If you want to play that card, by all means.
Are you depressed over bad reviews or simply don't give a F--?!
- Thread starter Roald
- Start date
If you want to play that card, by all means.
Please see my above comment. I addressed this. Please oh please don't give me another coronary.
I don't think so. Then I can say: you just can't deal with the notion that some people vote zero stars for reasons unrelated to the actual show. You know how heavily 0 stars weigh in the total? I think that a lot of Trek fans and general audience (depending on how much they liked the show) will vote somewhere between like 2 and 4 stars. That would be reasonable I think. How many stars would you have given Serveaux? I know you didn't like it, but I'm guessing you wouldn't give zero stars.
These types of opinions from these types of people certainly come as no surprise especially when you consider we are talking about a new Trek series. Considering the political climate in the US in particular, and the world in general, it's easy to see that Trek would be a lightening rod for spewing righty paranoia and anger.
Gonna have to disagree with you here. There is no way the humor in the first three episodes of The Orville comes up to the level of a Get Smart. "Smart" was created and written by two of the best comedy minds Hollywood has ever seen, Mel Brooks and Buck Henry. The show was a pioneer in parodies.
Get Smart is a show to which Orville should aspire.
Last edited:
Agreed, but my point is, you don't judge the quality of drama by comparing it to a comedy with a similar premise. I think it's far more fair to compare a drama to another drama, even in another genre (comparing Discovery to say, Fargo or Homeland).
I can definitely see why someone would give it zero. Especially people who really liked the tone of the previous series. There's a lot you can change to modernize a franchise, but the underlying worldview and tone is something people expect to be preserved. Growing up with the warm, optimistic series like Voyager and TNG, and even the more realistic but mostly positive DS9, I don't really want dismembered corpses, crew members who hate each other, and a complete lack of "boldly going where no one has gone before" in Star Trek. Star Trek is a form of escapism for a lot of people. We want a Star Trek universe that would be fun to live in. Discovery is not that.
I like Discovery, but to be honest...Enterprise was more uplifting and hopeful, and that's not just a reference to the theme song. Even with almost 100 years of unknown history ahead of it that had yet to be told on either the small or big screens and the dark and ominious story arcs like the Xindi crisis and the buildup to the eventual war with the Romulans ENT had a sense that while Archer and his ship and crew were going to face some grisly challenges during their time in space the future was bright. The Federation was just around the corner and not all that long after that a renaissance in the human experience unparalleled in the history of our species.
Off the top of my head I can't think of a single show i've ever seen that would fairly qualify for a ZERO star rating. I'm sure I could dig one up if I thought long enough, but really, nearly every show i've ever seen has some redeeming quality to justify a single star at least.
I mean, as Roald says, Discovery has good FX, decent acting at least, some intriguing plot points-- even the fans who said they hated it (who i've seen give actual reviews) acknowledge this.
Zero star ratings are for movies like THE ROOM, and even those have camp value!
One thing we may be forced to accept about Discovery is the lack of light-heartedness and humor, but ultimately even a grim tale can be uplifting in the end, and i'm willing to wait it out and see where the story is going before judging it as depressing.
Hacksaw Ridge was a good example of a dour and grim war film with an uplifting, hopeful message.
Not everyone wants the staid, predictable, conservative, risk free, everybody and everything is perfect trek of the 90's to return. I'll always have a special place in my heart for 90's trek, but there is a reason it died and star trek was off the air for 12 years.
Good points Albinator..!
To me, zero stars is more a statement than an actual rating. 'F-ck the CBS paywall! Zero stars for you!'
You could see it with the large number of dislikes on YouTube for the trailers. I saw people asking 'What's up with the dislikes???' Many people didn't get it. But there were things going on. We can all deny this, but there was a negative vibe before a single shot had been released.
To me, zero stars is more a statement than an actual rating. 'F-ck the CBS paywall! Zero stars for you!'
You could see it with the large number of dislikes on YouTube for the trailers. I saw people asking 'What's up with the dislikes???' Many people didn't get it. But there were things going on. We can all deny this, but there was a negative vibe before a single shot had been released.
It's also a bit of confirmation bias. With the profile Rotten Tomatoes has attained - it's now just as open/susceptible to review bombing as any other social media.
Do a lot of people care less/dislike/HATE the new Star Trek incarnation? - Yep.
Do a lot of people like the new Star Trek Incarnation? - Yep.
Do a lot of people care less/dislike/HATE "The Orville"? - Yep.
Do a lot of people like the "The Orville"? - Yep.
What I don't get is why some people feel the need to tear one or the other down to I suppose elevate the other.
"The Orville" is a Star Trek trope show - but since it isn't part of a 51 year 'franchise' - it doesn't have all the fan expectation baggage that comes with it. The people who love the old Star Trek tropes it uses are going to always view it with a "Oh, this reminds me of what I like about Star Trek, so it's good; and that fine.
I guess I'm strange as I like both. I like ST: D a lot because for me it comes across as more TOS then TNG, DS9, VOY; and I like they're trying a new story telling format (Yes, DS9 had some serialization, but not to this degree.)
I like "The Orville" because it has the simple/comfortable story structure that made TOS so rewatchable for me over the decades.
I guess I don't understand the need some have to try and objectively prove "One is BETTER than the other."
Seriously, we should be happy their of two 'space-based' shows each serving a segment of the audience (with a lot of crossover - IE people who enjoy both.)
Entertainment is always going to be subjective in there's NOTHING done that will get 100% of people saying "that was GREAT!" - just doesn't happen.
Audience scores are anything but reliable online. Anyone can vote as many times as they like (or are willing to register multiple accounts), and a divisive thing such as Discovery -- in my opinion-- has spurred huge response from negative nancy's upset that the show isn't terrible like they predicted.
Likewise, if the show HAD been terrible, I wonder if the the segment of the fandom who were predicting it to be great would have done the same, in reverse.
It's human nature: people don't want to admit they might have been wrong, and will go to great lengths to prove a false narrative.
The reason we don't see this happen often is that few things are as highly anticipated-- and are as divisive-- as Star Trek.
Ghostbusters suffered from this, on both ends: I think a lot of independent critics (not the top critics) wanted to prop it up after the unfair lambasting it received ahead of release, and in response in the opening week, the critic score was in the high 80s, while the audience score-- driven by the hateful masses who likely hadn't even gone to see it-- hovered around 20%.
But neither score was accurate. Eventually, it leveled off to a more fair 72% critic and 58% audience.
Likewise, if the show HAD been terrible, I wonder if the the segment of the fandom who were predicting it to be great would have done the same, in reverse.
It's human nature: people don't want to admit they might have been wrong, and will go to great lengths to prove a false narrative.
The reason we don't see this happen often is that few things are as highly anticipated-- and are as divisive-- as Star Trek.
Ghostbusters suffered from this, on both ends: I think a lot of independent critics (not the top critics) wanted to prop it up after the unfair lambasting it received ahead of release, and in response in the opening week, the critic score was in the high 80s, while the audience score-- driven by the hateful masses who likely hadn't even gone to see it-- hovered around 20%.
But neither score was accurate. Eventually, it leveled off to a more fair 72% critic and 58% audience.
I can definitely understand why some fans would prefer the brighter and more optimistic tone of Orville, but it's the painfully derivative and uninspired storytelling that I can't get past. I mean are people really that hungry for Berman-era Trek that they'll put up with generic rehashes of old TNG plots shot in the same static and outdated way? And didn't we already get enough of that kind of thing with VOY and ENT?!?
Discovery may not be the "ideal" Trek series we all wanted, but it's at least trying to be fresh and modern and tell a Trek story in a different and less predictable kind of way. Which makes it a whole lot more worth watching in my book.
Discovery may not be the "ideal" Trek series we all wanted, but it's at least trying to be fresh and modern and tell a Trek story in a different and less predictable kind of way. Which makes it a whole lot more worth watching in my book.
But Discovery isn't fresh and modern.
There have been more then half a dozen new shows just like it on TV this year alone.
Hell the whole plot with the spores in the latest episode was lifted almost wholesale from The Expanse.
Please list them because I'd love to see more space based science fiction like this.
As for the "Spores" of ST: D being like the "Protomolecules" of The Expanse <--- I guess you REALLY DON'T PAY ATTENTION to the TV you watch because the two story lines and plot points are NOTHING alike.
The Expanse - The ProtoMolecules are evolving Human DNA (ultimately into what no one knows.)
Star Trek: Discovery - The Spores are a new method of faster travel by warping spacetime via a new method (the U.S.S. Glenn was able to travel 90 light-years in under a minute.) The deformities and death of the Human crew aboard the Glenn was due to an accident (so far cause unknown) that caused spacetime within the ship to be uncontrollably warped.
Indeed, it doesn't deserve such reviews. My problem, though, is that I feel fans deserve better than what's being shown. They should have worked more on the story and dialogue. If any, that's what makes me depressed, not only with this show but the recent Trek movies, and even those for other franchises.
ours opinions should b taken as well, we r afterall and what know what we want and don't what in trek
TNG would've got the same treatment if the internet was around. People decided they were never going to like this show unless it had Picard or Kirk or any of the originals in it, they have very little else in their life and spend all day posting on the internet, downvoting on IMDB, posting on message boards about how much they hate it even if they don't watch it. People like this are the most vocal, I remember the same thing with Galactica, there were a handful of people who were so passionate in their hatred and spent all their time downvoting across various websites or posting about "GINO" Galactica In Name Only.
It is sad.
It is sad.
Reviews won't really matter because if enough are paying to watch it every week then that is all TPTB will care about, subscribers=viewers=happy excecs.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
