To me they seem like sitcom characters put into a Star Trek setting.
Perhaps it says more about me the kinds of damaged characters I relate to
Better series lead. Ed Mercer from "Orville" vs Burnham from "Discovery?"
- Thread starter Jayson1
- Start date
Not sure how disliking Discovery makes someone a bigoted racist mysognist when my favourite characters were Tilly (a woman), Stamets (a homosexual) and Georgiou (an Asian).
The Orville has better characters and writing. That's why it's a better show and why Mercer is a better character than Boreham. It's more like Star Trek than Discovery has been to date and that's a good thing considering how disappointing Discovery has been so far.
Either way we've got Picard coming back in a new show, multiple spin offs in development and Season 2 of The Orville. Not to mention Season 2 of Discovery is basically The Cage as a series. It's a good time to be a Trekkie.
The Orville has better characters and writing. That's why it's a better show and why Mercer is a better character than Boreham. It's more like Star Trek than Discovery has been to date and that's a good thing considering how disappointing Discovery has been so far.
Either way we've got Picard coming back in a new show, multiple spin offs in development and Season 2 of The Orville. Not to mention Season 2 of Discovery is basically The Cage as a series. It's a good time to be a Trekkie.
This is an oft repeated sentiment that I don't get. I'm glad people like Orville-I do to. I don't like it because it feels like Star Trek though.
I like Star Trek. I like the Orville. I like Stargate. They all have their own distinct feel, even within each show. I don't get a Star Trek vibe in Orville like I do Discovery, though that vibe is different than TNG, DS9, and VOY.Since I like Star Trek, I think it is a bonus when a show actually feels like it.
And, yes, this is completely arbitrary, since "feel" is highly subjective and it sounds like a "I know it when I see it thing." I don't watch Orville and go "Oh, they are doing Star Trek." I watch and go "That was entertaining." And that might be the difference as I have noted with many here. Discovery is not entertaining for them. Well, something can be Star Trek and not be entertaining. That doesn't change the "feel" of it for me to more Star Trek feel.
I really have no idea how to describe this, and it is starting to come across as condescending, which isn't what I want it to be. But, I truly don't get the "feels like Star Trek" argument with Discovery. Or, maybe my rejection of TNG is because it doesn't "feel" like Star Trek...I don't know any more
I like Star Trek. I like the Orville. I like Stargate. They all have their own distinct feel, even within each show. I don't get a Star Trek vibe in Orville like I do Discovery, though that vibe is different than TNG, DS9, and VOY.
And, yes, this is completely arbitrary, since "feel" is highly subjective and it sounds like a "I know it when I see it thing." I don't watch Orville and go "Oh, they are doing Star Trek." I watch and go "That was entertaining." And that might be the difference as I have noted with many here. Discovery is not entertaining for them. Well, something can be Star Trek and not be entertaining. That doesn't change the "feel" of it for me to more Star Trek feel.
I really have no idea how to describe this, and it is starting to come across as condescending, which isn't what I want it to be. But, I truly don't get the "feels like Star Trek" argument with Discovery. Or, maybe my rejection of TNG is because it doesn't "feel" like Star Trek...I don't know any more
We all see things differently due to the totality of our experiences in the world. No harm in liking Discovery, no harm in thinking it feels like Star Trek. I just don't see it from my perspective.
And yet you're perfectly willing to pigeonhole anyone who disagrees and offers up any constructive criciticism, which is a slippery slope. It's as if nobody is allowed to criticize the show. Take a deep breath and relax. Nothing is worth getting so worked up about.
I love Star Trek when it's done well. I'm way past hanging in with bad Trek projects hoping that they'll improve; there are too many entertainment choices and life's too short.
I didn't say better entertainment choices - although in general I do prefer to spend my time on better than STD* - because I confess to watching an hour a week of something just as bad.** I don't have an investment in it, nor particularly high expectations and when it's cancelled I wont mourn.
* The Orville is a lot better than STD, so reholster that snark.
** The new Magnum, P.I.
I didn't say better entertainment choices - although in general I do prefer to spend my time on better than STD* - because I confess to watching an hour a week of something just as bad.** I don't have an investment in it, nor particularly high expectations and when it's cancelled I wont mourn.
* The Orville is a lot better than STD, so reholster that snark.
** The new Magnum, P.I.
Last edited:
Same here. And maybe it's a bit too obvious, but we're all Trek fans here, with varying degrees of like and dislike, and just because we dislike one series doesn't make us any less of a fan. In fact, if I'm offering up criticisms, it's because I wish to see things done better because of my love for the franchise. But at the same time, I don't begrudge anyone for liking what they like.
I've seen Discovery. Well parts of it anyway, and enough to make up my mind about it and know it wasn't for me. I've moved on since, yet the inclusion of Pike has me curious and might check out Season 2. It still has time to win me back. If my main criticisms about the show are fixed, then I'll be pleasantly surprised.
I'm just hung up on the "feel" of Star Trek. Like my brain cannot seem to make sense of that...
I think part of the "feel" is the overall outlook of the show. Star Trek, prior to Discovery, was generally optimistic, hopeful for the future, had a fun vibe about it that kinda poked fun at it all. Less so during the Berman years, but still there. It was also in abundance in the Abrams films. And it is there in The Orville.
Discovery just has this vibe of taking it all very seriously. War, mutiny, angst, evil government... all the ingredients of modern TV but the overall Trek universe simply doesn't match the dark angsty vibe.
It is all in my opinion.
I think "Discovery" does feel like Trek but unlike "Orville" which also feels like it I think Discovery feels like it has lost some of the more fun things that came with Trek in order to expand it's appeal and be more appealing to casual fans but failed somewhat in being the show it wants to be. Not a complete failure but not a complete success either. It's sort of in the middle of being mediocre Trek and medicore edgy drama. Some of it works and some of it fails. What I will say is when it does work it doesn't reach the heights of great Trek or the heights of a great more modern adult drama either.
It always feels kind of average, except some of the characters you feel could be used to make it a great show. What's neat about the characters is how I think you could totally embrace old school Trek and they work on that level or go full on adult drama and work like that as well. As much as I like the characters on Orville I could never see them being used if the show all of sudden wanted to be a edgy HBO style show. "Discovery" has the potential maybe not ever be as much relaxing fun that "Orville" is but it could IMO become something more special if you have improved writing. It could be just as good as "Battlestar Galatica" IMO if it wanted to or even if wanted to still be old school Trek it could be as good as "TOS" and "DS9." "Orville's" potential maxes out at being a better version of "TNG."
Jason
It always feels kind of average, except some of the characters you feel could be used to make it a great show. What's neat about the characters is how I think you could totally embrace old school Trek and they work on that level or go full on adult drama and work like that as well. As much as I like the characters on Orville I could never see them being used if the show all of sudden wanted to be a edgy HBO style show. "Discovery" has the potential maybe not ever be as much relaxing fun that "Orville" is but it could IMO become something more special if you have improved writing. It could be just as good as "Battlestar Galatica" IMO if it wanted to or even if wanted to still be old school Trek it could be as good as "TOS" and "DS9." "Orville's" potential maxes out at being a better version of "TNG."
Jason
I wouldn't even rate it as "mediocre edgy drama". Clearly that is what the writers wanted us to see, but it definitely wasn't. Now, whether that is a failure of the writers or due to decrees from CBS because they don't want to damage the overall brand is anyone's guess.
I think I knew the show was in trouble when the Isaacs ad-lib about God story came out.
It's funny really, since I'm finding Discovery to be the best Trek since Deep Space Nine. Like with Deep Space Nine the characters have depth, room to grow and actual development. It's certainly not perfect, but it's first season is easily superior to the majority of season 1 of TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT. That alone makes me optimistic.
As for not feeling like Trek, I'm not really sure about that. Trek has varied so much over the decades there's not really any one feeling. TOS, the TOS-movies and TNG are so different they really don't feel like the same universe (Ignoring the TOS movies, TNG had Klingons with new makeup, Romulans with new make up, no Orions, no Gorn, no Tholians, no Andorians and no Tellarites, like they were embarrassed to be associated with TOS and were instead trying to be a reboot, right down to redoing old TOS stories).
TOS was a fun family friendly adventure show, while TNG was a bit of an overly-serious show for sci-fi nerds. Discovery is simply this decades interpretation of Trek.
Again, it's got plenty of problems, but I feel it's got a lot more promise than TNG had in it's frst half.
As for not feeling like Trek, I'm not really sure about that. Trek has varied so much over the decades there's not really any one feeling. TOS, the TOS-movies and TNG are so different they really don't feel like the same universe (Ignoring the TOS movies, TNG had Klingons with new makeup, Romulans with new make up, no Orions, no Gorn, no Tholians, no Andorians and no Tellarites, like they were embarrassed to be associated with TOS and were instead trying to be a reboot, right down to redoing old TOS stories).
TOS was a fun family friendly adventure show, while TNG was a bit of an overly-serious show for sci-fi nerds. Discovery is simply this decades interpretation of Trek.
Again, it's got plenty of problems, but I feel it's got a lot more promise than TNG had in it's frst half.
I like Star Trek. I like the Orville. I like Stargate. They all have their own distinct feel, even within each show. I don't get a Star Trek vibe in Orville like I do Discovery, though that vibe is different than TNG, DS9, and VOY.
And, yes, this is completely arbitrary, since "feel" is highly subjective and it sounds like a "I know it when I see it thing." I don't watch Orville and go "Oh, they are doing Star Trek." I watch and go "That was entertaining." And that might be the difference as I have noted with many here. Discovery is not entertaining for them. Well, something can be Star Trek and not be entertaining. That doesn't change the "feel" of it for me to more Star Trek feel.
I really have no idea how to describe this, and it is starting to come across as condescending, which isn't what I want it to be. But, I truly don't get the "feels like Star Trek" argument with Discovery. Or, maybe my rejection of TNG is because it doesn't "feel" like Star Trek...I don't know any more
I can't watch the Orville without getting a this is Star Trek! feeling. The colors, music, storylines and general aesthetics feel like Trek to me. With Discovery I have to ignore everything I know about Star Trek and pretend I am watching some other generic sci fi show in order to not nitpick and to suspend disbelief.
Last edited:
As much as I know that optimism was part of GR's basic premise, I never came away with a "fun" feel from Trek when I watched it, aside from the occasional episode like "Trouble with Tribbles." But, my first exposure to Trek was "Balance of Terror" which did not have that "fun" feel to it. Not necessarily an over-dramatization either, but I wouldn't say "fun" for my experience of Trek. Certainly not with watching TWOK, or TSFS or TUC. Definitely would not say that with TNG or DS9. But, all of those are still Star Trek to me.
I'm not saying DISCO perfectly fits prior Trek, but more that Trek has a variance in its feel that has changed from production to production. And Orville has a far more "tongue in cheek" feel to it than I think Star Trek, aside from the occasional episode or movie. So, I cannot agree on the same feel as Star Trek, aside from surface level details.
But, as I've stated before, feel is highly subjective, and not one that I rely upon for determining a show's worth.
Again, I don't get this, either with Discovery or the Orville. Discovery, like Abrams Trek, is enhanced by my knowledge of Trek, not detracted.
I agree somewhat that "Discovery" is the best Trek in awhile. Not counting the Kelvinverse movies which I love even though they are kind of escapism much like "Orville" only a different kind of escapism and that is the fun big budget action movie variety. Not to mention it's just nice to still see some fun action escapism that isn't yet another comic book movie. "Force Awakens" also worked that way as well. I would also say "Discovery is better than all 4 seasons of "Enterprise" and is the best Trek season since season 5 of "Voyager."
Jason
Their main purpose with Burnham initially, wasn't to make her "likable". If making her likable was that important for the character, they would never have let her do the things she did in the Vulcan Hello. Nor was their purpose to make Burnham dislikable, even though they involved her in an incident with a hostile Klingon and had her commit mutiny.
No, initially, the writers' purpose was to make Burnham interesting, then later, sympathetic, and even later, heroic. One may still not "like" Burnham, especially if one is still hung up on the mutiny, but there is much more going on with the character than mere likability.
I agree that was the intended arc with Burnham. It's not a bad idea just not executed very well or terribly acted well either IMO though many like her better as a actress than I do. I still see her as second teir talent. Good enough for a role like Sasha on "Walking Dead" but not someone I would want to build a show around. It makes me so wish we had gotten Rosario Dawson. Still I think they can work around it. Great writing IMO always can elevate a actor who is at least competent and I think she is that. Heck that is kind of like it is with Mercer. McFarlande is even worst of a actor but the material and his overall charm sells the whole thing with the character.
Jason
Which they failed at in a major way. With no buildup, without getting to know the character, everything hangs on exposition. People standing around talking about how great Burnham is, people sitting around talking about how awful she is.
And the damnedest thing? She was the one who was right all along. Georgiou was wrong, Admiral Dickhead was wrong, the secret Starfleet court martial was wrong. And we all knew it right from the beginning. It was all telegraphed where this was going to go. A big red reset button on the character, complete with a bad speech and a medal. They did the worst thing possible with a character in an arc show, they laid all their cards on the table right at the beginning. I mean, they couldn't even wait twenty minutes to splooge her connection to Spock and Sarek all over the screen.
Similar threads
