Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time

[GeekUSACarl]

Does the conversation of discovery vs orville have to spill over everywhere?

I mean there are 2 threads about orville in two different places, one of them is specifically geared towards these comparisons,

I aint no one's boss and I haven't been on these boards that long but sheesh.

 

[eschaton]

None of them play the same way. I say that as someone who has seen all the above episodes numerous times over the years.

What's more, Star Trek ripped itself off many times. TMP was basically a high-budget ripoff of The Changeling. Voyager's Jetrel was a really poor attempt to redo DS9's Duet.

There are examples of Star Trek ripping off outside media as well. Starship Down was basically Das Boot. A Matter of Perspective was the TNG writers doing their take on Rashomon. Starship Mine was TNG's attempt to do Die Hard (not to mention the place that the TNG writers got the idea they could make Picard into some sort of action hero.

As has been repeatedly said, it's hard to come up with original plot concepts in fiction any longer which are relatable. What matters is execution.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

What's more, Star Trek ripped itself off many times. TMP was basically a high-budget ripoff of The Changeling. Voyager's Jetrel was a really poor attempt to redo DS9's Duet.

There are examples of Star Trek ripping off outside media as well. Starship Down was basically Das Boot. A Matter of Perspective was the TNG writers doing their take on Rashomon. Starship Mine was TNG's attempt to do Die Hard (not to mention the place that the TNG writers got the idea they could make Picard into some sort of action hero.

As has been repeatedly said, it's hard to come up with original plot concepts in fiction any longer which are relatable. What matters is execution.

yeah, the execution is pretty much the best we can hope for with some of the "smaller" considerations to be original-ish.

 

[Roald]

Does the conversation of discovery vs orville have to spill over everywhere?

I mean there are 2 threads about orville in two different places, one of them is specifically geared towards these comparisons,

I aint no one's boss and I haven't been on these boards that long but sheesh.

Agreed, isn't there an Orville bbs out there? Imagine me going in there, posting over and over how awful the Orville is while praising another show..... those members would prob go WTF big time....
It's like your inside a U2 forum and someone keeps popping up saying how U2 sucks and Coldplay is so much better....

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

None of them play the same way. I say that as someone who has seen all the above episodes numerous times over the years.

As far as I'm concerned, the similarities are too obvious to merely be coincidences. It's like McFarlane and crew just said to each other "what if we did our own take on this Star Trek story"? The fact that Braga is involved makes me almost certain that it's intentional. Braga told the same story over and over a LOT.

 

[Greg Cox]

Has anyone noticed that the war is really the backdrop of DSC and not the focus, except me? And "likable" does not necessarily translate into "a perfect person" or even a "good" person. I love Burnham, Stamets, Lorca, Saru, Tilly, and even though I think he's I like Tyler, too. .

Exactly. I've always resisted that idea that characters have to be "likable" or, worse yet, "admirable" to be interesting. I just want them to be flesh-and-blood human beings with virtues, flaws, quirks, and all that human stuff. To my mind, "bland" and"boring" are the only character traits I can't forgive.

 

[BillJ]

Agreed, isn't there an Orville bbs out there?

Who knows? But we're members here and discussing two shows.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Who knows? But we're members here and discussing two shows.

in how many different threads do you have to go on and on about it?

 

[BillJ]

in how many different threads do you have to go on and on about it?

I guess in however many threads it gets brought up. It is usually brought up by Discovery fans trying to pump up their own show.

 

[Roald]

I guess in however many threads it gets brought up. It is usually brought up by Discovery fans trying to pump up their own show.

Which is pretty weird to do in a message board for fans of said show.
Oh wait..

 

[GeekUSACarl]

I guess in however many threads it gets brought up. It is usually brought up by Discovery fans trying to pump up their own show.

I can't possibly be the only person who kinda rolls their eyes when they go into a thread to discuss Roddenberry's vision vs the show discovery and find not only all of this, but of people then pointing fingers and saying it's his or her fault or it's that group's fans or this group's fans.

Can't a thread about Roddenberry's vision and discovery be about Rod's vision and discovery?

 

[BillJ]

Threads drift.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

Exactly. I've always resisted that idea that characters have to be "likable" or, worse yet, "admirable" to be interesting. I just want them to be flesh-and-blood human beings with virtues, flaws, quirks, and all that human stuff. To my mind, "bland" and"boring" are the only character traits I can't forgive.

Bang on. This is why so many sitcoms revolve around repugnant people. They're more funny. And why we have so few cop shows or legal dramas about crusading cops/lawyers who always get their man, and why medical dramas like Ben Casey where doctors were always life-saving superheroes are a think of the past. I remember how refreshing it seemed, watching BSG, that the characters were allowed to dislike or even hate each other, screw up, develop addictions or sleep around.

The idea that a character has to be admirable to be interesting is almost the reverse of the truth. The more admirable the lead character is, the less relatable they are. Picard was admirable in a lot of ways but he had flaws. If he'd been nothing but admirable qualities he would have bored me silly.

 

[eschaton]

As far as I'm concerned, the similarities are too obvious to merely be coincidences. It's like McFarlane and crew just said to each other "what if we did our own take on this Star Trek story"? The fact that Braga is involved makes me almost certain that it's intentional. Braga told the same story over and over a LOT.

McFarlane said back in 2011 he wanted to be the showrunner for a Star Trek reboot. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of Orville episodes are reworked spec scripts from his original ideas for this series.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Bang on. This is why so many sitcoms revolve around repugnant people. They're more funny. And why we have so few cop shows or legal dramas about crusading cops/lawyers who always get their man, and why medical dramas like Ben Casey where doctors were always life-saving superheroes are a think of the past. I remember how refreshing it seemed, watching BSG, that the characters were allowed to dislike or even hate each other, screw up, develop addictions or sleep around.

The idea that a character has to be admirable to be interesting is almost the reverse of the truth. The more admirable the lead character is, the less relatable they are. Picard was admirable in a lot of ways but he had flaws. If he'd been nothing but admirable qualities he would have bored me silly.

Yup, the story needs to be compelling, sometimes it's a likeable character, sometimes not.

BUT i'll say with running shows, it's a lot easier to snag viewers if there are a mix. I like, that I don't like or trust Lorca, Who doesn't love a good villain?

Darth Vader, horrible human being, people love that guy.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Threads drift.

There is a difference between threads drifting, and people spilling arguments and discussion from one thread into another one, that are both active.

I've said my peace on it, like I said, I aint the boss of anyone.

 

[fireproof78]

Agreed, isn't there an Orville bbs out there? Imagine me going in there, posting over and over how awful the Orville is while praising another show..... those members would prob go WTF big time....
It's like your inside a U2 forum and someone keeps popping up saying how U2 sucks and Coldplay is so much better....

Saw this all the time Kelvin Trek, so nothing new here.

Exactly. I've always resisted that idea that characters have to be "likable" or, worse yet, "admirable" to be interesting. I just want them to be flesh-and-blood human beings with virtues, flaws, quirks, and all that human stuff. To my mind, "bland" and"boring" are the only character traits I can't forgive.

For some reason I like bland and boring, but that's usually because I can identify with them on some level. But, I prefer flawed human beings as well, like Kirk

I can't possibly be the only person who kinda rolls their eyes when they go into a thread to discuss Roddenberry's vision vs the show discovery and find not only all of this, but of people then pointing fingers and saying it's his or her fault or it's that group's fans or this group's fans.

Can't a thread about Roddenberry's vision and discovery be about Rod's vision and discovery?

No, not really.

 

[Feron]

Quite honestly, the cast reaction to Wesley in early TNG was far, far more irritating than Wesley himself.

It wasn't Will Wheaton's performance that was irritating. It was what Wesley Crusher represented. He was the Mary Sue character of all Mary Sues.

Additionally, for a show that wore its' "progressive" viewpoint on its' sleeve, I was astonished that it celebrated a poster-child for "priviledge" as a wonderful thing. On Picard's ship, people who had graduated from the Academy and had worked their way up the ranks in a long process were just instantly pushed aside for a 15 year old untrained child because Jean Luc was pals with the kids' dad. That is reprehensible, and this is coming from someone who tends to be more libertarian / conservative politically and socially.

Some of the same folks who are outraged that Lorca has kept his command in part due to

Spoiler

sleeping with an Admiral

were completely OK with an immature untrained child getting a field promotion to serving on the bridge of the Enterprise in large part just because Picard had warm feelings for the child's parents in a futuristic good ole boy's club.

The key difference is that Lorca is not being portrayed as being a hero, Wesley and Picard most certainly were portrayed as such.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

I can't possibly be the only person who kinda rolls their eyes when they go into a thread to discuss Roddenberry's vision vs the show discovery and find not only all of this, but of people then pointing fingers and saying it's his or her fault or it's that group's fans or this group's fans.

Can't a thread about Roddenberry's vision and discovery be about Rod's vision and discovery?

This is also a testament to how much Roddenberry's Vision was BS and really isn't able to stand up to such a long discussion.

 

[BillJ]

The key difference is that Lorca is not being portrayed as being a hero, Wesley and Picard most certainly were portrayed as such.

The difference is Lorca is supposed to be a key cog in the Federation's war effort, not someone staring at a panel a few hours at a time to get experience.