Discovery and "The Orville" Comparisons

[MakeshiftPython]

Never heard of online brigades? It's a thing. The all female Ghostbusters is another example of coordinated online hate campaigns trying to game the system with reviews. Yes, there are a portion of disgruntled fans or should I say 'gatekeepers' of various franchise fandoms who regularly try to influence voting systems for obvious reasons.

As someone else pointed out here or on the Star Trek reddit, when a new episode drops, there are an unusual number of people dropping 0 and 1 votes on imdb within minutes of said episode ending. It takes a while for the ratings to course correct, so to speak. It's pretty obvious that there are haters trying to drive a negative online narrative for whatever reason they have.

What a bunch of snowflakes.

 

[Mudd]

These scores have been consistent - Orville's gotten a bit more popular, Discovery a bit less - since the beginning.

The "organized downvoting" claim is old and busted. Folks are umderstandably frustrated that Discovery's not more popular than it really is, but the conspiracy stuff is, at this point, nonsense.

 

[Roald]

These scores have been consistent - Orville's gotten a bit more popular. Discovery a bit less - since the beginning.

The "organized downvoting" claim is old and busted. Folks are just frustrated that Discovery's not more popular than it really is.

It doesn't have to be popular, many shows with 90+ audience scores are cult shows, certainly not popular with a large audience. Downvoting is not old or busted just because you happen to dislike the show. DSC was disliked ever since the pre-production phase, and many people were determined to downvote it over various reasons. If you really think that 57% score is realistic, you're the one in denial, not us.

 

[BillJ]

It doesn't have to be popular, many shows with 90+ audience scores are cult shows, certainly not popular with a large audience. Downvoting is not old or busted just because you happen to dislike the show. DSC was disliked ever since the pre-production phase, and many people were determined to downvote it over various reasons. If you really think that 57% score is realistic, you're the one in denial, not us.

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!

Yet, somehow, for all the hate they inspired, the Abrams films all rate in the 80-plus % area from viewers. A real head scratcher how one Star Trek product can somehow survive the slings and arrows from haters and rate well, yet another can't? Could it be many people simply aren't as amazed as some folks here are by Discovery?

Star Trek Into Darkness has been rated by some as the worst Star Trek movie ever. Yet, it somehow has managed a 90% audience score.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness

I don't think Discovery is terrible, I don't think it is amazing. It is kinda "meh".

 

[Roald]

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!

Yet, somehow, for all the hate they inspired, the Abrams films all rate in the 80-plus % area from viewers. A real head scratcher how one Star Trek product can somehow survive the slings and arrows from haters and rate well, yet another can't? Could it be many people simply aren't as amazed as some folks here are by Discovery?

Star Trek Into Darkness has been rated by some as the worst Star Trek movie ever. Yet, it somehow has managed a 90% audience score.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness

I don't think Discovery is terrible, I don't think it is amazing. It is kinda "meh".

You can attempt to ridicule this all you want, but did STID suffer from the AA thing? Did it come after the Axanar thing? Did it suffer from racist of homophobic attitudes the way DSC has? I can deal with it not being as highly regarded as GOT, but 57%? Deep down, even you know that's hardly a fair reflection.

 

[Mudd]

The studios are upset with Fandango for linking to Rotten Tomatoes (they own the site), because they think it hurts ticket sales. "Blame the messenger" is always popular.

 

[The Habs Fan]

This is an interesting comparison on rotten tomatoes

Have you read this thread since the beginning? I don’t know how many times i’ve already posted this, but if The Orville was called “Star Trek: The Orville”, it’d be lucky if its audience score was 57%

 

[BillJ]

You can attempt to ridicule this all you want, but did STID suffer from the AA thing?

People had to pay to access it. So I'm not sure I'm seeing much of a difference?

Did it come after the Axanar thing?

I really think people are trying to use this as some kind of crutch to explain lackluster viewer reaction to the show. But, lets be honest here, Axanar was a fan film with a very limited reach as far the general populace goes.

Did it suffer from racist of homophobic attitudes the way DSC has?

Game of Thrones ratings don't seem to be affected by those attitudes. Another lets be honest here: much like Beyond, the gay scenes are pretty blink and you miss it for the most part. Outside of the scene between Burnham and Stamets in the last episode.

I can deal with it not being as highly regarded as GOT, but 57%? Deep down, even you know that hardly a fair reflection.

From my point of view, I tend to think it is a fair evaluation of the material so far. Discovery is pandering to the hardest of hardcore Trekkies, and I think that is affecting it to a degree. I think them trying to cram it into the Prime universe is affecting it to a degree.

My biggest concern is that is affects the willingness of people to come back in 2019 for a second season. Whether I'm amazed by it or not, Discovery continuing to do strong business is good for the Star Trek brand.

 

[Tesophius]

The sci-fi concept in that episode is just window dressing. The center of the show thematically is the character interaction between Kirk, Khan, and McGivers.

As an aside, while the original plot included suspended animation, the original idea was the augments would be frozen ancient Greeks which had magic powers (it was originally written for a different show).

You're actually proving my point with that example. If it was sleeping Greek gods and there was no cryonic preservation involved, and they weren't floating in deep space, then the story would have been asinine. The sci fi of it is what made it interesting.

Even if you are wedded to that part of the concept, it could be as easily told in a fantasy setting, or a magical realist setting where it was the only thing that was off.

Again, the inner light would've been a cretinous story with little resemblance to the original if it was missing the sci fi core of it.

 

[The Habs Fan]

These scores have been consistent - Orville's gotten a bit more popular, Discovery a bit less - since the beginning.

The "organized downvoting" claim is old and busted. Folks are umderstandably frustrated that Discovery's not more popular than it really is, but the conspiracy stuff is, at this point, nonsense.

Where are you getting the evidence for Discovery’s episode getting less popular? Based on the TrekBBS polls, it’s the opposite.

 

[BillJ]

Have you read this thread since the beginning? I don’t know how many times i’ve already posted this, but if The Orville was called “Star Trek: The Orville”, it’d be lucky if its audience score was 57%

Would it though? The Abrams films all rate in the 80+ percent range.

Voyager (with probably a limited sample) is a tick under 70 percent.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/star_trek_voyager

Enterprise is a tick under 75 percent.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/star_trek_enterprise

 

[The Habs Fan]

Voyager and Enterprise aired before Rotten Tommatoes existed so the comparison doesn’t work. Rating something in hindsight compared to before an episode even airs. A Star Trek movie draws ratings from a more general audience crowd rather than mostly Trekkies. Plus it didn’t have the people voting 1 star because of CBS All Access, Axanar, the alt-right unhappy because of the gay character, and the Trekkies who have their own idea of what Star Trek should be (who cares if it’s a good show on its own merits). And yes, before you argue that this is a conspiracy that doesn’t exist, go read the 1 star reviews on rotten tomatoes and IMDB. Most of them fall into one of the 4 categories i listed above that would only apply to a new show that is branded Star Trek.

Also what needs to be taken into account is Star Trek has had a certain style since TNG (yes even DS9) that a new serialized Star Trek show is going to have it’s fair share of haters. There are a lot of people who hate change. The Orville is good but also easy. It is not challenging in any way. The characters are caricatures who hardly grow episode to episode and there’s no ongoing storyline. It’s basically Voyager or TNG with jokes thrown in

 

[Tesophius]

This is an interesting comparison on rotten tomatoes

Realistically though, 57% is overly generous for STD, considering the fact that most episodes, so far, did not break through the average 5/10 quality treshold.

professional critics are clearly biased and possibly corrupted.

 

[BillJ]

Also what needs to be taken into account is Star Trek has had a certain style since TNG (yes even DS9) that a new serialized Star Trek show is going to have it’s fair share of haters.

Some people do expect to find "Star Trek" when they go to watch something with "Star Trek" in the title. I know if I want to watch Star Wars, I look for something with "Star Wars" in the label, and would be disappointed if it isn't doing "Star Wars" stuff.

...and there’s no ongoing storyline.

I've never found an ongoing storyline to be necessary to enjoy something. YMMV.

 

[Tesophius]

there’s no ongoing storyline.

And I sincerely thank the makers of ORV for this.

Dragged out story arcs are way overrated in this dark age of television.

 

[BillJ]

Dragged out story arcs are way overrated in this dark age of television.

I think they work for some things, not so much for others. I tend to think that Discovery should've given us a story arc focused on something new and unexpected instead of using 23rd century elements as crutches. I'm reading Star Trek Legacies (50th anniversary trilogy), even though they use a ton of known elements, they also have an overall story that is focused on a species from a new universe. They have, thus far (I've read two of the three novels), been able to intertwine the old and the new in a far more believable and interesting way than Discovery has.

 

[fireproof78]

And I sincerely thank the makers of ORV for this.

Dragged out story arcs are way overrated in this dark age of television.

Much better than episodic storytelling with little consequences, in my opinion. I at least feel invested in the outcome, mostly because I don't know what happens to this particular set of characters. Which, if individuals are not invested in the characters, probably makes the stories highly uninteresting.

 

[BillJ]

Which, if individuals are not invested in the characters, probably makes the stories highly uninteresting.

Though if you make the overall story interesting, you will normally still have enough to keep people interested. But, since they decided to put their eggs all in a basket that we already know (spore drive doesn't work, Feds at least fight to a stalemate, Mudd and Sarek live and go on to do other things), it makes the show have to sell those characters an even higher priority. Which they've failed at for me, so far.

Much better than episodic storytelling with little consequences, in my opinion.

A good story is a good story.

 

[fireproof78]

Though if you make the overall story interesting, you will normally still have enough to keep people interested. But, since they decided to put their eggs all in a basket that we already know (spore drive doesn't work, Feds at least fight to a stalemate, Mudd and Sarek live and go on to do other things), it makes the show have to sell those characters an even higher priority. Which they've failed at for me, so far.

This is odd to me. I want to know the "How" these things occurred and how the characters respond to those failures.

A good story is a good story.

If I have a preference, I'll take serialized over episodic. One is just "better" in my opinion because it is longer and more satisfying.

In my opinion

 

[Vger23]

I can understand. However I may not like a specific iteration of Trek, I'm always willing to give it a fair shot in the hopes that I find something I like. VOYAGER is my least favorite series, but if I had given up on that after a few episodes I would have missed out on some very episodes that the show was able to churn out. As a whole it wasn't the most satisfying Trek show, but I at least got some very strong episodes like "Scorpion" or "Living Witness". I did not like ST09. I think in many ways it's a terrible Trek film, but I still gave STID a shot because it had more promise and while imperfect I admire some of the directions it took. Then I gave Beyond a shot, and that was the first Trek film I genuinely enjoyed start to finish since the 90s.

I'm not loving Discovery, but the characters are slowly growing on me and I really look forward to seeing how the show ultimately pans out because I do think it's refreshing in some ways.

Yes, but the MAJOR difference here is that you don't find it necessary to post 15 times a day in an irritating fashion about what you don't like. You aren't hoping to catch the attention of a producer. You aren't hoping it fails.

Like I said in an earlier post....there are fans who show love of the franchise by being SUPPORTIVE in the early growing stages of a show (much respect) and fans who "show their love(?)" by nitpicking the bejusus out of things early on (no respect whatsoever).