Sometimes I wonder if they read my posts to the effect of "if Enterprise had started with the direction they had in season 3, It wouldn't have been cancelled" and were, like,
"This guy!"
"This guy!"
Are you depressed over bad reviews or simply don't give a F--?!
- Thread starter Roald
- Start date
There is no evidence to support that, either in online comments or in polls.
RT is a simple, quick-response poll that has tracked the success of TV shows and movies pretty closely.
There is a significant percentage of the viewer base, perhaps as high as 40%, that Discovery is not winning over quickly.
There's every reason to think so. RT is pretty reliable in this regard.
I like The Orville much better than Discovery. That's not spite - I wish the Trek show were a lot better.
I know about a million people that really disagree with you.....
No, you don't.
Remember when Suicide Squad came out..... it was 'RT is bullshit' all over.. you know it, I know it... RT is not THAT reliable to a LOT of people...
It's not a "quick-response" poll-- it is limited to only RT members. Prior to Discovery, I had never signed up, but given the backlash, I felt compelled to sign up and give it the requisite 3.5 stars I felt that the premiere rightly deserved. My score may go up or down based on the rest of the season.
As a previous poster said, RT is a community effectively overrun by review bombers-- both in positive and negative. When the community decides something is good, they will review bomb it with 5-star reviews. When they decide something is bad, they spam it with 0-star reviews.
Remember, this is the community that was so bad, they had to shut down responses to critic reviews because these "audiences" were sending death threats to reviews who dared tarnish a beloved film's perfect score.
So while there is no hard concrete evidence, there is PLENTY of anecdotal evidence to doubt the veracity of scores for hot-button, divisive shows like Discovery.
It's a pretty reliable measure of what percentage of folks like or dislike something, as these self-selected polls go.
I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that the whole world hasn't been bowled over by a TV show that you do like, but into every life a little rain must fall.
*wakes up* Huh? What? Is it eight o clock yet?
Yet another reason I enjoy supporting the show at this early stage.
Screw all those jackwads. Nothing says "your a backward idiot and you're wrong" to people like that like having the show get good reviews and experience good success.
And this is exactly why the Orville crowd is spamming RT with negative reviews. They hated Discovery before it came out for being liberal propaganda, a female lead, a gay couple, for being different than TNG/VOY, for being a prequel, for being on a paid service.
They predicted doom, they predicted it would suck, they predicted nobody would pay for it.
So when critics praise it, they create their own narrative by forcing the audience score down, and they can say that though critics love it, audiences actually hate it because critics don't know what they're talking about-- further proof that Orville is great, because critics hated it.
(though as i've said, the audiences have a tendency to go against critics when it comes to low-brow fare like Orville-- and this is a credit to audiences: because audiences can appreciate artsy/high brow more than critics can appreciate low-brow "just for fun" fare)
Umm... you haven't actually watched The Orville? It makes Discovery look like right wing propaganda.
You have a preoccupation with labeling entertainment as highbrow or lowbrow. I've been a Trek fan since I was a very small child and in those forty years I've seen Trek that makes you think about not only the universe and your own place in it but also Trek so campy and ridiculously fluffy that I don't know how it didn't give half the audience instantaneous tooth decay and brain damage.
Let a series sink or swim on its own merits and realize that all modern entertainment franchises worth their salt are an effective blend of thoughtful commentary on the human species and eye candy. I've had moments where Discovery made me think and others where I've laughed out loud at the entertaining dialogue and situations. The Orville does the same. One is not "dumber" than the other except to the extent that MacFarlane's series more transparently aims to create moments of levity to keep the overall mood of the audience more upbeat. That's not a sign of terrible writing or lower intelligence amongst the scriptwriters. It's a sign that the shows are aiming in different directions.
Let a series sink or swim on its own merits and realize that all modern entertainment franchises worth their salt are an effective blend of thoughtful commentary on the human species and eye candy. I've had moments where Discovery made me think and others where I've laughed out loud at the entertaining dialogue and situations. The Orville does the same. One is not "dumber" than the other except to the extent that MacFarlane's series more transparently aims to create moments of levity to keep the overall mood of the audience more upbeat. That's not a sign of terrible writing or lower intelligence amongst the scriptwriters. It's a sign that the shows are aiming in different directions.
That's a fair point. But if you were to bisect entertainment into high and low brow, Trek would most certainly fall on the high side, while Seth McFarlane comedies on the low side. It's just an easy way to peg things.
That said, I don't necessarily think of low brow as "dumb" or "dumber than high brow." I enjoy plenty of low brow entertainment. Whether it's the first Transformers film, or Mel Brooks comedies, what the intent of the label was to show the kinds of things that movie critics snub their noses as (like Orville).
I am not a fan of McFarlane's comedy, but I have no poor opinion of someone who does. And I think it's unfair of a critic to label some low brow stuff as terrible simply because it's made to be enjoyed on a different level-- maybe it's not as deep or thoughtful or artsy.
Heck, even George Carlin-- one of the best thinking man's comedians-- was known for telling a lot of fart jokes.
That said, I don't necessarily think of low brow as "dumb" or "dumber than high brow." I enjoy plenty of low brow entertainment. Whether it's the first Transformers film, or Mel Brooks comedies, what the intent of the label was to show the kinds of things that movie critics snub their noses as (like Orville).
I am not a fan of McFarlane's comedy, but I have no poor opinion of someone who does. And I think it's unfair of a critic to label some low brow stuff as terrible simply because it's made to be enjoyed on a different level-- maybe it's not as deep or thoughtful or artsy.
Heck, even George Carlin-- one of the best thinking man's comedians-- was known for telling a lot of fart jokes.
I watched the first half of the first episode. I'll take your word that it's super liberal, but that isn't the point: because those crying against DSC's "liberal agenda" are so pro-Orville/anti-Discovery that they'd never admit it. Go see for yourself: there's tons of people spamming Trek's facebook and instagram trashing DSC's diversity and left-wing propaganda, while also saying "thank god we can watch Orville!"
You realize that Orville's second officer is Gay and married to a Transgender right?
Bortus' mate isn't really transgender. He just had a sex change at birth, but that wasn't his choice. Trans people *choose* to transition.
Similar threads
- Locked
