Better series lead. Ed Mercer from "Orville" vs Burnham from "Discovery?"
- Thread starter Jayson1
- Start date
She was right that they were there for war. They weren't interested in a Federation pep talk and going away.
Kinda the problem with using the Klingons. The audience already knows who they are and why they are there. The way they tell the story, the whole thing is pretty well telegraphed where Burnham is concerned.
I'm not sure I see the telegraphing as bad, at least not in Star Trek. I don't want twists and turns at every, um, turn. I followed Burnham's character development just fine and found it believable.
I don't see the DISCO Klingons as hollowed out. I was thinking that T'Kuvma, in particular, made arguments that echoed what some of the Klingons were saying in Star Trek VI about losing their culture. I would need to look back but I believe that the three Klingon criminals in "Heart of Glory" also expressed concerns about losing their identity. And I could see that kind of thinking, of Federation/human domination of the Klingons also spurring the support for House Duras during the Klingon Civil War.
I do think though that because the DISCO Klingons did look so different, were dressed radically different, and also had very un-Klingon looking ships, that the show perhaps could've done a little more to acclimate the audience to this take on them. However, their basic points of view and a lot of their behavior isn't much different than what we've seen before. The Klingon mummy thing was something that was a sticking point for me, but Memory Alpha shows there is some precedent for that even in past Trek. The cannibalism thing also was a sticking point, though I did know that Kang, Kor, and Koloth feasted on the heart of an enemy. Plus, if these Klingons were running out of food they were forced to resort to cannibalism to survive, so it wasn't a new cultural thing with them as a race, but born out of desperation for the survivors on the Sarcophagus ship.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Klingon_mummification_glyph
I'm not sure why they even went with the Klingons. I could see perhaps they thought well the Klingons are well-known adversaries, they are popular, and have a pretty-fleshed out culture and history so that saved on world building. However, they then seemed to go out of the way to make the DISCO Klingons at least appear different than previous depictions of Klingons. Perhaps this was done to make them more alien and threatening, but that makes me wonder why bring in the Klingons at all? Just use another established species or create a new one.
We know there was some conflict with the Sheliak in this period. Perhaps DISCO could've used the Sheliak as the antagonists. It's different, there's a lot of room to explore with them, and there's already precedent in canon for them. Personally I would've loved to see the Tholians as the heavies, a nod to the Early Voyages comics' Tholian expansionist programs. Like with the Sheliak, there's room to build on the Tholians. I get that it would be expensive FX wise, but they could've provided a known, but not well-developed, species that I suspect fans would've been into, like how I think the Andorians were popular on ENT (at least Shran was).
If they went with the Sheliak or Tholians the biggest issue might be Ash Tyler, but I'm sure they could come up with something to make that story work.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Federation-Sheliak_Conflict
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Tholian_expansionist_programs
Indeed. The Klingons felt like they were expanding upon prior knowledge and emphasizing different cultural components rather than just the "glory" and "honor" clichés. Not seeing Discovery did it perfectly, as some of the changes can be regarded as changes for changes sake. As you noted, the changes are so radical that the presentation of the Klingons could have stood to be a little bit more familiar.
On a more general note, it is interesting to me to see the reactions to Discovery in this thread. One thing that is standing out to me is the idea of familiarity vs. change. Regardless of one's feelings towards Discovery (of which there are many) the show introduced a lot of changes to familiar elements. I think that Orville, by description of others, is offering more familiar elements that perhaps feel a lot safer.
Just speculation on my part. I know that complaints against Discovery, Burnham in particular, are not as simple or binary in their categorization. But, it is a recurring theme I have noted.
I would've preferred anyone but the Klingons. Hell, could've made these guys the H'urq. That would've been a nod to the lore that they seem desperate to have at every turn, all the while having the ability to do something new and different.
I am glad you are speaking on this. Some might take issue with it-which is their right-but I am glad we have a forum where we can be open in discussing our views, despite any potential pushback or backlash. I often wonder myself when it comes to the depictions of some black characters if the dislike or reservation I see/read/hear expressed isn't racially motivated, especially if there is a lack of definitive proof or reasons why a person doesn't like a particular character. Sometimes you don't like what you don't like, but in light of how our likes are often shaped by our culture (s) and experiences, if those are skewered where race/diversity are concerned, then natural 'likes' might still be negative even if the person expressing them doesn't harbor any ill intent (conscious and/or subconscious).
I don't think Star Trek or Star Wars has been "overtaken" by bigoted fans per se. I think people who hold bigoted views have always been fans of these franchises. And both franchises have not always been great when it comes to diversity and/or the depiction of diverse characters.
When it comes to Discovery and some fans' dislike/discomfort with Burnham I think suspect some of that is racially motivated, like I suspect some fans were discomforted by DS9 and Ben Sisko (people still don't like that he had a racial awareness and concern for the plight of his ancestors), while some others might still argue that Tuvok shouldn't exist because Vulcans 'can't be black', etc. So that's been there for a long time, and it's going to continue to be there.
Regarding Michael Burnham I do think there are some who don't like the idea of a black woman as the lead and are looking for reasons to express their displeasure without being blunt about the real reason. I also think other fans don't like the writing, acting, or depiction of the character thus far. Some of that might be mixed in with bias/discomfort though too. And then there are fans who don't like the writing, acting, depiction and it's not motivated (and/or solely motivated) by her race and/or Burnham's race and gender.
Discovery took chances with Burnham's character, they took a risk, and if you look at the first couple episodes I can see how it seemed very un-Trek, but by the end of the season, she had an arc, that reaffirmed Federation principles strongly. The writing wasn't always the best when it came to carrying out that arc and other shows. There were creative decisions I had issues with, but overall most of my concerns about Discovery were mollified by the end of the first season.
I do want to say that while greater representation in general is a good thing, it's not an automatic good because it depends on how the diverse characters are being written and integrated into a show/movie. For example, ENT was diverse, yet the show struggled to do much with Travis and Hoshi. So far, I think Discovery has done a better job with diverse characters, and it's my hope they build on that, by not just giving diverse actors more face time, but developing those characters and making them important to the show. What could happen is that Burnham is the titular main character, but some other character becomes the de facto real main character.
Funny you say that because for a long time I was holding out the hope that the "Klingons" I was seeing advertised before Discovery premiered were the Hur'q. I think it would've worked much better to go that route.
I was fine with them doing both. I do wish though that we had gotten more war-focused episodes. Saw perhaps a few more ships/crews and got a better sense of how the war was affecting Federation citizens, and if they were really going to be stretch their writing chops, how the war was affecting Klingons as well. I think the show danced around the war too much, with a tease here or there, a short battle, (after the massive "Battle of the Binary Stars") and it wasn't enough. It was too much talking rather than showing. Though I will say the show did maintain a darker, intense tone which did do some of the work of reminding me that there was a major war going on and it was affecting these characters.
I enjoyed the Mirror Universe arc a lot. I do think the last two episodes were too rushed though. I would've been fine with them ending it with their return to from the Mirror Universe to find the Klingons had won the war. And then explore that over three or more more episodes. It got wrapped up way too easily. For a vast space empire, just having Qo'noS be held hostage by L'Rell, using Federation technology, would not stop the Klingons if they were on the verge of taking out the Federation.
Discovery writers had the Klingons as out competing each other, so they were too fractured to all just heed L'Rell's threat. And previous Trek has established you do have the sometimes Klingon renegade (Kruge, Klaa, "Heart of Glory" criminals) who flout the rules anyway. The war shouldn't have ended so neatly.
I agree with this but to me it is how do you want to approach the issue that some fans might be bigoted in their views. Do you want to be skeptical and assume that most or many dislike something is because of bigotry or try to be hopefull and take people at their words that if they say they aren't racist then they aren't racist. I prefer to reserve my cynicism towards humanity as a whole but stay optomisitc on a individual level. I don't like not trusting people and try to fight against that urge. Hell I don't even care if I end up being wrong sometimes which is why I will even defend people when it might look bad simply because I believe in the idea that all people have good and bad in them.
Jason
Trekkies who don't like Discovery seem to like Orville quite a bit. Now, Orville has three afro-americans in the main cast (Bortus, Claire, John). Four if you count Clyden... who's a transgender Moclan. He's married to Bortus, and both raise a transgender child. Captain Mercer slept with a male alien.
Maybe I'm horribly naive, but the notion that those, who hate Discovery because of Burnhams skin color, might, at the same time, be absolutely happy with the Orville sounds... outlandish to me.
Maybe I'm horribly naive, but the notion that those, who hate Discovery because of Burnhams skin color, might, at the same time, be absolutely happy with the Orville sounds... outlandish to me.
Well, perhaps what I've been feeling is a disconnect with them. Came in pretty much expecting they'd behave like they had but was a big departure, and as a result felt less emotionally invested in it and not caring much for what was happening with their storyline. A large part of that is in how they designed them and the kind of direction they gave them, which I think is an important factor to understand.
You know with the Klingons even if you went with the idea of no hair I still think they might have worked better if they didn't screw up the faces. TO much gunk on their faces and then the contact lenses. What was nice with the old Klingons and I am talking about the ones with ridges is that even with ridges their faces still looked human. Say what you will about the black paint used but at least it allowed them to look like a person, just a person with a ridged forehead. The new stuff does make them look to much like monsters. Also it's repeating the same mistake of the Jem'Haddar. They choose asthetics over trying to do something that would help the actors give a good performance. At least the Jem'Haddar looked cool so people kind of give them a pass but both makeup jobs were proably a mistake IMO.
Jason
Jason
They are all physically male, using human identifiers. Most of the race is.
Personally I don't think it's necessarily outlandish because these things are complicated. None of the black Orville characters are leads, and McFarlane made the helmsman a goof-off on purpose, who almost got killed because of it, so liking or 'liking' that character per se is not a sign of enlightenment when it comes to how one might view black characters. The Moclans aren't 'black', like Worf wasn't 'black'. And the Doctor, who chooses to be a single mother by herself, I'm not sure what that says about how McFarlane views black women or black relationships. And further, there was the icky coerced assignation between the Doctor and the mucous alien, which was played for laughs but wasn't funny at all to me. This goes back to what I was saying earlier, about mere representation versus creating well developed characters. I do think the Doctor and her relationships with her sons and Isaac holds out potential, if McFarlane does anything with it. The helmsman/engineer also holds out some potential if they make him more serious. I don't want them to completely erase his sense of humor, and his palling around with the navigator, but temper it.
Burnham, being a lead character, where the series, if not every episode, revolves around her, instead of a supporting or superfluous character like the black Orville characters are, or can be, I could see that being something a person harboring anti-black bias, would be unsettled by, or would have a hard time connecting with. And some of this 'love' for Orville could be-for some-a way to safely criticize Discovery without really saying why they don't like the show.
I like Orville. It hits some nice '90s Berman-Braga era notes and that's cool. I like Discovery better, but I'm a Trek fan. I also liked DS9 better than Babylon 5, but it didn't take away my like for B5. When it comes to ENT and BSG, I liked the first two seasons of BSG more but ultimately ENT ended stronger than BSG, so that one's mixed. But the point being, you can like both, and one doesn't have to be put in competition with the other.
Last edited:
One of my problems with them was the Klingon dialogue, it just felt like it made it harder for the actors to communicate through that heavy makeup as well. I can imagine the DISCO writers thought that the fans would love having so many scenes where the characters were speaking in Klingon, but it got old real quick and I think it undercut some of the drama. When I finally heard L'Rell or Kol speaking English I think it worked better.
Similar threads
