Discovery and "The Orville" Comparisons

[Commishsleer]

There are four first-rate episodes, a few good ones and too much Planet Of The WTF - Nazis, David Souls, Romans, Blonde Vietnamese, Tea Party Cavemen...



Ain't nobody got time for that shit - "downvoting" is mainly fan paranoia and frustration at people liking what they don't like.

"Amok Time", "Mirror Mirror", :"Journey To Babel", "Trouble With Tribbles", "Doomsday Machine". "Obsession", "The Ultimate Computer"... are truly great episodes. Even the other less celebrated episodes have a lot of original ideas.
Sure you can pick a few bad episode but if I was to apply your same level of criticism to TNG or VOY Season 2 you'd have no episodes left.

There is downvoting in the Discovery "people" votes. As I've mentioned before in another thread - I went through perhaps a 100 of the zero voters in "Rotten Tomatoes". It was full of GR would roll in his grave, why are we catering to the LGBT community, why isn't it set in the 24th Century?
Be that as it may even if there is deliberate downvoting, that means that there are at least say 1000 Star Trek fans who won't be watching Discovery and maybe a lot that can't be bothered voting. Whether or not they are judging Discovery "fairly" is there enough of these fans that CBS should cater for.
And is it worthwhile. Are you ever going to please them anyway?

 

[Prax]

It's not true

 

[Commishsleer]

It is

 

[rhllot]

I'm trying to catch up with the episodes.

There is something that bothers me. Why do people in the future watch TV shows from the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st?

if the entertainment is important for the society of the future they should have their own cultural industry dedicated to it. for example people in futurama watch TV shows from the 31st century.

if for some reason they no longer have an entertainment industry at that time because they do not pass more advanced TV programs to our time in the middle of our century or the XXII century.

because in their holographic games they recreate old societies for us and not modern for us and old for them. I remember in a episode of futurama where they went to the movies fry wanted to see a movie that was similar to Star Wars and Leela says she does not want to see a historical documentary.

maybe it's because futurama was a better written and more realistic show hironically

 

[Mudd]

Someone hating the show because it violates their idea of Roddenberry's ideas - which isn't my problem with it - is not "organized downvoting." Count the nwgarive comments. It's a guy with an opinion you don't like, same as TrekBBS; whatever they claim, you know they watched the freebie on broadcast.

 

[The Habs Fan]

Lots of great Season 2 episodes in TOS. I just can't see the repetition there.

I'm not in the US so I haven't seen the Orville.
Why has it got an 18% critics rating? And ranks so high (relatively) in the people's vote.
I'm hoping its as good as the people say and not just the haters of Discovery rating it high.

I like it in a nostalgia type of way but IMO it doesn't have that much substance and is extremely derivative of TNG. It's okay but not great (again in my opinion).

 

[The Habs Fan]

Someone hating the show because it violates their idea of Roddenberry's ideas - which isn't my problem with it - is not "organized downvoting." It's a guy with an opinion you don't like, same as TrekBBS.

It's not organized downvoting but with it being called Star Trek it brings the extra baggage of trying to meet people's expectations of what Star Trek should be. Unfortunately, everybody has differing opinions on what Star Trek should be, probably because Star Trek itself has changed a lot from series to series, that it can't please everybody. In fact, it looks like it can only please over half of the Trekkies who bothered to vote at Rotten Tomatoes. Disliking a show because it's not set in the 24th century is not a good barometer to determine if a show is good or not. The Orville carries none of that baggage. If it was branded as a Star Trek show, I bet the audience ratings would be just as divisive.

 

[Roald]

It's not organized downvoting but with it being called Star Trek it brings the extra baggage of trying to meet people's expectations of what Star Trek should be. Unfortunately, everybody has differing opinions on what Star Trek should be, probably because Star Trek itself has changed a lot from series to series, that it can't please everybody. In fact, it looks like it can only please over half of the Trekkies who bothered to vote at Rotten Tomatoes. Disliking a show because it's not set in the 24th century is not a good barometer to determine if a show is good or not. The Orville carries none of that baggage. If it was branded as a Star Trek show, I bet the audience ratings would be just as divisive.

Agreed 100%
Especially the disliking because it's not set in the 24th century not being a fair barometer... and DSC has numberous of these unfair barometers:
-because you have to pay for AA and the rest of the world gets in on Netflix...
-because the main lead is not a white male
-because there are gays on the show
-because CBS fucked Axanar
Etc etc
Of course there are people that just don't like the show, that's fine. But the show gets a mediocre overall audience score because of many reasons, most have them having nothing to do with the quality of the show.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Just imagine if we had the internet as it is now but in 1987. I doubt TNG would hold that high IMDb rating it currently enjoys now (and ranked over TOS).

A funny thought, the latest episode of TNG 30 years ago was "Lonely Among Us". Not only think of that, but think how there's folks in the latest episode thread ranking it down there with "Threshold" and the other worst of Trek. Yet 30 years ago on this date the upcoming episode was "Justice".

We're so much better off. Frankly, we're spoiled just for getting any passably decent Trek. I think the show can be better, but am aware it can be a whole lot worse.

 

[BillJ]

A funny thought, the latest episode of TNG 30 years ago was "Lonely Among Us". Not only think of that, but think how there's folks in the latest episode thread ranking it down there with "Threshold" and the other worst of Trek. Yet 30 years ago on this date the upcoming episode was "Justice".

I really like "Lonely Among Us", and think "Justice" is passable. They were both fun and entertaining to watch.

 

[Mudd]

"The Big Goodbye" and "Conspiracy" were probably my favorites from TNG's first season. There are perhaps two from the second season that I really liked, as well.

Second season of TOS? The really outstanding ones are "Amok Time," "The Doomsday Machine," "Mirror, Mirror" and...oh, maybe "The Trouble With Tribbles." "Journey To Babel" and "The Ultimate Computer" are the best of the second tier. None of the parallel world stories are worth a spit other than "A Piece Of The Action" which technically isn't one. So you've got a season full of that foolishness and other paint-by-numbers melodrama like "The Apple" and "Obsession."

No excellent episodes in the third year and only a couple of good ones - "The Tholian Web" and "The Enterprise Incident."

 

[BillJ]

I know I've gotten a lot more mileage out of TOS, the first couple of seasons of TNG and TMP than I have out of the rest of Trek combined.

I've probably seen "Spock's Brain", "Code of Honor" and The Motion Picture more than "The Best of Both Worlds", "The Inner Light" and "In the Pale Moonlight".

 

[Mudd]

I liked BOBW - that was a fun time in general, where TNG was concerned, because it bumped Trek up to being something like a legitimate mass phenomenon in this country for a few years. "The Inner Light" was okay, certainly among the most liked episodes; "In The Pale Moonlight" is kind of a con, which is oddly appropriate.

 

[Refuge]

It's not organized downvoting but with it being called Star Trek it brings the extra baggage of trying to meet people's expectations of what Star Trek should be. Unfortunately, everybody has differing opinions on what Star Trek should be, probably because Star Trek itself has changed a lot from series to series, that it can't please everybody. In fact, it looks like it can only please over half of the Trekkies who bothered to vote at Rotten Tomatoes. Disliking a show because it's not set in the 24th century is not a good barometer to determine if a show is good or not. The Orville carries none of that baggage. If it was branded as a Star Trek show, I bet the audience ratings would be just as divisive.

I think it's not quite as complicated as everyone having differing opinions there are definite trends. Disliking it because it's not set in the 24th century is not uncommon but that probably isn't as much a deal breaker as the show not working in the time frame it IS in. I would hope that voting would be based on the actual shows seen not on original disappointment about its setting. (I haven't voted myself. I'm not inclined. Even though I'm not a huge fan of Discovery thus far, I wouldn't want to officially undermine Star Trek).

 

[Mudd]

I've never voted at Rotten Tomatoes. Prime Directive, you know.

 

[BillJ]

I liked BOBW...

I do too. But, when I look at my Trek viewing habits, I just get more mileage out of the first two seasons of TNG versus what came later. I'm a sick pup, I know.

 

[Mudd]

You know, I haven't watched a re-run of any Trek but TOS in some years - and TOS mainly because it's on basic cable and my SO is dipping into it.

I think she likes it partly because of the "game" - I'll be working on the computer in the living room and hear the first couple of notes of the episode score and will yell the title and synopsis into the den. She gets a kick out of that - "How do you know?"

 

[fireproof78]

Agreed 100%
Especially the disliking because it's not set in the 24th century not being a fair barometer... and DSC has numberous of these unfair barometers:
-because you have to pay for AA and the rest of the world gets in on Netflix...
-because the main lead is not a white male
-because there are gays on the show
-because CBS fucked Axanar
Etc etc
Of course there are people that just don't like the show, that's fine. But the show gets a mediocre overall audience score because of many reasons, most have them having nothing to do with the quality of the show.

Selection bias.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I know I've gotten a lot more mileage out of TOS, the first couple of seasons of TNG and TMP than I have out of the rest of Trek combined.

I've probably seen "Spock's Brain", "Code of Honor" and The Motion Picture more than "The Best of Both Worlds", "The Inner Light" and "In the Pale Moonlight".

You are history's biggest monster.

 

[Mudd]

Selection bias.

Yep, there's that in virtually every online poll.

I'd be tempted to point out that unhappy people participate in these things out of proportion to satisfied customers, but that doesn't explain how strongly positive audience reaction is to some shows and movies - like, say, The Orville.