TNG did receive the same treatment. The documentary, Chaos on the bridge goes into detail the type of hate that TNG received.
Are you depressed over bad reviews or simply don't give a F--?!
- Thread starter Roald
- Start date
TNG did receive the same treatment. The documentary, Chaos on the bridge goes into detail the type of hate that TNG received.
I've seen mixed reviews but I haven't gone looking through them.
This series had a difficult task, it wasn't going to be able to please everyone. A TNG style show simply wouldn't work in 2017, so it has had to change things up. At the same time it couldn't do the whole "JJ Verse" thing either.
It's struck a middle ground, i'm satisfied with it, hope that it tweaks a few things and we get a bit more humor and warmth, but im sure that'll come.
This series had a difficult task, it wasn't going to be able to please everyone. A TNG style show simply wouldn't work in 2017, so it has had to change things up. At the same time it couldn't do the whole "JJ Verse" thing either.
It's struck a middle ground, i'm satisfied with it, hope that it tweaks a few things and we get a bit more humor and warmth, but im sure that'll come.
I've seen mixed reviews on websites and hope the show becomes more polarising, not less. Art is supposed to provoke a reaction. If you pander to people and produce something bland and plodding (*cough* - Enterprise), then you'll please no one.
Star Trek is mostly secular, TNG slammed religion in 'Who watches the watchers". An episode that didn't seem to stir up any controversy at the time, despite it's atheist agenda. I'd like to see this approach again on DSC as we see the continued rise of religious extremism and intolerance based on religious belief. In Turkey, the government is trying to stop teaching evolution for example.
All the series have tried to incorporate multi-ethnic but also multinational crews, something DSC is also doing. The Klingon ideology is opposed to this and the Klingons are certainly supposed to be representing Trump's agenda of America first (something the writers have admitted). With this perspective, it's bound to antagonise those who shared or supported Trump in his views.
I'd like to see more curiosity and open-mindedness about the new and the alien in Star Trek Discovery. The addition of a gay character in 2017 should be a non-issue, but that might just be the case in the UK (which allows same sex marriage - and had the ground breaking show "Queer as Folk". Maybe it's still a controversial thing in other countries.
Star Trek has always pushed a liberal agenda, and I think it's clear that it will continue to do so. Long may it provoke intelligent discourse, even if that means that some wont rate it highly on aggregate websites.
Star Trek is mostly secular, TNG slammed religion in 'Who watches the watchers". An episode that didn't seem to stir up any controversy at the time, despite it's atheist agenda. I'd like to see this approach again on DSC as we see the continued rise of religious extremism and intolerance based on religious belief. In Turkey, the government is trying to stop teaching evolution for example.
All the series have tried to incorporate multi-ethnic but also multinational crews, something DSC is also doing. The Klingon ideology is opposed to this and the Klingons are certainly supposed to be representing Trump's agenda of America first (something the writers have admitted). With this perspective, it's bound to antagonise those who shared or supported Trump in his views.
I'd like to see more curiosity and open-mindedness about the new and the alien in Star Trek Discovery. The addition of a gay character in 2017 should be a non-issue, but that might just be the case in the UK (which allows same sex marriage - and had the ground breaking show "Queer as Folk". Maybe it's still a controversial thing in other countries.
Star Trek has always pushed a liberal agenda, and I think it's clear that it will continue to do so. Long may it provoke intelligent discourse, even if that means that some wont rate it highly on aggregate websites.
TOS wasn't.
Apollo showing up isn’t really religious.
"He, himself, was a secular humanist and made it well-known to writers of STAR TREK and STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION that religion and superstition and mystical thinking were not to be part of his universe. On Roddenberry’s future Earth, everyone is an atheist. And that world is the better for it. — Brannon Braga, International Atheist Conference in Reykjavik Iceland June 24 & 25, 2006"
I'd agree that in the 1960’s the original Star Trek series’ atheistic plots were indeed more subtle than in the subsequent 24’th-century shows. They mostly involved the stories in which advanced aliens or other lifeforms would assert themselves as false gods, only to be debunked by the crew of the Enterprise. Such examples are the episodes “Return of the Archons”, “A Taste of Armageddon”, “Catspaw”, “The Apple”, “Who Mourns for Adonais”, “And the Children Shall Lead”, “Plato’s Stepchildren”, and “The Squire of Gothos”. The idea behind these plots is surely to promote skepticism of religious beliefs?
I do like to play devils advocate, so let's try that.
There are some episodes that show religion in TOS, notably the 'son of god' plot twist in Bread and Circuses. I also remember some character wearing a Bindi - a forehead marking, which I think is Hindu? I guess you could also argue that the altar in Balance of Terror is a religious symbol? Other than that, I'm coming up blank.
I don't think Braga knew what he was talking about in regards to TOS. To be quite honest. Obviously not everyone is an atheist, as Roddenberry co-wrote "Bread and Circuses", plus we get a mention of a monotheistic society in "Who Mourns for Adonais".
Who Mourns for Adonais said:
People are trying to retcon certain things out of TOS to make it fit with Roddenberry's later drug-induced craziness.
But he obviously didn't force that view on TOS. He knew the audience he was trying to sell his product to.
And then GR went ahead and wrote TOS - "Bread And Circuses" which had this dialogue between Kirk, McCoy and Uhura at the end:
Transcript of full episode: http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/43.htm
The Orville has disproven that, try again.
No - it hasn't in that "The Orville" is in a franchise that has 50 years of history and rabid fans ready to tear something apart because in some episode 30 - 50 years ago; there's a line that conflicts with what some character said/did.
The Orville is full of 'Star Trek' tropes - and those Trek fans that see something they like in "The Orville' associate it with a good memory they had from watching whatever Trek they liked - and there's no 'canon baggage' that goes along with it because The Orville series has a 4 episode history.
Trust me, if The Orville has a long run, and a group of 'Orville' fans start to obsess over it the way some groups of 'Star Trek' fans obsess over Star Trek - The Orville will end up in the same boat any new Star Trek series has to contend with now.
Yes. I pointed that out when I played devil's advocate.
It's one of the few examples of showing religion as a relevant thing in TOS. It was a cool twist at the end of the episode. Roddenberry was a secular humanist. There is very little to show religion as a positive factor in people's lives in TOS and TNG. DS9 of the other hand....
Yeah, my point was that GR just didn't allow that episode to be produced on the show, it's one of 3 that he ACTUALLY hand a hand himself in writing it.
Trek fans love The Orville only because it isn't REALLY Star Trek.
Can you imagine the whirlwind of backlash and fecal-splatter that would result if this show were called "Star Trek - Orville" and had
- Penis/fart/stink jokes throughout
- Melodrama about ex-wives being assigned as first officers
- Goofy, unprofessional behavior on the bridge
- Colon jokes
- Pot brownies
- etc etc etc???
People would have gone apeshit. Not to mention that the pacing, editing, and cinematography are nearly identical beat-for-beat with TNG and VOY.
So...it's easy to like it (and I do too), but only because it's NOT Star Trek. If this were the new Star Trek series and truly a part of the franchise, the fans would be losing their ever-living minds right now.
Not reading the reviews. Watching the episodes largely spoiler free. I'm really enjoying this Star Trek Renaissance on my own terms, and I don't want to twunt that by reading about what I should hate or love about it, but wasn't smart enough to notice for myself.
So nope, couldn't give a fly uppercase F*** about the reviews, I'm liking this, and when it's over, I'll watch something else.
So nope, couldn't give a fly uppercase F*** about the reviews, I'm liking this, and when it's over, I'll watch something else.
Yeah, my point was that GR just didn't allow that episode to be produced on the show, it's one of 3 that he ACTUALLY hand a hand himself in writing it.
Nothing fills my heart with more joy than the 35-year old arguments about whether Star Trek did or did not portray religion in a favorable light.
Because all non-religious people will adamantly claim that it was an atheist show...
...and all religious / people of faith will claim that it was not.
Similar threads
- Locked
