I don't remember Dr. Crusher (or Pulaski) ever having a permanent station on the bridge?
Kor
Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time
- Thread starter Sci-fi fan
- Start date
I don't remember Dr. Crusher (or Pulaski) ever having a permanent station on the bridge?
Kor
The thing is, Sarek became increasingly more sympathetic over the years. To me, this fits perfectly because his admission to Spock that he "may have been in error" was the closest he could come to admitting that he was utterly in the wrong for being angry at Spock.
Anyway, this again proves that Trekkers are not some kind of autonomous unit that always thinks in lockstep with each other, which is why I think it's so silly when people start demanding that CBS (or UPN or Paramount back in the day) "give fans what they want". Each fan wants different things.
I agree. If you ask ten Trek fans what they want, you'd get twelve different answers. I know that lots of people enjoy the type of filling-in-the-details stories like what Discovery is doing.
I'm just not one of them. I wouldn't want any new series to go back and rewrite character motivations for any of the series. I'd rather they stand on their own.
But we never delved into Sarek's motivations for his behavior toward Spock, other than "tradition!"
I thought it was rather poignant that Sarek might be reacting out of guilt and anger for having chosen Spock over Burnham and to then have Spock dismiss the opportunity he'd secured for him. It means there was a personal cost to Sarek that ran a little deeper than pride.
I thought it was rather poignant that Sarek might be reacting out of guilt and anger for having chosen Spock over Burnham and to then have Spock dismiss the opportunity he'd secured for him. It means there was a personal cost to Sarek that ran a little deeper than pride.
I think that, for me, is also where DSC is bogging itself down. In wanting to have the series fill in the blanks and pave the way for TOS, it's getting stuck in too much of the continuity. I would rather they started with the third episode, not worry too much about every single detail about every single character, and just let the story be told as the series progressed.
Exactly. People's motivation are rarely black and white, and Sarek definitely came across as a traditionalist, which is even represented in his initial presentation in ST 09.
I'm...speechless. Dennis said something relatively complimentary about Discovery!
I think there was a lot more than just tradition there. I think a huge part of it (as seen by the writers of the time), was that the half-human Spock was rejecting his Vulcan heritage. As Sarek's only (at the time) offspring, Spock was essentially rejecting everything Sarek was and wanted for him.
Journey to Babel said:
And "The Orville" is - considering 4 of their 7 eps. are practically remakes of TOS/TNG epiusodes?
Just saying it appears you like that The Orville is for the most part rehashing what has been done before.
Adding something that makes Sarek's motives more understandable is not a bad thing. Most Trekkers like Sarek, and this just, dare I say it, humanizes him. See, Vulcans really aren't as "all that" as they think they are. They never have been. So, to see that Sarek's behavior was driven more by guilt and not just by the idea that he'd failed to raise a truly Vulcan son really was nice.
Well, they aren't practically remakes. Regardless of what people say. They put their own definitive spin on them.
Again, I say, I strongly suspect that most of the crazy support The Orville is getting from Trekkers stems from their need for something that feels familiar and comfortable and doesn't challenge their expectations. I want my Trek to challenge me, to wrench me out of my comfort zone. I want to watch Star Trek and not feel like I'm watching an episode of TNG or VGR with a new cast of colorless ciphers. This is the same complaint everyone had about ENT, back in 2001, but now it seems like they demand exactly that or they cry foul.
And again, I really, really don't understand the mindset that Discovery is the dull one that plays it safe and goes where we've gone before while The Orville is the creative, imaginative one. I understand preferring one to the other, but really, it's entirely backward that DSC plays it safe and Orville is creative. Orville is TNG-lite at best.
Wounded pride is also an emotion. One shown by Sarek in TOS, and later The Voyage Home.
Nah, dress it up however you want to. They're ripoffs.
And TWOK ripped of Moby Dick, and Shakespearean works. TOS ripped of "Space Cadet" and "Forbidden Planet."
Orville has its own charm and characters, and even deals with consequences of their actions. It's trying to be its own thing.
So it fits perfectly.
Then so is all of Star Trek: Discovery.
Crazy captain: check.
Redemption story character: check.
Abuse of space life form: check.
Geeky, awkward young character: check.
I can go on and on...
Discovery hasn't literally remade whole episodes. You're just picking a few things that are roughly similar to stuff that's happened in the past and drawing a false equivalency.
Which whole episode of TNG or TOS has The Orville done?
"If the Stars Should Appear" = "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky".
