Discovery and "The Orville" Comparisons
- Thread starter Jedi_Master
- Start date
That's not it, because he's including Detmer, Owosekun, and other regular humans. He's saying that simply because they are present in every episode, they must be treated as main characters and have episodes devoted to them, or else they must be absent from more episodes to focus on the real main characters.It's no wonder we can't make sense of his logic, because he contradicts it nearly every post. Case in point...
Yes that is it actually. You just don't know how to grab the context. It looks like you're hung up way back on post #2377 where I raised a rhetorical question:
You went and found a few ordinary easy to ignore people that can be seen briefly in a bunch of episodes but the point flew right over your head. If you can't "understand my logic" perhaps it is best that you do not chime in.
To me it's just common sense that TOS has more than 3 main characters despite listing only 3 in the intro. It was supposed to be an example that disproves the theory of main characters have to be listed in the intro.
I estimated the total number of main characters of each series back on post #2382
TOS - 9 characters
TNG - 13 characters
DS9 - at least 20
VOY - at least 15
ENT - at least 12
They have a shortage of main characters and the few they do have do not interest me, fancy visuals don't interest me, and the plot does not interest me.
Message in a Bottle, Living Witness, Voyager Conspiracy, Tinker, Tenor, Doctor, Spy, Virtuoso, Someone to Watch over me, Author, Author, Body & Soul, ....um spirit Folk.
Basically all the Q episodes, Barclay episodes, and latter Doctor and Seven episodes would fit right in on Ohville.
Basically all the Q episodes, Barclay episodes, and latter Doctor and Seven episodes would fit right in on Ohville.
Yes, TOS has more than 3 main characters, but there aren't 9 of them. You've inflated the counts on every series because you seem to think more characters = better. A show can succeed on as many or as few characters as it happens to have. The only thing that matters is how those characters are handled. The ones in Discovery don't interest you, and that's fine. I get it. But the number of characters is irrelevant.
^^^
IDK - You just described the main characters for DS9 Season one with that blurb above, and hell that series is now usually someones first or second favorite Star Trek franchise TV series.
IMO - It's when some Star Trek fans got the idea that the "Star Trek Universe" continuity was always unified and somehow consistent/cohesive (Yes, some fans still do treat Trek continuity as if it has been that what when in actuality, it NEVER has been wholly consistent. And even Berman era Trek had many large internal retcons - it wasn't just in the TOS era as they were 'universe building'.)
"Likable" is overrated. I love James Bond films, but I wouldn't classify the character as "likable", but that doesn't mean I dislike the character either. Fiction is much more complex than that.
I don't think anyone is saying Trek does not have its comedic points. I think what's ultimately being said is that Trek is mostly a drama that at times can be comedic, while the Orville is a comedy that at times can be dramatic. That is all that's being said. Shows of a certain genre bending things to mix things up.
DISCO has been mostly dramatic so far, but I thought a lot of the time loop episode was comedic, which was a needed change of pace.
Nope, I read each of your posts on the subject and it's very clear what you were trying to argue. Let's "grab" the full context:
"There's a bunch of bridge officers on Discovery that barely said 2 words in the entire series yet (black lady, robot guy, and the messed up eye lady that I can think of offhand)"
"Those extra characters don't need to be there for every episode then if we're not going to get to know them. Every other series has episodes devoted to each of the bridge officers. I assumed they would eventually get around to doing it here too. I'm not even sure what Discovery is supposed to be about."
"Besides Morn, when did they have a character on almost every episode and not use their character like that?"
"We're almost half way through the season then we'll probably not see season 2 until 2019. Then on top of that half of the regulars on the bridge are there for decoration."
"Ah so she did not show up until the end of season 3. You also missed the part about "every episode". 46 episodes is not "every episode". TNG had all of their main cast well established by season 3. We're either still establishing these bridge characters in Discovery or the number of main characters is lacking compared to other trek series. The people not being introduced are the ones that are always on the bridge. It would be like Data, Worf, and Deanna Troi always being on the bridge while never giving them a part in the series.
In case you missed it, I said "every episode".
It had nothing to do with the fact that there were weird aliens like Airiam on the bridge that you assumed were supposed to be expanded on because they were weird aliens, as @Prax assumed. Your argument completely revolved around the fact that these characters were in "[almost] every episode" and you said no other Trek series had done that without expanding on the characters. When I showed you that did in fact happen in TNG, you moved the goalposts and said it didn't count because that character was in season 3, and it was okay because by that point all the main characters had been well established.
...Because the 4 characters on Discovery's bridge with almost no lines aren't easy to ignore? Only because you won't stop mentioning them and posting pictures of them.
This from the guy who said he's "not even sure what Discovery is supposed to be about".
Nah, that's not how logic works. If I said "Stamets is a terrible character because Earth orbits the sun", you would be completely justified in chiming in because it makes no sense.
It's clear Marsh is way too hung up on Berman era crew dynamics where all bridge officers happen to be the main characters. That's just something he needs to learn to let go of.
It's relatively the same. It wasn't that the main cast were bridge officers, but the senior staff. As many of the main cast of previous shows weren't bridge officers(Scotty, Geordi, Crusher, B'elanna, etc.)
Discovery is very much about the senior staff in the same way. Captain Lorca, X.O. Saru, Chief of Security Ash-trey, Stamets(is basically the chief engineer, as the real chief engineer doesn't exist). The CMO(or Chief Veterinarian) may have been seen in the time loop episode, but Culber is the only important Doctor, because he deals with the spore drive.
Tilly is the Wesley Crusher character. Oh! And Burnham is the pariah. You gotta have the pariah on your senior staff, like Spock, Worf, Paris, and Worf.
The real difference is that there's a single main protagonist, but I have a feeling the show will develop back into an ensemble as they see what works and what doesn't.
Discovery is very much about the senior staff in the same way. Captain Lorca, X.O. Saru, Chief of Security Ash-trey, Stamets(is basically the chief engineer, as the real chief engineer doesn't exist). The CMO(or Chief Veterinarian) may have been seen in the time loop episode, but Culber is the only important Doctor, because he deals with the spore drive.
Tilly is the Wesley Crusher character. Oh! And Burnham is the pariah. You gotta have the pariah on your senior staff, like Spock, Worf, Paris, and Worf.
The real difference is that there's a single main protagonist, but I have a feeling the show will develop back into an ensemble as they see what works and what doesn't.
Last edited:
I think I know my own position better than you. You've already conceded that you do not understand it. You missed the post about comparing the situation to having Data, Worf and Troi being on the bridge in every episode while not having a role in the series. I put Data in there as an example for a reason. I was later correcting you because you were finding examples of background characters that were in a bunch of episodes but not "every episode". I was pointing out that your attempt to disprove me is failing even though you weren't following what I was saying at the same time.
They do stick out more and are more noticeable.
I'm not the first to make that complaint. An inability for the writers to establish a well defined story is their fault not mine. Compared to other series where the Captain gives a big speech during the pilot it's pretty clear what the series will be about then.
I'd say 8 in TOS if you count nurse chapel. It's possible for a series not to require many characters if they're good actors. We were fortunate to have both quantity and quality characters in TNG, DS9, and VOY. Discovery lacks both quality and quantity of actors. Michael Burnham's character is alright but not great. She wasn't my favorite character in walking dead either.
Last edited:
I didn't miss that one. It was the last one.
Ah so she did not show up until the end of season 3. You also missed the part about "every episode". 46 episodes is not "every episode". TNG had all of their main cast well established by season 3. We're either still establishing these bridge characters in Discovery or the number of main characters is lacking compared to other trek series. The people not being introduced are the ones that are always on the bridge. It would be like Data, Worf, and Deanna Troi always being on the bridge while never giving them a part in the series.
In case you missed it, I said "every episode".
This isn't Memory Alpha. You don't get to retroactively erase all of your previous posts and all of that post except one sentence, say that you mentioned Data for "a reason" that was never stated, then pretend that represented your whole "position" all along. You're not fooling anyone. And no, they're not like Data, Worf, or Troi.
"There's a bunch of bridge officers on Discovery that barely said 2 words in the entire series yet (black lady, robot guy, and the messed up eye lady that I can think of offhand)" -Marsh8472
Yeah. So noticeable that you couldn't remember their lines or any of their names, mixed the gender of one of them, and entirely forgot one of them.
Technically I do have the access rights to modify my previous posts, not that I would do that. But you missed putting the Data thing in bold. Because you cherry pick and set up a strawman argument. The reason they're not like Data, Worf, or Troi is because they've only had a few lines in the series which was the point I was making. But TNG would be like Discovery if they included Data, Worf, and Troi on the bridge in every episode sitting in the same places and give them almost no dialogue.
"There's a bunch of bridge officers on Discovery that barely said 2 words in the entire series yet (black lady, robot guy, and the messed up eye lady that I can think of offhand)" -Marsh8472
Yeah. So noticeable that you couldn't remember their lines or any of their names, mixed the gender of one of them, and entirely forgot one of them.
Correct and I barely know the names of the so called main characters too. Admittingly, I've had to google for their character names a few times while writing my posts. But the robot person and the lady with the messed up eye do stick out.
LMAO, I call them nebula and 5 of nine. All my friends knew exactly who I was talking about.
Someone should ask Nick Meyer whether The Orville satisfies his criteria of Trek being a vintage of wine poured in the same bottle or whether it changes the shape of the bottle. Then ask him to do the same with Discovery, considering that it carries over some aspects from the Kelvin-verse that he said he didn't like (a-hole Kirk, etc...).
TOS had three major characters and four minor supporting cast who existed to move the plot along. None of them, including Scott, ever held the central role in any episode - and it's kind of stretching the point to give McCoy one or two.
This was reflected, of course, in the actors billing, contracts and compensation.
By TOS I always mean The Original Series, not the movies based on it.
I really don't care what Nick Meyer thinks of The Orville, or anyone else for that matter. Enough people watch it to get it a second season, that's all that matters to me.
Keep saying that, but like I said, you're not fooling anyone. I put up everything you said, in context, with my highlights bolded and yours underlined. You're the one trying to pull one of your quotes out of context to suggest you said something different than what you clearly did.
I know exactly where Ensign Gates sits on the bridge and where Morn sits in the bar. That doesn't mean they "stick out" and overshadow the main cast.
You've been participating in a discussion on a thread discussing other people's opinions of the Orville,
I think you care a smidge.
Similar threads
