Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:

Total Found: 261 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 11
Set Bookmark
Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 10:46am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?

"So harsh I believe you retired from posting here, in a glorified farewell speech. Yet here you are."

And that's your sole contribution to this site. Astounding.

Look, I could write another five paragraphs on how moronic this response of yours was.

But I won't.

Because the people here don't seem to like it when I do that. For some funny odd reason, they prefer talking about Star Trek rather than participating in childish games of "gotcha!". It's almost like they think that this is a Star Trek discussion board or something... Can you imagine the nerve of these guys? ;-)
Set Bookmark
Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 7:42am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?


"What I was concerned about was not that you were so weak-willed that you would contemplate suicide simply because people didn't agree with you. I was VERY concerned about the fact that I have no idea what ELSE is going on in your life."

Nothing bad, I assure you. And even everything in my life sucked, classic Trek taught me a few things about hoping for the future. A person who really gets the message of Star Trek, is not a person that gives up that easily. :-)

You know, it's really funny how the people here inflated this whole thing into monstrous proportions and then blamed *me* for being a drama queen.

This gotta be another one of those "internet endemics" you've been talking about: The fact that it is virtually impossible to speak openly and candidly about your feelings in an online community, without being seen as some drama-seeking psycho. I've seen this happening on many forums, and it really *is* an endemic.

To summarize: The only reason it turned into a big drama, is that people insisted on treating it as drama. Talk about a pot calling the kettle black...

"I'll be damned if I make that mistake again. Sure, if I had written the letter, it probably wouldn't have made a difference, but it MAY have."

I'm so sorry for your loss. And you're right, your letter probably wouldn't have made a difference. At any rate, please don't blame yourself. You aren't doing either yourself or the future people you want to help any favors, by blaming yourself. Right?

Now, going back to the Star Trek topic:

"Star Trek is NOT a happy universe about looking for awe, and wonder. It was created by someone who was trying to show people that there is a better way, than what we do."

I think the two things you've just mentioned are just two different sides of the same coin.

Star Trek is basically saying "there's a better way, and in the future we'll find it. Here, let me show you...". How is this not happy? I can't think of a more optimistic thought than that.

Perhaps you meant that Star Trek isn't bubbly-naive-with-a-stupid-grin-on-your-face-at-all-times happy. But this kind of "happiness" is an illusion anyway.

Besides, as you said yourself: The awe and wonder are part of the package. Star Trek is about the entire package, which - among other things - includes awe and wonder.

Of-course, it *is* dangerous out there. As Q once said: "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". I think this quote sums up both sides of the coin quite nicely.

"I don't know where people got the idea that TNG characters were perfect. They were a walking disaster, and weren't particularly well trained or good at their jobs. But unlike us, they tried to do better, and they had at least learned SOME things we haven't today."

And the characters of DS9/VOY/ENT didn't? Are you sure we've watched the same shows?

Actually, there are plenty of people in the real world who "try to do better" as well. If I'm not mistaken, you've just said that you're one of them. After all, isn't this precisely the reason that the behavior of the average person drives you nuts?

The big difference between the world of Star Trek and reality 2018, is that "trying to do better" is not the consensus today. We are a minority. And if you tried to tell people that you're dedicating your life to improving yourself, then they'll think you're either a liar or batshit crazy.

Yet there *are* people who do this today. And some of them chose this path precisely because of the example they've seen on the various Star Trek series.

"[Voyager] was by no means a TNG clone. Nor did it remain true to its ideals. *Cough* Trapped in Delta Quadrant, with limited resources."

Oh, I agree that *if* they actually followed this premise, then Voyager wouldn't have been a TNG clone.

But they didn't. Not really, anyhow. Voyager never looked like a ship with limited resources. Nor did they really follow the other major unique point of Voyager that seperates it from the TNG mentality: the Starfleet/Maquis conflict.

So the vast majority of Voyager episodes *were* pretty much "TNG in the Delta Quadrant". Makes little sense given the premise, I know, but that's what the writers chose to do with the show (and I think it hurt the show a great deal that they didn't stick to their original premise).

"It's far more difficult to maintain the moral high ground when you have all the guns--such as money, media, nukes, population, economic resources, and actual guns."

In today's world - yes. Because 21st century man is too driven to dominate and conquer others, which is completely insane.

But in the world of the Federation - no. It is quite obvious that by Picard's time, society had mostly matured beyond the need for such abuse of power. The Enterprise-D is armed to the teeth, yet it is *obvious* to everyone onboard that these weapons are only there for self-defense.

And in *that* situation, it is easier to remain moral when you have superior fire power. As long as you vastly outgun your opponents, you know that the only dangers come from your own inner demons. You know that as long as you refrain from doing something extremely stupid, you have nothing to worry about.

The Federation had this mindset for decades, and it worked really well for them... and then the Dominion came(*). Suddenly, the Federation found itself facing a truly existential threat. Suddenly, really tough decisions needed to be made (because that's the nature of war). And unfortunately, Starfleet was completely unprepared - mentally and morally - for such a situation. Things got ugly, real quick. In my own head-canon, the Federation learned from their mistakes after the war, resulting in a far more robust moral system in the 25th century.

(*) Technically this whole dynamic should have happened with the Borg as well. But the TNG writers didn't have the guts to see it through. There were hints at this direction (like the suggestion to destroy the Borg with the image virus in "I, Borg") but they never quite committed to the idea.

"Again, we must BOLDLY go forth, with fear, and understanding of the consequences, to find STRANGE NEW LIFE, as well as worlds, and civilizations, lest we decay, and die."

Well, yeah. But when you put it in such a depressing way, it doesn't feel compelling at all, does it? And if it isn't compelling, there's little hope that people would actually do it.

Thankfully, the universe has a solution ready: As you said yourself, going through this path naturally results in a wonderous feeling of awe. There are enough reasons to excite us into doing this, and that's not a bad thing... as long as we're also aware of the consequences, of-course.

This is one of the things I love about Star Trek, by the way. It manages to tell the very same message in an inspiring way that doesn't make you depressed or even scared. Yes, fulfilling our destiny as a species is serious business. Yes, it *is* dangerous out there. But it is also exhilirating, and I don't think we should feel any shame for actually enjoying the journey. Especially when being all gloomy is probably going to hurt our performance.

"Because heaven is what we build here, and now, for ourselves, and those that come after us. Not some ethereal other place."

Amen to that.

Set Bookmark
Thu, May 31, 2018, 10:39pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?

Just found time to read *all* of Astronut7's posts. It took a while - a very interesting and somewhat controversial (in a good way!) read.


Regarding DS9, Voyager and Enterprise, I both agree and disagree with you.

I agree that these crews behaved in a less "perfect" way, but:

1. They were still light years better then the way people behave today. I still consider Sisko, Janeway and Archer to be good role-models (usually. The only episode which drives me completely nuts in this respect is DS9's "For the Uniform". What the hell, hero? That episode should never have been made).

2. Their "less-than-perfectness" made sense in-universe, given the premise of each of these series. DS9 facing the dominion threat. Enterprise being a prequel (say what you will about that series, but it *did* show us a believable transitionary phase of humanity between the present and the seemingly perfect crew of the Enterprise-D). As for Voyager... well, I'm not sure why you included Voyager in this mix at all, because it is mostly a TNG clone that's quite faithful to the original Roddenberry ideal. That show had myriad of other problems (in my opinion VOY is the weakest Trek) but betraying the Star Trek Ethos wasn't one of them.

3. These deviations from the original Roddenberry vision mostly served as a way to examine that very vision. As Sisko said, it is easy to be saint in paradise. So how do 24th century humans behave when their paradise is facing a truely existential threat? I love DS9 for examining this question, which TNG never had the guts to explore. It's easy to take the moral high ground when you have all the guns.

My only regret is that this story was never completed. We've never seen the aftermath of the Dominion War. We've never seen the Federation picking up the pieces and regaining their moral dignity. And judging from the crap that masquerades as "Star Trek" in the past decade, I doubt we'll ever will.

4. DS9, Voyager and Enterprise made the effort to tell good stories. DS9 in particular, was a pillar of story-telling. Yes, it did drama and had action, but these didn't get in the way of telling an intelligent sci fi story. At no point do we get the feeling that DS9/VOY/ENT are nothing but a cheap cynical cash grab.

(Some *scenes* in Enterprise do feel that way. The gratitious wannabe-sex scenes for example. But these scenes stand out like a sore thumb, precisely because Enterprise is *not* that kind of show)

Now, I can understand if you don't like the story-telling styles of these shows. For a person who comes for the "science" in "sci fi", DS9 will be pretty much unwatchable. But that's a matter of personal taste. I think that if we look at things objectively, then TOS,TNG,DS9,VOY and ENT fit quite well into the same conceptual universe. The fact that they are all so different from one another only serves to make that universe richer. After all, it's a big cosmos out there. There's enough room in it for science, interspecies politics, exploration, drama and a million other things.

And the problem with Discovery, quite simply, is that it does not fit. I'm not talking about nerdy continuity nit-picking. They've simply made zero effort on this front. And as you said yourself, the producers were fundamentally dishonest about the nature of the show.

I guess that at least one positive thing did come from Discovery: It gave some people a new appreciation for "Enterprise" as a prequel. Given the complete mess we've gotten here, Enterprise suddenly looks like the golden standard of prequels, doesn't it? Finally people are beginning to understand that B&B actually did *care* about continuity. Maybe not enough, but they did.

Set Bookmark
Thu, May 31, 2018, 1:36pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?

BTW, regarding the "Star Trek is about science" thing:

Star Trek, when it is at its best, is about exploration and awe and wonder. It's also about how science and technology can improve our lives.

IOW while the show isn't *about* science, it has a very science-oriented philosophy in its core. Which, funnily enough, also jives perfectly with the other things that make Star Trek special (it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the connection between a love-of-exploration and the abolishment of bigotry).

None of this is relevant to Discovery, of-course. "Make the empire glorious again" indeed... (I still can't believe they went with that quote. What *were* they thinking?)
Set Bookmark
Thu, May 31, 2018, 1:16pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?

"If there was a 'big dramatic departure' and a subsequent return months later, then OTDP very clearly has strong feelings about the subject of Star Trek--strong enough that attempting to bury the issue with a 'Don't take it personally' is nothing more than trite. Whatever happened, even with the limited information I have, it very clearly got personal enough that a person was forced out of the discussion, and the community on this website."

Funny how things can be *that* obvious to an outsider, heh?

What makes the situation even more maddening, is that I've been an active and respected member of this community for many months. But apparently, once you voice an unpopular opinion, people have no problem forgetting everything they know and label you as a drama-seeking troublemaker.

"If someone states that they are 'permanently leaving' a community due to a bad experience, then that's an indication that they may be considering suicide."

Nah... I'm not stupid enough to destroy myself just because other people are being unfair and mean. As Jammer correctly stated once: I'm strong enough to take it.

The reason for my statement of "permanently leaving" was quite different: I have no business staying in a place where a mob tries to silence me with mockery. Yes, I *can* take it. But I don't want to.

Now, if this situation changed somehow, then I would be happy to forget and forgive. But you've seen the most recent responses. The odds of this happening are practically nil (and there's a reason I'm responding to you and not to them).

Of-course, none of this is "personal" per-se. The rule of the majority is never "personal". That's exactly what makes it so terrifying. The current situaiton has nothing to do with me. It has to do with people being unfair to those they disagree with. To be blunt: if a community cannot hold a civil discussion without resorting to senseless mockery, then the person who happens to be on the receiving end is not the problem.

(and it's really telling that all those people who yell at me that "you haven't seen the show!" can't bring a single shred of evidence that my "preconceptions" about Discovery are wrong)

The mention of "suicide" made me wonder: Why is it that people almost never stop to think about their online behavior, until someone pulls the "suicide" trump card? Pro tip: being a bully and a jerk towards someone is not okay, period. Especially on a discussion board. Even if a person is 100% certain that being an ass isn't harming anyone in any way, they're still harming the discussion.

Really, what's the big idea of mocking decades-long Trekkies when they voice their opinion? How does this help the discussion in any way? I've sat through 700+ episodes of Star Trek, and I have a quite informed view on what "Star Trek" is. Do I need to watch a full season of - say - The Sopranos to confidently say that it isn't Star Trek? Do you realize how foolish and childish that "you gotta watch the showwwwww" rant is?

I'm getting really *really* sick of people who think that mockery is a valid subtitution to an actual argument. So to all the guys who repeatedly mocked my views, I say: Either prove me wrong or shut the f*** up.

(and to Astronut7: please tell me if anybody has written a reply worth reading. Because I'm done reading all the drivel that's directed at me here)

Set Bookmark
Fri, May 25, 2018, 10:26am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?

"Biting commentary on what exactly? Besides millennials who are too young to know better are there really people who take everything on social media as fact? And even the deeper concept, "popular opinion can be wrong" isn't really groundbreaking. It's the same idea that every comic book villain uses to rig an election."

Apparently the people here didn't learn this lesson well enough.

Popular opinion is that decade-long Trekkies who value continuity, aren't allowed to say "Discovery butchers everything I value in Star Trek" unless he subjects himself to 13 episodes of pure torture.

Luckily for people like me, this isn't Sargus IV, so those who realize how idiotic this "popular opinion" is, do not risk being lobotimized or anything like that. But still, the backlash from holding true to my views was quite harsh, and the sole reason that happened is that people confused their popular opinion with actual fact.

I must emphasize, that I respect those who have a different view of what Star Trek is, and have no problem with people who like Discovery. To each, his own.

But I have zero respect for those clowns who mercilessly mocked me for stating my own views just because I didn't meet their arbitrary qulifications criteria. You should be ashamed of your mob mentality (and Jammer, which I otherwise respect a great deal, should feel like a fool for allowing himself to get dragged down to this level).

Thanks God for the Orville, which - in a world with dystopian Trek and dystopian everything - actually gives us something hopeful to shoot for. Even if the messages of that show are not always "groundbreaking", it is obvious that humanity is still in desperate need of hearing them.

(reminds me of TOS's "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield". Obvious message with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, but then - a sledgehammer was needed)

Set Bookmark
Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 5:47am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: What's Past Is Prologue


"Trek fandom seems to have been split into two camps...those who want a new trek show to enjoy, and those who want a new trek show for them to enjoy not enjoying."

There's also a third group, who don't want to watch a thing they know they won't enjoy. People who don't like where Trek has been going in the past 10-15 years, and simply stopped tuning in.

There are many such Trekkies, in fact. But you won't hear from there here, because they are brutally silenced with personal attacks. "If you don't watch the actual show every week, you can't say anything" is the mantra. And of-course, once a guy breaks and pays this price you demand, you make fun of him being "in the camp of those who enjoy hate-watching".

Talk about Kobyashi-Maru.

The only sane way out for such people is to simply bow out. And make no mistake: There are many *many* such Trekkies. The fact that the DIS fan community have bullied them (us) into silence, does not mean that they (we) do not exist.

Now, back to your regular programming.

*leaves before the stoning begins*

Set Bookmark
Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 2:36am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Into the Forest I Go

Peter, I fully agree that it is tedious.

That's exactly the problem: This metadiscussion about "how Omicron is discussing things" is going to happen whether or not I participate in it or not.

Ignoring it isn't going to solve anything. It isn't even going to slow it down substantially, because these people discuss this among themselves without my "help". These posts will happen ANYWAY and they will occur in great numbers ANYWAY.

It would have been nice if Jammer himself put his foot down and told these people to cut it out (both derailing the discussion and attacking a fellow forum member) but this will obviously never happen.

So what options do I have left?

Well, I guess you're right about one thing: If the situation is so bad (and it is) then trying to get people to understand why I'm leaving is just as futile as following your own suggestion. Trying harder will only antagonize everyone and accomplish nothing.

So this is as good a point as any to stop.

Live Long and Prosper, and Happy Arbor Day :)

Set Bookmark
Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 1:18am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Into the Forest I Go

@Peter G.
"This all but says in plain English that you intend to only discuss off-topic matters from now on and to continue to do so no matter what anyone says."

No. I'm saying that I want to end this properly (and preferably quickly). Does that strike you as unreasonable?

And if you have a suggestion for a better, more productive course of action: I'm all ears.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Nov 18, 2017, 11:39pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Into the Forest I Go

"And you're not leaving, you will post again.... just like everyone else on the internet that announces their dramatic departure..."

The only reason "everyone else" is doing what you said, is because they face this catch-22: They're dying to explain themselves and their reasons for leaving, but how can you explain yourself after you've left?

And of course, smart assy responses like "drama queen!" or "you will post again, just like everyone else" add fuel to the fire. So before they realize what's going on, they are lured back in.... and feeling all embarssed about making a scene and then breaking their word, they soon forget all about it and pertend that nothing happened.

See, I'm very familiar with this sick dynamics, which is why I'm doing things differently. As I've already stated, I *will* remain here for as long as it takes to explain myself clearly (which, given the kind of responses I've gotten so far, will probably take quite a awhile...). But during that time, I'm refraining from participating in the actual Trek-related discussions.

And you know something? Given how common these situations are over the internet, and how hurtful responses like yours are, I find that explaining these dynamics is infinitely more important to me than talking about some TV show.

"And then the all gracious "Notice I am not responding to anyone here" and "I am trying to leave in a civilized manner" in a post peppered with four-letter words and accusations..."

I'm laying all the cards on the table and speaking candidly and frankly. That's how I speak to the people I respect: no games, no pertending, no fake politeness out of fear that the other person wouldn't be able to handle my straightforward statements.

This, to me, is what "a civilized manner" is all about.

Obviously, what I have to say isn't nice nor is it easy to hear. If everything was nice and dandy, I wouldnt be leaving, right?

Now, if Jammer or anyone else decides to judge me as an infantile kook after all this, fine. But to paraphrase Picard from "Encounter at Farpoint": If I'm going to damned, let me be damned for what I really am.

"But your views are not 'unorthodox' on this site. I would say about half of the comments here responded to DSC negatively, and that Jammer gave low scores to most of the episodes."

When I said "unorthodox", I wasn't refering to whether DSC is good or bad.

I was refering to my view that a veteran Trekkie may have legitimate issues with Discovery without needing to see a single episode.

'Rediculous!', I hear you say. Well, everybody here seems to agree with you, which is precisely why I've stated that my view is unorthodox. :)
Set Bookmark
Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 8:53am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Into the Forest I Go

"Oh, come on, @OmicronThetaDeltaPhi, spare me the victimized melodrama."

You know that I hate it when people do that?

When people think that their little community is the center of the universe, and that every person who says "this place has gone to the dogs. I'm leaving 'cause I'm not enjoying the discussions here anymore" is doing "victimized melodrama"?

To paraphrase Q and put it bluntly: This place isn't that important.

Sure, it was nice to have a place, for a change, where honesty and fairness are top priority and unorthodox views (like my own) are given a fair hearing. It was a fresh breath of air while it lasted. But that's not the case any more, so it's time for me to move on.

"My comment was a jest-y good-natured sarcastic poke aimed at a fully exposed target who has repeatedly admitted that he has not watched a show he continues to criticize on a near-weekly basis -- a position that is annoying to many of us who have actually done the homework."

See here, this is exactly my problem with what's going on here.

You *know*, that I've done my homework. You know very well that my posts are relevant and are based on actual facts. You also know that me watching the show would not have not changed a single word I've said.

Yet you (and others) still respond to me as if I'm some blabbering idiot who is posting baseless stuff.

And I'm sick of it.

And again, this isn't about "how little poor me is being mistreated, boo hoo". It's about how pointless I feel these 'discussions' are becoming. I'm sorry, but I have better things to do, other than making my views about a f***ing TV show in a hostile environment that doesn't even give them a fair hearing.

"If my little joke has changed your fundamental view of this place..."

Your "little joke" (which, by the way, wasn't your only post pestering me about this) was just the last straw in a worryingly depressing trend that's going on here lately.

"But let me make clear that it is never my goal to drive anyone from the discussion."

I believe you.

But mocking people unfairly (especially when you're the owner of this site who many people, including myself, respect and look up to) is getting the exact same result, regardless of what your actual goals were.

"Perhaps that's why, against my own better judgment..."

Why is it that people always say that after screwing things up?

You're a smart guy. Perhaps you should listen to your "better judgment" more often :)

"Look, I don't care if you ever watch Discovery. That's not the point. I know you won't, because you've told us this many, many times. So leave it at that, then ...ragging on something you refuse to watch is, well, kind of obnoxious.""

You know, I would have been *happy* to leave it at that... if some DSC fans weren't insistant on saying things like "those who dislike discovery, do so because they're afraid of change".

These guys (who are far more vocal and more numerous than me, moi and myself) are doing this ON EVERY F***ING DISCOVERY THREAD. So why does it anger you so much that I'm setting them straight?

Yes, when people say this kind of crap, I *will* tell them that they are wrong. I *will* say "Sorry but no. We dislike discovery because of A and B and C and D, and not because that silly strawman you've setup to make all nonfans look like morons".

Funny how you aren't calling these people on this behavior, yet you're continuingly pestering me for responding. Yeah, what a big obnoxious dick I am for doing so.

Speaking of which: There were quite a few people here who routinely accuse others of being a shill for the show they're a fan of. There was even a person who actually made the fantastic claim that every single fan writing on the Orville threads has to be a shill. Then there was that dude who stated that another poster should be shunned just because "he stated that B5 is better than DS9" (or was it the other way around? Doesn't really matter).

Did you call these people on their behavior? Of course not. Apparently, malicious trollish attacks on other posters annoy you less than "a guy who speaks about a show he doesn't watch".

By the way, may I remind you that I've never ever stooped down to the same level? I *never* say bad things about Discovery fans in general. Even when I talk about the show itself, I always emphasize that my issues with it do not necessarily make it bad TV show. And what do I get for all this trouble? Being singled out as some kind of trouble maker, and getting the incredible distinction of "the only person Jammer personally called on his behavior for a very long time".

In short: You're barking up the wrong tree. If you want to start calling people on their obnoxious confrontational behavior (which might actually be a good idea given the current situation) then I suggest you stop bugging honest and respectful contributors whose sole "sin" is hitting one of your pet peeves, and get to work.

If you wonder why I'm even bothering to write this reply: Normally I wouldnt. Normally I would have simply put it all behind me and move on without saying another word. But you, Jammer, deserve better. I've been part of your community for many months now, and I've come to respect you. I think that you deserve an honest and candid reply, and I also think that there's a decent chance that you'll actually take what I've said seriously.

Note that I'm not responding to anybody else. Also note that I haven't said a single world about Star Trek in this post (other then the fact that my reasons for disliking Discovery are bloody A, B, C and D. Boy, do I feel for Scotty right now...).

I'm just trying to end this in a civilized way, rather than abruptly jumping ship and slamming the door behind me. That's all.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 3:16pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Into the Forest I Go

"Wow! I was really surprised to see that @OmicronThetaDeltaPhi ponied up the six bucks to buy CBSAA and binge all the episodes. Glad you caught up! Sorry you didn't like the show! "

Not as much as I was surprised to see the actual owner of this site lowering himself to this kind of sarcastic remarks.

Very disappointing.

But you know what? Fine.

I've starting writing on your site because it *seemed* to be a place which supports an actual intelligent discussion. A place where all this "fans vs haters" crap isn't ruining everything. A place where people actually try to raise substantial points and actually care about the integrity and honesty of the discussion, rather then looking for cheap ways to score points at all costs.

Guess I was wrong.

At any rate, you will be very happy to hear, Mr. Epsicokhan, that I will not bother you or your site any longer. If you're going treat me as some kind troublemaker, then there's nothing left for me here.

(and this goes for the Orville threads as well)
Set Bookmark
Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 1:56pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Cupid's Dagger

@Ben S.

"Unlike some people on here, I'm not offended by the story or how it progressed."

I wasn't offended by the story itself either... I mean, none of the crew were themselves so whatever cringy things they did wasn't really their fault.

What did bug me, is that Derulio is never made to answer for his actions. The excuse of "it wouldn't be a big deal on my home world" doesn't really make what he did any less criminal. He obviously spent enough time around humans (he's even been on earth!) to know that it *would* be a huge deal for them.

The more I think about it, the more it bother me.

And the most frustrating thing about this is that they didn't have to change the story at all in order to fix this. Just add a small scene at the end where someone (Ed or someone else) confronts the guy and tell him that there are consequences to what he did. They could have even made it funny, if they wanted. Just let us know that the characters *aren't* okay with what the dude did (and by "not okay", I mean something a little more substantial than "you made us feel bad and we don't want to talk to you. Have a nice trip home")

I know it's a comedy, but still... The Orville is *usually* very good on the moral stuff, so it was disappointing to see them drop the ball here.
Set Bookmark
Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 2:33pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Into the Forest I Go

"Different is fine as long as it's good. Whether it's good is subjective and up for debate. Just because some people don't like what Discovery is doing doesn't mean it's because they just want rehashes of what we had before. There are legitimate criticisms of this show (and in my opinion one of those criticisms is the lack of good characters)."


Change can be good. Doing new things can be good.

The problem is the nature of these changes. The funny thing is, the main problem with Discovery is that it isn't groundbreaking *enough*.

The truth is that DSC isn't trying to be "original" or "boldly going" at all. It just tries to be trendy: From the weak logic of the plots to the dark tone to the insubordinate crew to the horribly generic design of the Discovery's bridge.. this is a series that basically screams at your face "look! we're the cool boys and we are doing all the cool things!".

And while this is, indeed, very different from what Star Trek has done in its first 40 years, this does not mean that this kind of change is good. Trek had lots of good things going for it, and dropping most of them just for the sake of "the rules of cool" is definitely a problem.

Oh, and you know what's the funniest thing here is? That the Orville, which is basically a Trek clone, feels a million times fresher and braver and more original than Discovery.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Nov 12, 2017, 12:04pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Cupid's Dagger


Mal was just fooling around with a "Fascination [DS9]" reference.

Speaking of which...

"I seriously doubt any of us have gone back to re-watch the episode in all these years. Every time I’ve ever gone back to re-watch DS9 from scratch, I skip “Fascination” (the same way I skip “Infection” when I re-watch B5 - why torture myself?).

But do yourself a favour, and go back and re-watch Fascination. It is not a 1-star episode."

I've actually watched it not that long ago, when rewatching all of DS9. It's pretty bad in my opinion. Perhaps not a 1 star episode, but it is pretty close. I liked the Orville episode better.

(then again, I adored "Move Along Home" on that rewatch, so what do I know?)
Set Bookmark
Sat, Nov 11, 2017, 9:17pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Cupid's Dagger

Well, I'll say this for "Cupid's Dagger":

It was certainly better than TNG's Naked Now (not that this says much). The comedy was okay (I did snicker quite a few tmes) and the whole thing was alot less cringeworthy than I expected it to be.

But I wouldn't exactly call this a good episode. Still too much cringe, and some of the scenes were outright disturbing (I *might* have forgiven this if the plot or the jokes were of stellar quality, but unfortunately they were not).

On the bright side, we've seen Claire's kids again! Even if it was just for one short scene. Yay for continuity! I honestly expected never to see them again.

Other things that worked: Alara was great this week. Nice to see how her character grew between "Command Performance" and this one. And the Orville continues in its tradition of putting fresh spins on old stories: the production values of this one where excellent as usual.

Oh, and was *anybody* surprised at the resolution of the "planets at war" plot? I saw it coming from a mile away. It was just so obvious...

Well, that's all for this episode. Can't wait for next week. If the promos are any indication, we're in for an interesting ride with episode #10.

(I wonder if I'm the only person here who's excited by the notion of following an all new episodes of new Trek-like TV series for the first time in 12 years. I forgot how exhilirating this is. Thanks, Seth!)

Set Bookmark
Fri, Nov 10, 2017, 4:03am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Cupid's Dagger

Oh dear.

Haven't yet gotten around to see this one (life got in the way) but I gotta say that the combination of Seth MacFarlane and the general topic presented here doesn't instill me with confidence...

We'll see how it goes.

(and off I go for a couple of days to avoid spoilers)
Set Bookmark
Thu, Nov 9, 2017, 8:35am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

@Riker's Beard

"You say that, but going off of what I've seen from your Orville comments, I think you'd be saying the same thing to someone who is doing what you're doing on all the Orville threads - forming an opinion solely through other people's posts regarding that show.

'It's a blatant Star Trek rip-off filled with crass Seth MacFarlane humor and subpar writing? What madness is this?! Gene is rolling in his grave!' "

Well, if someone would say that, I would tell him that he is wrong. And since I really like the Orville, I'll be more than happy to talk at length about the show and about *why* he is wrong.

This is true regardless of whether said fellow has actually seen the show or not.

In fact, if the guy hasn't actually watched the show, I would be thrilled to have this opportunity to spread the word about the Orville and clear some misconceptions. Who knows? Maybe after telling him that Seth's humor is really toned down on that show, he'll actually give it chance. Maybe after giving him a synopsis of episodes like "About a Girl" or "Krill", he'll have second thoughts about his claims of "subpar writing".

And maybe not. Perhaps *he* will convince *me* that the Orville really is a terrible match for him. Or perhaps he will make it clear that he isn't interested in any actual discussion, and that will be the end of it.

Either way, I find that actually talking about a show that I like is infinitely more interesting than all this meta-quibbling of "poster X didn't do Y so he's a bad bad boy". And when a situation as you described happens, it is a great opportunity to start talking :)

"To answer your question, I think Orville "demonstrates" how out-of-date that narrative and structural approach to television is by working, as far as it does, specifically as a form of kitsch. It stands out, deliberately. It is meant, by design, to harken back to an era 20 years lost."

The Orville is an oddball in the current TV landscape, there's no doubt about it. But there's also no doubt that it *does* work.

And no, it isn't some kind of nostalgic parody. The things the show borrow from 1990's TV design are played completely straight. And people love it not because of some "kitsch nostalgia" but because they really appreciate these design elements.

It's nice to have a series that tells a self-contained story in every episode. It's great to have visuals that look *real* rather than stuff that came out from some CGI machine. It's nice to have a story that proceeds in a sensible pace, which can actually be followed by a human brain in real time.

It makes much more sense in-universe, to have the interior of a starship colorful and well-lit. The Orville feels like a real ship that humans might want to live in someday, rather than a futuristic prop meant to impress us.

Then there's the bit about optimistic sci fi. I like TV shows that show a hopeful future. The fact the in actual reality the world has gone to the dogs means that we need more hope, not less.

And yes, you're right that this kind of design really stands out today. Yes, the current trend is to do things differently, but how is this relevant? The only point where "trends" might be relevant, is the question of how well the show will be recieved.

The usual excuse for following the current trends is that doing things differently "doesn't sell", and the ratings of the Orville proves this to be completely false.

Now, I'm not saying that every TV show on earth must adhere to these design choices. On the contrary: I'm saying that TV shows should do their own thing, rather than worry about some "trend". If you wanna do dark and gritty, by all means do it. But don't do it just because "that's how things are done today in the biz".
Set Bookmark
Wed, Nov 8, 2017, 8:44am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Into the Fold

"When did we find out O'Brien was married to Keiko?"

At their wedding, actually.

Not to take away from your point. It's just that this specific example wasn't a good one.

"But in the real world, lots of people have kids, and we shouldn't expect them all to be regular characters."


But you would expect a parent to *mention* his children once in a while, wouldn't you? At least if they live together on the same ship.

Again, not really a problem if it's only one character. I'm just worrying that this might be the start of trend.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Nov 7, 2017, 7:05pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Into the Fold

"Not sure how they would introduce family members otherwise, though. They are only eight episodes in. "

Having their first appearance onscreen in the manner shown in this episode is perfectly fine.

The problem is that we've never heard about these kids before. Not even a hint... which is kinda wierd, considering the amount of screen time that their mom got in the previous 7 episodes.

I guess this isn't *that* unrealistic, but it does give a strong impression of making things up as they go along. And I really hope this isn't the beginning of a trend where character back-stories are reinvented at whim to support the adventure-of-the-week.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Nov 7, 2017, 1:55pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum


"So yeah, Orville wins hands down, as it is far less offensive to me than STD. Even the stupid acronym of that show is an insult to Star Trek, just to put a cherry on top. And I know, I could abreviate it Disc, but seriously ..."

Well, to be fair, there's absolutely no logical reason to abbreviate Discovery as "STD". Do you abbreviate "Star Trek: Voyager" to "STV"?

I agree with all the other stuff you've said, though.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Nov 7, 2017, 7:27am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

"We're seeing it tried, right now, in parallel, with The Orville. The Orville is, unabashedly and transparently, TNG2017 + Seth Macfarlane Penis JokesTM. And what ORV demonstrates, above all else, is that the straight Trek 8OfficersOnAdventures template is two decades out of date."

How, exactly, does the Orville "demostrate" that?

It does very well in the ratings and already has a quite enthusiastic fanbase.

If anything, the Orville demonstrates how silly this "we gotta do everything the 2017 way, even if it stinks, in order to be competitive" argument really is.

And the Orville isn't even that great. It succeeds *because* it's premise has a large audience, and it is competently delivering the goods.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Nov 7, 2017, 5:04am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

@Pocket University
"Wasn't The Orville supposed to be the parody series?"

Not necessarily "parody", but the light-hearted one where stuff doesn't always need to make sense: yes.

The Orville was also supposed to be the series where the crew are 21st century roughly-edged everyday joes, and the one where the personal conflict between the Captain and his ex-wife XO is played for laughs.

Now, here are some questions for those who are actually watching both series:

Which of these two series has a more professional crew? Which crew has a stronger moral compass? Which series has better plot logic and more believable science? Which series is better at tackling issues in the best tradition of Star Trek?

People here have made it clear that I'm not allowed to say my own opinion on this, so instead I'm posing these as open questions. What do *you* think?
Set Bookmark
Sun, Nov 5, 2017, 8:45pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

"You're regurgitating what *another person* is saying about the show ... I think we are all far more interested in hearing what you actually have to say about this episode/the show, but you're refusing to do the actual legwork."

I've said exactly what I wanted to say about this episode, which includes - in part - the effect of what another person said on my own thoughts.

I hope that clarifies this misunderstanding.

As for the rest of your post: It is irelevant to me. I've already stated that I'm not interested in continuing this "debate" which is currently just ruining the discussion for everyone.

Now, can we please go back to discussing the show? After all, that's the reason we're all here, right?
Set Bookmark
Sun, Nov 5, 2017, 7:07pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Majority Rule

"I'm just not used to giving the passes I have to give for the Orville. In fact The Orville keeps pointing out the passes I've always given Star Trek, and making fun of them!"

Yeah, I know... it's frustrating. But objectively speaking, I don't think the Orville really is any worse in this respect than Trek. It's just different, and therefore a little difficult to get used to.

I also think that it's improving on this front. At least "Majority Rule" didn't jump abruptly from funny comedy to a mob beating a guy to death... or ruin an awe-filled meaningful ending with a really lame joke (yes, episode #4, I'm talking about you! on both counts!).

And LaMarr's behavior here was still more reasonable than Gordon in "Krill". At least this time it was an integral part of the story: Everybody else calls him out on it, and it is also cited by the Admiral as the reason for refusing to allow a rescue. Had they just added a 30 second scene at the end of him being reprimanded, this would actually be an example of very good writing.

Then we have the next epsiode (the shuttle one), which as far I remember, doesn't have ANY offenders of this type.

So it really does look like the Orville is getting better in this respect (let's hope I didn't just jinx it by posting this)...
Next ►Page 1 of 11
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2018 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.