• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Discovery and "The Orville" Comparisons

1) Anyone who has to repeat "I have no problem with diversity" multiple times in a post is trying to convince you of something, or convince themselves. Most people just know that there's nothing wrong with diversity as a default and don't have to constantly remind people of it because they're going to follow it up with a bunch of things that contradict that assertion. It's like starting a post with "I have no problem with Peruvians, but..." You know there's some Peruvian hate coming. They know what they did.

"There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures........ and the Dutch"
 
Oh, make no mistake, I'm fascinated by both and will watch both.

But...there's Star Trek...and then there's everything else.

Now, it's then up to each show to hold interest with the quality of the production and writing...but right out of the gate...it's literally:

Star Trek
















NFL Football

MLB Baseball


The Orville






















All the other useless crap
Yeah, scifi will always beat out sports for me.
 
I'm just hoping they don't schedule them in the same time-slot so I can get my hands on both. Seth's humor tends to toe over the line, so I am curious to see if he's dialed it back or if The Orville is destined for a 10pm time-slot.
 
I'm just hoping they don't schedule them in the same time-slot so I can get my hands on both. Seth's humor tends to toe over the line, so I am curious to see if he's dialed it back or if The Orville is destined for a 10pm time-slot.
One is streaming online, so no scheduling conflicts, unless in Canada. :techman:
 
It was, but along with the whole "don't read the comments on youtube" thing which was obviously a nod to the trailer, in my opinion the film(makers) over emphasised the female leads and the backlash. I thought the film was great, and as a comedy it made me laugh, but even if the the references were saying "so what if we're women, we won't let the haters get us down", personally I just felt they went too far and as a result were too unsubtle, and detracted from the film. Same with with references/cameos to the originals.

It wasn't Ghostbusters who just happened to be female. It was the FEMALE Ghostbusters and they were going to drive that point home with things like a gratuitous queef joke in the first five minutes. For women to wrap their arms around this film as if it represented a step forward for gender relations is rather sad.

The use of a female protagonist in Episode VII and Rogue One is more of what I would consider a step forward. The problem with Episode VII was the way they had Rey skip a bunch of learning steps on her journey to the point where she seemed completely invulnerable. The right way to write for female heroes is to neither overly emphasize their anatomy/sexuality nor to coddle them to the point where they stop feeling like they are ever under existential threat. At a deep level society tends to want to protect women and men are seen as disposable. It would be difficult to write a scene for Rey where she gets maimed the way Luke did by the Wampa or having her lose an arm because she's female. The main form of suffering writers put women through is rape (for adult drama). The more you write for them differently the more you're tokenizing them.

I did not get the sense in the trailer that Burnham or Georgiou were being tokenized this way. Then again, I didn't feel Janeway was tokenized in Voyager all these years ago. So it should not be that hard to do it right in 2017.
 
It wasn't Ghostbusters who just happened to be female. It was the FEMALE Ghostbusters and they were going to drive that point home with things like a gratuitous queef joke in the first five minutes. For women to wrap their arms around this film as if it represented a step forward for gender relations is rather sad.

The use of a female protagonist in Episode VII and Rogue One is more of what I would consider a step forward. The problem with Episode VII was the way they had Rey skip a bunch of learning steps on her journey to the point where she seemed completely invulnerable. The right way to write for female heroes is to neither overly emphasize their anatomy/sexuality nor to coddle them to the point where they stop feeling like they are ever under existential threat. At a deep level society tends to want to protect women and men are seen as disposable. It would be difficult to write a scene for Rey where she gets maimed the way Luke did by the Wampa or having her lose an arm because she's female. The main form of suffering writers put women through is rape (for adult drama). The more you write for them differently the more you're tokenizing them.

I did not get the sense in the trailer that Burnham or Georgiou were being tokenized this way. Then again, I didn't feel Janeway was tokenized in Voyager all these years ago. So it should not be that hard to do it right in 2017.
I'm going to have to disagree with Rey not being in danger. There was a lot of suspense for me as part of it the journey. Also, she was traumatized by being abandoned by her parents(?) or whomever, and that's not suffering?

As for Burnham or Georgiou, time will tell. But, as for Rey, she was probably one of my favorite additions to the Star Wars universe since Naboo.
 
It wasn't Ghostbusters who just happened to be female. It was the FEMALE Ghostbusters and they were going to drive that point home with things like a gratuitous queef joke in the first five minutes. For women to wrap their arms around this film as if it represented a step forward for gender relations is rather sad.
What is it with the queef joke that it's brought up ALL THE TIME? Have you seen the South Park episode where the "Terrence & Phillip Show" (which is just a bunch of fart jokes) is replaced with a show about females queefing? Suddenly all the males in South Park who either liked the fart jokes or at worst didn't care clutch their pearls acting like it's the most tasteless and disgusting thing that ever happened. It's like that just in real life.
How many farts and burps have been heard in movies? And how often does the internet care? Those jokes aren't always popular and are generally considered low brow humor but they hardly lead to huge reactions but one queef and everyone's up in arms.

Maybe some women wrap their arms around this movie because it presented female scientists who succeeded in a field dominated by men, they weren't the love interests who followed the men around or the secretary, they were the heroes. That's a great thing and a great message even if the movie itself was far from perfect. But OMG one of those heroes queefed at one point in her life and recorded it as a joke ... so what?
 
What is it with the queef joke that it's brought up ALL THE TIME? Have you seen the South Park episode where the "Terrence & Phillip Show" (which is just a bunch of fart jokes) is replaced with a show about females queefing? Suddenly all the males in South Park who either liked the fart jokes or at worst didn't care clutch their pearls acting like it's the most tasteless and disgusting thing that ever happened. It's like that just in real life.
How many farts and burps have been heard in movies? And how often does the internet care? Those jokes aren't always popular and are generally considered low brow humor but they hardly lead to huge reactions but one queef and everyone's up in arms.

Maybe some women wrap their arms around this movie because it presented female scientists who succeeded in a field dominated by men, they weren't the love interests who followed the men around or the secretary, they were the heroes. That's a great thing and a great message even if the movie itself was far from perfect. But OMG one of those heroes queefed at one point in her life and recorded it as a joke ... so what?

They weren't successful scientists (same as the original...though the new film pushes them even lower down before they are thrown out of academia.) one of the leads is defined pretty heavily by her romantic relationships, including perving on their secretary (the romantic arc in the originals is Peter, in his pursuit of Dana...and he is not half as desperate.) and they seek male approval several times throughout the movie...the ex-boyfriend, the sceptic debunker, the mayor, to a lesser extent the car owning uncle...all in embarrassing ways. They are indeed heroes, but they are heroes shown continuously to be barely in control of their equipment (again, something which is present to a lesser degree in the originals, but still present.) The film is actually more sexist (manages to do down both genders even) more rascist (Winston is not the racial stereotype patty drifts into on occasion, and is very much more an equal, especially when looked at across both films.) than anything in the originals. It's actually quite depressing. If they had gone for a straight line for line recast remake, it would actually have been better served...if less ambitious.
I need to watch again as there were some things that worked well...but even my very forgiving eye for the film (hey, it's a new Ghostbusters film!) has to recognise that. I think my wife was actually angry at the film by the end for how much it did women down.
(Have to paste comments over from other apps now...this crashing site is annoying.)

Edit: formthe record I have no allergic reaction to the queef joke. XD and do not know why it is the bete noir.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to have to disagree with Rey not being in danger. There was a lot of suspense for me as part of it the journey. Also, she was traumatized by being abandoned by her parents(?) or whomever, and that's not suffering?

As for Burnham or Georgiou, time will tell. But, as for Rey, she was probably one of my favorite additions to the Star Wars universe since Naboo.

Rey is like a high speed version of Luke or Anakin. The poster is questioning if that will continue to hold true. She is a bit OP...Luke doesn't do much with the sabre till Empire. And gets his arse handed to him. Or his ...er...hand.
 
I have spent some (too much) time reading through reactions to the Discovery trailer, and I have noticed more than a few reactions that are, in essence "I am really looking forward to The Orville, I'm not all that excited about ST: Discovery."

As these thoughts are coming from people who are ostensibly Star Trek fans, I have found their reaction worth speculating about, and here's the heart of what I think is motivating them: The Orville looks and feels like TNG.

Although many of those who complain about the look and feel of the Kelvin - era films express a desire to see a return to the aesthetics of The Original Series, most of them grew up watching the Berman era Trek series - TNG, DS9, VOY. Those series had a very distinctive and repetitive look and lighting. TNG in particular had flat, almost even lighting in virtually every interior shot, a sort of bland uniform with little variation, and a particular design aesthetic (curves, soft angles, sweeping angles, pastels/creams) that wasn't varied much. DS9 made some changes (varied lighting levels, more angular designs) but most of the onboard ship shots were very close to either the "somber/serious" lighting levels or the "regular" lighting levels pioneered by TNG. Voyager maintained a similar lighting structure as DS9 and TNG, and didn't vary much on the design cues set by both series.

That look and design aesthetic is VERY familiar to a certain age bracket of Trek fans, and without fully realizing it, that the is the "real Trek" they want and when they don't get it, it bugs them.
The Orville looks like it took almost every single TNG cue and expanded on it - the lighting, the costumes, the alien makeup, everything is a homage to TNG.

ST: Discovery, on the other hand, really seems to take most of it's cues from ENT and the Kelvin era films.

So at the heart of this whole issue is that Seth has made a show that triggers the happy nostalgia button in most folks close to my age (mid -30's) and that warm fuzzy feeling is what is making them choose a spoof comedy over actual Star Trek.

I haven't heard of "The Orville" before seeing this thread, but after looking for the trailer and watching it, I must say it looks really good! Very entertaining. It is just light hearted fun. Add the scifi setting and I am sold on it. I think Galaxy Quest is great and the series looks like it.

With DIS I am still afraid, that they try to copy Battlestar Galactica too much. It really doesn't help, that the DIS trailer was just clearly darker optically. (Why make the bridge so black for example? Humans aren't nocturnal and generally people prefer to work in a well lit room to actually be able to see things easily.) There was also no humour in the trailer at all. I just fear a repeat of Stargate Universe, which I really hated. Star Trek shouldn't be like that. I really don't want to see another franchise I like to be ruined by someone's "dark and gritty" obsession. That said, the production value, the special effects look really great in the DIS trailer and I haven't given up hope yet, that the series will be entertaining.

I started watching TOS and TNG around the same time and DS9 started very shortly after. And I watched VOY and ENT later, too. I must say though, my clear favourite back then and still today is TOS. Not a big TNG fan to be honest. But of course when it comes to the optic, those two series have both very well lit ships and colourful uniforms in common. Maybe I got influenced by that, but I don't really think so. I also prefer non Star Trek series more, when they are more light hearted, have humour in it and these kind of series tend to be also optically light, though not always. I generally simply don't like bleak and depressive and many series with barely lit sets tend to fall into that category. So that makes me a bit nervous for DIS. It doesn't help that a CBS exec said, that DIS would be "grittier" than past Star Trek series. That is the same thing the Stargate PTB said before SGU came out and the result was total crap.
 
I think she had more combat skills with melee due to growing up on Jakku so it seemed consistent to me. :shrug:

Hmm. I guess. Much like Luke's pilot skills. I guess it's episode viii that will tell how far she is along the curve. Shouldn't technically bb8 have been the death not Han?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top