Online Series: Star Trek: Discovery - Topic II

[SolidSnakeUS]

The show is getting better as it goes along and I like it. I like how we know more about Lorca and that Saru is, hopefully, calming the f*** down.

 

[Cloned]

It was odd how it was violent yet completely lacking in tension. It was nothing like violence in Game of Thrones, which really heightens the drama and the fear of what's about to happen, making it anything but gratuitous.

I agree; that exchange was really lame. It also came from the one person (Tilly) least likely to blurt out a swear, making it funnier, perhaps, but far less believable and more contrived.

I think that his meaning was pretty clear. It seems like you're trying to read between the lines to find an agenda so that you can express your own, but I'm not sure why he should have to defend himself when "I won't accept it" is what you said, not him.

So far, those of us who have been critical have been critical of the show, not of those of you who like it. I'm not sure that you appreciate that we could be equally intolerant of and challenging toward your defense of the show if we wanted.

I just want to know what he means. Because it seems like the natural extension of this is that this could end up going from decent or good TV to great TV, and he could still say it fails miserably as Star Trek. It’s that concept of Trek somehow being judged from a moral high ground that is weird to me - surely as Trek fans we haven’t become elitist in our judgment of science fiction, or media in general?

As for your last comment, it’s not the intolerance and challenging of ME or us that is my problem. I welcome debate. It’s the intolerance and challenging of the actual show itself on several apparently non debatable fronts that puzzles me. It’s like people are saying “this isn’t Star Trek”’and using THAT as a defense to their argument in and of itself. The problem is that this statement isn’t a factual tenet to an argument - it’s a loaded opinion dressed up as a declarative statement and it SHOULD be challenged, IMO.

 

[Blender]

Klingons aren’t about subtlety. They’re about brute force. The way they torture is likely to be different from the Cardassians. More straight forward. Hammers.

He's not talking about the torture methods or the exact makeup of the scene, he's comparing the level of tension from those scenes to the episode last night. The entire story on the Klingon ship really didn't have much in the way of tension, and as I said yesterday it fell flat with what they were going for. Compare it to this scene from the DS9 episode By Inferno's Light where Worf is essentially being tortured by being forced to fight Jem'Hadar after Jem'Hadar, and the 1st is savagely beating him to death.

 

[Blender]

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that Lt. Tyler will end up being Voq and that the entire plot to capture Lorca was about getting Tyler onto Discovery.

 

[The Nemesis]

Harry Mudd isn't quite the same without his glorious walrus mustache.

Also while I liked most of today's episode better than the previous ones (I'll grant that after my earlier concerns they're trending in a positive direction), I was frustrated by the fact that as they fought about the moral and ethical ramifications of the central problem of the episodes, they totally ignored the pragmatic, tactical issue that the problem presented. Until *surprise!* that's exactly what the core issue becomes.

Spoiler

that if every jump weakened the tartigrade, there was always a non-zero chance that it would just drop dead in the middle of their operation. Then, of course, it basically goes into a space coma because of over-taxing, just like was predicted.

It seemed like that should've been the single obvious and most important issue to address even above the ethical concerns, but they don't frame it as even a consideration until Burnham uses the logic of that issue to appeal to Stammets.

Also is it just me or does Stammets kind of seem like Alan Tudyk's jackass evil twin?

 

[Blender]

Harry Mudd isn't quite the same without his glorious walrus mustache.

Also while I liked most of today's episode better than the previous ones (I'll grant that after my earlier concerns they're trending in a positive direction), I was frustrated by the fact that as they fought about the moral and ethical ramifications of the central problem of the episodes, they totally ignored the pragmatic, tactical issue that the problem presented. Until *surprise!* that's exactly what the core issue becomes.

Spoiler

that if every jump weakened the tartigrade, there was always a non-zero chance that it would just drop dead in the middle of their operation. Then, of course, it basically goes into a space coma because of over-taxing, just like was predicted.

It seemed like that should've been the single obvious and most important issue to address even above the ethical concerns, but they don't frame it as even a consideration until Burnham uses the logic of that issue to appeal to Stammets.

Also is it just me or does Stammets kind of seem like Alan Tudyk's jackass evil twin?

To be fair I think Burnham had tried to use that argument on Saru as well, but he didn't listen to that one or the morality of using the creature.

 

[Blender]

I just want to know what he means. Because it seems like the natural extension of this is that this could end up going from decent or good TV to great TV, and he could still say it fails miserably as Star Trek. It’s that concept of Trek somehow being judged from a moral high ground that is weird to me - surely as Trek fans we haven’t become elitist in our judgment of science fiction, or media in general?

As for your last comment, it’s not the intolerance and challenging of ME or us that is my problem. I welcome debate. It’s the intolerance and challenging of the actual show itself on several apparently non debatable fronts that puzzles me. It’s like people are saying “this isn’t Star Trek”’and using THAT as a defense to their argument in and of itself. The problem is that this statement isn’t a factual tenet to an argument - it’s a loaded opinion dressed up as a declarative statement and it SHOULD be challenged, IMO.

Star Trek is an established franchise with 50 years of content, and any show or movie that wants to add to continue that universe should be respectful of it and feel as if it belongs. This show so far has for the most part not resembled Star Trek much at all, beyond the name. There have been countless posts in this thread in detail on why this is the case, so don't for a second claim that people are just trying to shut down the discussion by saying "this isn't Star Trek" and ending it there. There are pages of discussion on what the differences are and why this doesn't feel like a Star Trek show. Feel free to read them, the argument has been defended in detail unlike what you are attempting to claim here. The last couple episodes have at least been getting better, so there is some hope there, but it's still not right. You know what though, the biggest reason of all for this is the time period the chose to set it in. The way they are presenting humans and Starfleet doesn't fit within the universe for the time period. They set it 10 years before TOS so they could try and cynically cash in on any popularity the new movies had, and it has cost them the continuity required to make this a proper Star Trek show instead of just a sci-fi show called Star Trek. It doesn't work because they have had 100 years of relative peace and yet are acting far worse as a society than the people of the Enterprise era. It makes absolutely no sense.

If they had set the series 15-20 years after Voyager (which would have worked perfectly for cameos as well), they could have had the people acting the same way and have it been far more believable. Imagine this new extremist enemy emerges from deep space determined to go to war with the Federation because they despise their way of life, just like the "Klingons" here in Discovery. Only instead of going to war after 100 years of peace with no reason to be such terrible people, the Federation is badly strained because they have just came off fighting the Borg, Klingons, and Dominion as well as having internal issues due to all the fighting. Due to this strain, they end up compromising their ideals to try and survive this new enemy. As they suffered massive casualties during these conflicts, a lot of younger people who were junior officers in these wars would now be Captains and senior officers. It would make sense that they are cynical, selfish, dickish, etc. like many of the characters in Discovery have been shown to be. You'd be able to get that inter-Federation conflict as well between warmongers like Lorca who would have came through the ranks during the Dominion War and have valid reasons for his behavior clashing with the old school officers that might still be around and in senior leadership positions like Janeway, Riker, etc. Despite these old school idealists running the fleet, there would be so many people like Lorca that they would never have complete control on the situation and would keep getting dragged into uncomfortable situations, like Lorca using the tardigrade to navigate his experimental drive. Can you imagine a big discussion between Lorca and Janeway over this issue, when Janeway had dealt with the exact same thing 20 years ago with Captain Random, but now this time she isn't in a position to stop him, or worse allows it because the situation is desperate?

They could have changed very little of the show if they had set it in that time period instead and have it both work much better, and make far more sense in the Star Trek canon. It would have made for a better show as well because you could have tied their behavior to very specific and believable reasons that we as an audience have witnessed ourselves. Not to mention the commentary on current society you could have drawn. This entire show really seems like it was originally planned for a different point of time in Star Trek.

 

[Cloned]

Star Trek is an established franchise with 50 years of content, and any show or movie that wants to add to continue that universe should be respectful of it and feel as if it belongs. This show so far has for the most part not resembled Star Trek much at all, beyond the name. There have been countless posts in this thread in detail on why this is the case, so don't for a second claim that people are just trying to shut down the discussion by saying "this isn't Star Trek" and ending it there. There are pages of discussion on what the differences are and why this doesn't feel like a Star Trek show. Feel free to read them, the argument has been defended in detail unlike what you are attempting to claim here. The last couple episodes have at least been getting better, so there is some hope there, but it's still not right. You know what though, the biggest reason of all for this is the time period the chose to set it in. The way they are presenting humans and Starfleet doesn't fit within the universe for the time period. They set it 10 years before TOS so they could try and cynically cash in on any popularity the new movies had, and it has cost them the continuity required to make this a proper Star Trek show instead of just a sci-fi show called Star Trek. It doesn't work because they have had 100 years of relative peace and yet are acting far worse as a society than the people of the Enterprise era. It makes absolutely no sense.

If they had set the series 15-20 years after Voyager (which would have worked perfectly for cameos as well), they could have had the people acting the same way and have it been far more believable. Imagine this new extremist enemy emerges from deep space determined to go to war with the Federation because they despise their way of life, just like the "Klingons" here in Discovery. Only instead of going to war after 100 years of peace with no reason to be such terrible people, the Federation is badly strained because they have just came off fighting the Borg, Klingons, and Dominion as well as having internal issues due to all the fighting. Due to this strain, they end up compromising their ideals to try and survive this new enemy. As they suffered massive casualties during these conflicts, a lot of younger people who were junior officers in these wars would now be Captains and senior officers. It would make sense that they are cynical, selfish, dickish, etc. like many of the characters in Discovery have been shown to be. You'd be able to get that inter-Federation conflict as well between warmongers like Lorca who would have came through the ranks during the Dominion War and have valid reasons for his behavior clashing with the old school officers that might still be around and in senior leadership positions like Janeway, Riker, etc. Despite these old school idealists running the fleet, there would be so many people like Lorca that they would never have complete control on the situation and would keep getting dragged into uncomfortable situations, like Lorca using the tardigrade to navigate his experimental drive. Can you imagine a big discussion between Lorca and Janeway over this issue, when Janeway had dealt with the exact same thing 20 years ago with Captain Random, but now this time she isn't in a position to stop him, or worse allows it because the situation is desperate?

They could have changed very little of the show if they had set it in that time period instead and have it both work much better, and make far more sense in the Star Trek canon. It would have made for a better show as well because you could have tied their behavior to very specific and believable reasons that we as an audience have witnessed ourselves. Not to mention the commentary on current society you could have drawn. This entire show really seems like it was originally planned for a different point of time in Star Trek.

I don’t agree on a philosophical basis. I believe in respecting canon, not being a slave to it and letting it completely dictate and be a burden to storytelling. But I’ve stated that before here.

Also, the “reasons” that have been given for this not being Trek enough border on silly and superficial. Aside from the fact that I think we shouldn’t be judging like sci-fi elitists, here are some of the reasons I’ve seen people state here:

Space isn’t clean enough
There’s too much interpersonal conflict
Klingons don’t look right
It’s not Star Trek in spirit or theme
Tech looks too good
Site to site transport is a canon violation

It honestly sounds like some people just want to remake TNG.

 

[Blender]

I don’t agree on a philosophical basis. I believe in respecting canon, not being a slave to it and letting it completely dictate and be a burden to storytelling. But I’ve stated that before here.

How is respecting canon a "burden to storytelling"? There are plenty of ways to tell a great story and respect canon. If the writing staff isn't capable of taking that task on they shouldn't be writing for a franchise like this. There is nothing about established canon that prevents a good story from being told, and if you set out to do both in the first place you shouldn't have any problems with it. When I say respect canon, I don't even mean everything has to be perfect and nothing can change, but it should be respectful and still be in the spirit of the franchise. That's been a major issue with Discovery, is that based on the time period they chose to set this in they haven't been respectful to the spirit of the franchise so far. As I said in my last post, if they had set this in a proper time period such as 20 years after Voyager, they could have pretty much told the same story while being far more respectful of canon.

 

[Drytoast]

I don’t agree on a philosophical basis. I believe in respecting canon, not being a slave to it and letting it completely dictate and be a burden to storytelling. But I’ve stated that before here.

Also, the “reasons” that have been given for this not being Trek enough border on silly and superficial. Aside from the fact that I think we shouldn’t be judging like sci-fi elitists, here are some of the reasons I’ve seen people state here:

Space isn’t clean enough
There’s too much interpersonal conflict
Klingons don’t look right
It’s not Star Trek in spirit or theme
Tech looks too good
Site to site transport is a canon violation

It honestly sounds like some people just want to remake TNG.

We've already discussed this to a point I think we both agree and disagree. But I'll point out that surely you must understand that it wanting to take place in the specific time period it's in makes it feel out of place and disjointed compared to every other star trek tv show and movie?

You can make new shows, just respect canon. You can have all the lens flares you want and epic space battles...whatever.

Had they simply made this show take place 30 years after Voyager, it would not disrupt canon. And they didn't need to remake klingons into cannibles...they could have just introduced a new species/villan.

Such a needless and foolish mistake to make this show take place in the period it's in.

Oh wait...looks like all this crap is "on purpose"

LOL.

https://www.inverse.com/article/37357-star-trek-discovery-canon-changes-tos-tng

This should be good. "Uhm...we severly messed up canon...pretend they went through a worm hole!"

 

[Cloned]

I said I believe in respecting canon.

What I don’t believe in is becoming too obsessed with canon and minutiae and carrying canon around like a figurative weight on your storytelling shoulders.

I’d like to get back to the original point though. When someone says that it fails miserably as Trek but otherwise is decent and entertaining, what does that entail? Does this mean that no matter how good this gets, as long as it’s told or presented in a certain way, it’ll always fail as Trek? This seems like an incredibly elitist way to judge a show. To have a Trek show HAVE to be told in a certain way just seems to be viewing Trek in a very narrow scope. It’s a myopic way of looking at Trek, IMO.

 

[Ducks in a row]

I don’t agree on a philosophical basis. I believe in respecting canon, not being a slave to it and letting it completely dictate and be a burden to storytelling. But I’ve stated that before here.

Also, the “reasons” that have been given for this not being Trek enough border on silly and superficial. Aside from the fact that I think we shouldn’t be judging like sci-fi elitists, here are some of the reasons I’ve seen people state here:

Space isn’t clean enough
There’s too much interpersonal conflict
Klingons don’t look right
It’s not Star Trek in spirit or theme
Tech looks too good
Site to site transport is a canon violation

It honestly sounds like some people just want to remake TNG.

You don't sound like someone who believes in respecting canon at all. Good stories can be told without going against canon. The only burden canon does with storytelling is to make things make sense. People don't like things that don't make sense. Respect canon or you will have unhappy people who may decide not to watch at all if they hear about it or decide enough is enough and stop watching when they can't take it anymore. Going against canon is good for no one all it does is make people unhappy and think you have no respect for the franchise and are trying to rewrite it. This show with these kinda events should of taken place after the Dominion War not so close to TOS time period.

Now with that said if they have these events take place in a alternate universe or in the mind of a crazy person then all can be forgiven with how things have been.

 

[Tawnos]

That article says exactly what I’ve been saying.

 

[Tawnos]

You don't sound like someone who believes in respecting canon at all. Good stories can be told without going against canon. The only burden canon does with storytelling is to make things make sense. People don't like things that don't make sense. Respect canon or you will have unhappy people who may decide not to watch at all if they hear about it or decide enough is enough and stop watching when they can't take it anymore. Going against canon is good for no one all it does is make people unhappy and think you have no respect for the franchise and are trying to rewrite it. This show with these kinda events should of taken place after the Dominion War not so close to TOS time period.

Now with that said if they have these events take place in a alternate universe or in the mind of a crazy person then all can be forgiven with how things have been.

If fans would just be willing to allow the people who are in charge of creating the damn thing the chance to fit it into canon, this wouldn’t be an issue.

They haven’t gone against actual canon yet, except aesthetically and technologically, neither of which actually matter. Story-wise, nothing has violated canon (yet).

 

[Ducks in a row]

If fans would just be willing to allow the people who are in charge of creating the damn thing the chance to fit it into canon, this wouldn’t be an issue.

They haven’t gone against actual canon yet, except aesthetically and technologically, neither of which actually matter. Story-wise, nothing has violated canon (yet).

I am still watching and am giving them a chance but the longer things take the more and more and more annoyed I am. I wonder how long things will be before it is done assuming it actually is and they haven't just been saying things to keep people watching for as long as possible.

How things look can be fine up to a point. Klingons should not have looked like they have in this show unless it is a alternate universe or in a crazy persons mind or something. Medical technology from Starfleet seems to be too advanced for the time period. A Klingon ship with cloaking technology shouldn't be.

 

[Osprey]

Well said, Blender. A much later time period would've gone a long way to reducing the issues with the show.

I don’t agree on a philosophical basis. I believe in respecting canon, not being a slave to it and letting it completely dictate and be a burden to storytelling. But I’ve stated that before here.

Canon isn't a burden to storytelling. It's a useful guide that helps writers stay within the Star Trek framework, so that they don't produce work that doesn't feel much like Star Trek, like Discovery. It can also be an asset because something that checks out with canon gets a big plausibility boost. For example, Blender suggested that, if the show had been situated after Voyager, Lorca's cynicism and belligerence could've been explained by being toughened up by the Dominion War. In other words, because of canon--i.e. the Dominion War--Lorca's personality and mannerisms would seem much more plausible and easier to swallow.

It honestly sounds like some people just want to remake TNG.

Yes, please! Seriously, that's not practical, but it's a fallacy to suggest that it's either remake TNG or get what we've gotten with Discovery. There's a huge spectrum in between, half of which would still feel very much like Star Trek, but be more modern. There's no reason other than lack of creativity for why Star Trek can't be modern and feel like it's still Star Trek. The first six films, TNG and even DS9 updated the franchise for modern times while still keeping the unique feeling that they were Star Trek (especially when there was likely a lot of pressure to make the franchise more like Star Wars).

 

[NyQuil]

Like most people here, I'm going to give them an entire season to prove they know what they are doing.

 

[Cloned]

You don't sound like someone who believes in respecting canon at all. Good stories can be told without going against canon. The only burden canon does with storytelling is to make things make sense. People don't like things that don't make sense. Respect canon or you will have unhappy people who may decide not to watch at all if they hear about it or decide enough is enough and stop watching when they can't take it anymore. Going against canon is good for no one all it does is make people unhappy and think you have no respect for the franchise and are trying to rewrite it. This show with these kinda events should of taken place after the Dominion War not so close to TOS time period.

Now with that said if they have these events take place in a alternate universe or in the mind of a crazy person then all can be forgiven with how things have been.

I'm not seeing where they've disrespected canon though. Like Tawnos said, they've made some aesthetic and technological decisions that don't really impact the storyline in any major way.

I think some people are confusing going against canon with creating canon. Just because something wasn't explicitly mentioned in the previous movies/series as happening, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. So far all I can see that the producers have done is add canon to the timeline - they haven't taken anything away or drastically changed the known Star Trek universe in this time period.

Well said, Blender. A much later time period would've gone a long way to reducing the issues with the show.



Canon isn't a burden to storytelling. It's a useful guide that helps writers stay within the Star Trek framework, so that they don't produce work that doesn't feel much like Star Trek, like Discovery. It can also be an asset because something that checks out with canon gets a big plausibility boost. For example, Blender suggested that, if the show had been situated after Voyager, Lorca's cynicism and belligerence could've been explained by being toughened up by the Dominion War. In other words, because of canon--i.e. the Dominion War--Lorca's personality and mannerisms would seem much more plausible and easier to swallow.



Yes, please! Seriously, that's not practical, but it's a fallacy to suggest that it's either remake TNG or get what we've gotten with Discovery. There's a huge spectrum in between, half of which would still feel very much like Star Trek, but be more modern. There's no reason other than lack of creativity for why Star Trek can't be modern and feel like it's still Star Trek. The first six films, TNG and even DS9 updated the franchise for modern times while still keeping the unique feeling that they were Star Trek (especially when there was likely a lot of pressure to make the franchise more like Star Wars).

Are you familiar with the concept of a backseat driver? I think this is mostly a case of backseat producing/writing. Instead of putting effort into coming up with plausible in-universe reasons as to why something is, one starts to think about how they could have written it better. You could write it your way, but that doesn't mean it's the only way to write it. Maybe Lorca is cynical because Starfleet is always reactive instead of proactive when it comes to conflicts. Maybe he's bitter because his family has been through successive galactic conflicts (Xindi war, Romulan war, etc.)

Now this may not necessarily apply to you, but most backseat drivers I know are like that because they have zero faith in the driver and won't ever - short of a miracle - give the driver a chance to show what they can actually do. Everything the driver does in their eyes is wrong, or at the very least flawed, and they think they can always do better. Anything positive the driver does is met with doubt and faint, damning praise.

This is the impression I'm getting from a lot of the negative posts in this thread. Criticism is fair, but nitpicking every single thing to pieces and coming up with superficial or otherwise shallow complaints isn't. It's gotten to the point now where people are actually complimenting the episodes - but only if it isn't viewed as Star Trek. Since when did Star Trek, as a concept or as a way of presentation, become so narrow, reserved or exclusive? Doesn't that go against the very heart of what Trek is supposed to represent - IDIC, right?

Since you brought up Star Wars, I'll offer a (perhaps controversial) opinion. I think a lot of Trek fans have an inferiority complex because of Star Wars, and it seeps into our way of thinking about Star Trek. "Well, Star Wars might be more popular, but Star Trek will always be smarter, more intellectual!" It leads us into thinking that anything that appears to deviate from this way of presentation or writing is somehow NOT Star Trek, but that evil Star Wars culture invading our property. You mentioned a huge spectrum between TNG and Discovery - well there's a huge spectrum in the sci-fi genre itself, and Trek doesn't have to isolate itself in a narrow portion of it anymore to differentiate itself from Star Wars. Trek doesn't have to be TNG again, or DS9 again, or Battlestar Galactica, or the Orville, or whatever show it has been compared to in the past.

Let's just give Discovery a chance to be itself and see where it leads.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

I grew up with both but I chose Star Trek because it was much more interesting to me. It's more about being sci-fi and its characters that always drew me in. While Star Wars has its characters, I feel it's way more fantasy than I do Sci-Fi.

 

[Osprey]

This is the impression I'm getting from a lot of the negative posts in this thread. Criticism is fair, but nitpicking every single thing to pieces and coming up with superficial or otherwise shallow complaints isn't.

You say that criticism is fair, but it seems that you mean only the criticisms that you share and those that you don't you call "nitpicks" and "shallow complaints."

Since when did Star Trek, as a concept or as a way of presentation, become so narrow, reserved or exclusive?

Since 1966. Seriously, things can and should adapt, but your argument literally excuses anything. You could be proposing turning Star Trek into Dora the Explorer and present the "since when did Trek become so narrow" argument to anyone who objected to your proposition. You can't simply do anything that you want to a franchise in the name of being progressive. There is a point that's too far to go, at which it doesn't feel like Star Trek anymore. Some of us feel that we're past that point here and some of you don't. I think that even you have to admit, though, that this is very different from other Trek. If so and this series is boldly going where no Trek has gone before, then isn't that also an admission that Trek has been more narrow, more reserved and more exclusive than this... since 1966?

Since you brought up Star Wars, I'll offer a (perhaps controversial) opinion. I think a lot of Trek fans have an inferiority complex because of Star Wars, and it seeps into our way of thinking about Star Trek. "Well, Star Wars might be more popular, but Star Trek will always be smarter, more intellectual!" It leads us into thinking that anything that appears to deviate from this way of presentation or writing is somehow NOT Star Trek, but that evil Star Wars culture invading our property.

I think that you're reaching. There are no doubt some who spit on Star Wars and are only Star Trek fans, but I imagine that the majority of Star Trek fans are also Star Wars fans. When we say that we don't want Star Trek to turn into Star Wars, it's in no way an "inferiority complex" because of Star Wars or a criticism of it, since we love Star Wars, too. It's simply a recognition that the two franchises are very different and we want them kept that way.

It's important to do what you do well. Star Wars does escapist space opera and action extremely well and Star Trek does futurism, science and allegory extremely well. If either were to try to do what the other does, what it does so well would be compromised. It'd be like a commercial product that incorporates multiple functionalities to try to replace multiple other products and, consequently, not doing its original functionality as well as when that's all that it did. If Star Wars were to become more like Star Trek and Star Trek were to become more like Star Wars, then they'd both end up being the new generic sci-fi and we'd lose what both of them used to do so well. It's not an "inferiority complex" to not want Star Trek to become more like Star Wars because most of us don't want Star Wars to become more like Star Trek, either.

Let's just give Discovery a chance to be itself and see where it leads.

If you really believe in that, then you shouldn't be writing about the things that you like in the show and defending it, since you don't know where it leads any more than us. If the fact that we could end up liking the show means that we should hold off on criticism for now, then the fact that you could end up disliking the show means that you should hold off praise and defense for now.

 

[Tawnos]

For a show that is Star Trek and is about to be on episode 6, I think questions about whether or not we accept it as Star Trek is starting to be off topic.

It is Star Trek.

 

[Canadiens Ghost]

Judging by the comments in this and other forums, Orville is a lot, lot more Star Trek than STD is.

 

[Osprey]

For a show that is Star Trek and is about to be on episode 6, I think questions about whether or not we accept it as Star Trek is starting to be off topic.

It is Star Trek.

You're suggesting that discussion about what Star Trek is is off topic... in a thread about Star Trek. I think that you're really reaching if you're trying to silence criticism on a technicality.

We know that it's technically Star Trek. That's what's upsetting. It's like when a political, religious or racial leader that you don't like represents your affiliation. You don't just accept him and change your values to incorporate his. You stand up and criticize him for pretending to represent your values.

Similar to those kinds of leaders, this show largely feels like Star Trek "in name only." The fact that it does go by that name is what's disappointing. If it were called anything else, it'd be a lot less so... but it is called that, so how it stacks up to the franchise that it's associated with is very much on topic.

Judging by the comments in this and other forums, Orville is a lot, lot more Star Trek than STD is.

It is. I just spoke of things being "in name only" and The Orville is basically Star Trek in everything but the names. It can't be so hard, after all, to capture the feeling of Star Trek if Seth MacFarlane, of all people and whom I didn't even like until last month, can do it. It's a good example of what can come about simply because of passion, rather than marketing. I highly recommend it.

 

[Canadiens Ghost]

The Orville. I highly recommend it.

You're preaching to the choir, I really like the Orville myself. It feels a little bit off at times but I had zero expectations from this show when I saw the first previews. It's been quite a nice surprise.

 

[Blender]

You're preaching to the choir, I really like the Orville myself. It feels a little bit off at times but I had zero expectations from this show when I saw the first previews. It's been quite a nice surprise.

It's definitely a satirical look at Star Trek, but at the same time it has captured the essence of Star Trek perfectly. You can tell how much passion for the franchise went into making it.