Oh, is that all?
There are no themes worth a spit being explored on STD. It's a show about a TV production in crisis.
Poll Disco v Lost in Space v Orville FIGHT
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Oh, is that all?
There are no themes worth a spit being explored on STD. It's a show about a TV production in crisis.
It was the first season, and only ten episodes at that. There were already a lot of balls in the air. Just because they didn't hammer home that particular point, doesn't mean they aren't going to sometime in the future.
I'm not so sure. The show was pretty rough during its first season. If it didn't have the "Star Trek" label, I'm not sure anyone would've cared about it to begin with.
The cliffhanger makes think we're going to see that addressed. There are a lot of questions that don't have answers, and, I suspect, a lot more to the Robot's story than we've been told.
After all, they've wound up at a place that basically guarantees the show's planning to flesh out the Robot and its backstory. In turn, I think they'll get to your points.
I do like that they made the Robot so ... robotic -- an old-fashioned thing of metal and wires. That kinda defies the trend in modern sci-fi, and it lets the Robinsons, and the viewer, make certain assumptions about the Robot that I expect may later be undermined.
I do like that they made the Robot so ... robotic -- an old-fashioned thing of metal and wires. That kinda defies the trend in modern sci-fi, and it lets the Robinsons, and the viewer, make certain assumptions about the Robot that I expect may later be undermined.
Ultimately, if they don't address this in some way, I'll agree with your criticism. But this is what I meant earlier when I said it is nice to have faith in the showrunners in a way I no longer do with Discovery's. I don't have to have these answers now, and that I don't only makes me more excited for the possibility of a second season.
Last edited:
Well, if it hadn't had some kind of familiar label it could not have served the only purpose for which it was created, which was to drive subscriptions to CBS All-Access.
Which is also how a Lost In Space reboot gets sold, of course...or The Good Fight or The Grand Tour: - "Hey, you already like this, come over here and see some more of it!"
Really, CBS wasn't interested in creating a new Star Trek to help Netflix sell subscriptions.
There are 700+ other hours of real Star Trek that give me that "nostalgia" fix.
That's not what I said. I said compared to fan reactions of other inflection points in the franchise, the reaction has been tame.
And it has been.
I don't need "numbers" to support that. If you want numbers, I welcome you to go get them. They won't change my opinion though.
Westworld is the only TV sf that I've bothered with this year other than The Orville and Lost In Space. I don't feel like spending most of my time consuming fantasy on television; and most of the skiffy stuff that's intended to be thoughtful and challenging is pretty superficial.
Westworld is amazing, but people expecting that out of Trek (or 98% of TV) are probably setting expectations too high. All I want is to be entertained for 45 minutes. And with a couple of exceptions, DISCO has done that.
I have to admit, I hold Trek to a high bar. On the other hand, I do believe that for Trek to continue to limp along as mediocre sci-fi in the age of prestige televison, even after tons of money have been thrown at it, is really damaging to the franchise. You can only make so many big splashes and fail to deliver. And now they're asking people to pay for it.
Beyond that, I desperately want Trek to be good again. It has been before, when resources were far more limited, and I don't see why we should have to accept less than that now.
And that is the problem here in a nutshell.
CBS has treated this as a gimme - a hugely expensive affair, to be sure, but on a creative level it's a pro-forma, "trekkies will eat anything" kind of product.
Obviously we're not going to agree on that, but I will say CBS seemed to care enough to give it the budget it needed, and even stepped in when it saw there weren't enough Away Missions. At the same time, DSC probably had the most tumultuous behind-the-scenes development we've seen from any trek show before, and its amazing they were able to get a series out at all. It was a solid first season and I'm pretty confident 2nd season will be better. They always have been.
I don't think it came close to topping TNG there.
Or inappropriately. Trek and Orville are space operas, and LIS is an old-fashioned space adventure show as well. They are not thought pieces.
STD Fail.
TNG did not lose its show-runner and have perhaps its entire premise changed at nearly the last minute (yes I know it went through changes earlier, but it was still banking heavily off of Phase 2). While it may have seemed risky now, the first-run syndication idea was perfect for it as well, whereas CBS decided to make DSC the flagship of a paid streaming service that if we're honest, very few of us want.
The management and leadership of the show was, however, incredibly dysfunctional for the first year or two. That's worse.
Not to mention that everyone had to deal with Roddenberry's lawyer.
Similar threads
