their time. Despite life's better for everybody, they still need to show proper behaviour while on the job. And we know they're demanded to follow discipline. When their shifts are over, they can go to cry on Troi's shoulder, though.

This is what really irks me about these people. No, Picard's not gonna start crying in the middle of a negotiation, but he does show feelings despite he's an introvert. Characters like him are often asked to open up because keeping your feelings for yourself is not healthy. Many of them have been in therapy whenever something bad has happened too. They have never been asked to not show emotion, only that their emotions shouldn't cloud their decisions.
 
Back
Top Bottom