🐱 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.”
 
what is it Vee called it? "Pissing their eyes"?
 
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.

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.

These shows are written by people who have no clue about operational militaries, I can get why the following happened in TOS because the show was low budget and was expected to flop and was given the budget accordingly but - No you wouldn't have a Capital ship like the Enterprise working without a support fleet, Picard wouldnt be part of any first landing party, nor would any of the bridge crew, they wouldn't have ships councillor as part of the bridge crew, they would have a dedicated marine contingent, they wouldn't have families aboard ships that are likely to face combat especially in a universe that contains a species like the borg, no not everyone would get along and you'd have serious interpersonal problems between members of different species with pre federation not so nice histories with each other, half the stuff that's happeend to Picard, Riker etc would have them taken out of any command position.

Trek spins its self as a exploration show - Even during the golden age of sail exploration you never set a ship out on it's own, the captain stayed aboard the ship unless he absolutely had to (Cook getting shanked cemented this protocol) the naturalists aboard where accompanied by equipped and trained marines , they would do as much exploration as they could but if they came across a enemy ship they would damned well take it on if they could.

Treks dead and has been for a long time the end of Enterprise, the modern era stuff is bad fanfics.
 
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.

I remember The Drumhead. And not understanding it fully as a child.

Picard: You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.

---

Picard: Mister Worf, villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged.

Worf : I think... after yesterday, people will not be so ready to trust her.

Picard : Maybe. But she, or someone like her, will always be with us, waiting for the right climate in which to flourish, spreading fear in the name of righteousness. Vigilance, Mister Worf - that is the price we have to continually pay.

---

Picard: The Seventh Guarantee is one of the most important rights granted by the Federation. We cannot take a fundamental principle of the Constitution and turn it against a citizen.

Worf : Sir, the Federation does have enemies. We must seek them out!

Picard : Oh, yes. That's how it starts. But the road from legitimate suspicion to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think. Something is wrong here, Mister Worf. I don't like what we have become.
 
Keep crying, no one gives a shit about your new Trek shit

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!

I personally think Piccard is more regressive because of what it represents. Discovery could be ignored as shitty prequel fanfiction...but Piccard? Its the last jedi equivalent of Star Trek to me, constantly waving around your old hero into being a disrespected out of touch loser, constantly being put in his place by the "younger and improved" crew.


Dont even get me started on the implications it has for the overall canon as a whole. Apparently reapers exist in Star Trek now and they are just one call away from coming and eliminating all life. Its clear who made it didnt watch TNG outside of an episode or two...then again, its probably a Johnson situation, its all fucking intentional.

I remember The Drumhead. And not understanding it fully as a child.

Picard: You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.

---

Picard: Mister Worf, villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged.

Worf : I think... after yesterday, people will not be so ready to trust her.

Picard : Maybe. But she, or someone like her, will always be with us, waiting for the right climate in which to flourish, spreading fear in the name of righteousness. Vigilance, Mister Worf - that is the price we have to continually pay.

---

Picard: The Seventh Guarantee is one of the most important rights granted by the Federation. We cannot take a fundamental principle of the Constitution and turn it against a citizen.

Worf : Sir, the Federation does have enemies. We must seek them out!

Picard : Oh, yes. That's how it starts. But the road from legitimate suspicion to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think. Something is wrong here, Mister Worf. I don't like what we have become.

God...I miss when we had dialogue that complex and with actual depth. Its dialogue that is speaking to both the character AND the audience at large.
 
Who's bright idea was it to turn Star Trek into a CW drama? If I wanted to watch Seventh Heaven I could just buy the complete seasons boxset on Amazon
 
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.
Wasn't Lorca from the Mirrorverse? The man absolutely did not fit in, even if I'm misremembering.
Or The Siege of AR-558.
"Let me tell you something about hoo-mans, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts. Deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers... put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time... and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon."
 
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???
I'm quite upset that RedLetterMedia give them any oxygen at all. If they never uttered the name, I feel like it would've helped strangulate this series earlier.
 
It's shit like this why I've just quit watching TV shows.

This isn't Star Trek, this isn't even the old Mary Sue short story that was made famous waaaay back when.

It's not even a power fantasy.

It's a celebration of weakness and mediocrity wrapped in the skin of something else and demanding you like it just as much as you liked the other thing.

It's the worst person you know wearing your best friend's skin and dancing around in it, telling you that you have to like him too.
 
What even is the plot of Star Trek? Based on all the screenshots and memes I see, it looks like it's literally just a bunch of people talking on a ship.

Who's the antagonist? What do they actually do?
 
If only Q could insert himself into the plot and send Discovery off to a borg like race to see how well crying does.
The only Q that matter is...Q, not this Queer shit.
Q: If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.
STD is so faggy and toothless, it's pathetic.
 
Star Trek predates people like Straczynski and Whedon dictating that all shows made from here on out must have a show-spanning plot.

TOS and TNG had no plot at all. Individual episodes had plots, sometimes there were two parters. Once and a while you got some character development or recurring story bits (Like the Borg, for example), but that wasn't "the show".

DS9 was the first show to have some concept of an arcing plot, but even then, 95% of the first several seasons was completely plotless. The Dominion War ate up a lot of episodes in the middle/end of the series, though.

Voyager sort of had a meta-plot of "Gotta get home", but that mostly was just a justification for throwing problems at them that couldn't be solved by calling for help.

Enterprise, like DS9 and Voyager, had some elements of arcing plot at times, but it wasn't fundamental to the series.

Discovery was the first time they really hammered the "There is a concrete storyline" thing. And then Picard even moreso.
 
Why? The Federation doesn't believe in money, why should the Ferengi care?
Actually Picard was a liar and its now established canon in the shows that he was just an out of touch rich old white man and Earth is full of people of color forced to live in trailer parks and smoke crack.

People dont know how bad Trek is now cause they dont even watch it and assume it cant be as bad as other modern shit.
 
In a military position you don't have the luxury to show weakness. A celebration of weakness is a luxury that can only be afforded the privileged.

When you are in a high stress job, you need to be able to keep your cool otherwise you are more likely to fuck up and make decisions you will regret. You cannot allow your emotions to rule you.

In anger you are more likely to make the command to kill them all do as you wish. No mercy, kill every man, women, and child. Hell, have your way with the women. This decision is not always made because you are a bigot or a racist, it can be made by anyone who gives into their darkest nature because rage and vengeance takes over. Hell, you might throw away the lives of your troops needlessly because you want to make the enemy suffer and the end result is you win the battle but lose the war.

In fear, you might be tempted to abandon your troops to save your own skin. Humans have a self-preservation instinct, but this is counterproductive to a military context. You need to push aside your fear and standby your comrades. To flee is to disgrace yourself even moreso when you are the one in charge and need to show nothing but certainty.

When you give into despair you give up because what is point when you are so blinded by despair you can see no other solution.

As I mentioned before to celebrate weakness is a luxury afforded to the truly privileged. When shit hits the fan people are drawn to those who stand strong. If the leader crumbles and someone else steps up to the plate, that guy is gonna be the new leader. Even if the coward keeps the title no one is going to respect him. No one truly respects weakness especially when their own skin is on the line.

This is not to say emotion is completely useless. Your emotions can save you from making decisions you may regret later as well. Your emotions is what allows you to consider the human and ethical cost? Sure you can do something but is the really the right thing to do? Guilt is your natural restraint from becoming a true monster and embracing your darkest nature.

Then there is your sixth sense or bullshit detector that goes off something is not quite right and maybe you should take a step back and reconsider your decision even if things may logically makes sense.

As a leader, you need to make very hard decisions and in a military position even decisions that will get people killed. There is no avoiding this the higher up you go, even sending your men on a simple recon mission can result in everyone dying and you will need to live with that. To be a slave to your emotions is not luxury you can have.
 
Actually Picard was a liar and its now established canon in the shows that he was just an out of touch rich old white man and Earth is full of people of color forced to live in trailer parks and smoke crack.

People dont know how bad Trek is now cause they dont even watch it and assume it cant be as bad as other modern shit.
Thanks to JJ Abrams, however, it is well-established that Nu Trek is obviously some shitty alternate reality, and somewhere there's a Star Trek that isn't complete ass.
 
Back
Top Bottom