Aside from characters-nope, nothing...
The characters aren't anything special, unless you're into Star Trek. If you only compare Trek to other Trek, then they're somewhat of a departure.
Discovery and "The Orville" Comparisons
- Thread starter Jedi_Master
- Start date
The characters aren't anything special, unless you're into Star Trek. If you only compare Trek to other Trek, then they're somewhat of a departure.
I certainly think this is case as well. For all the talk from some have about how orville is what Star Trek should be if it actually carried the Star Trek name those people would not be happy. They'd expect more, etc. The standard of expectation would be different and higher. Many of the shows issues would not at all be overlooked and ignored.The protest vote aspect would also be gone as well.
I'm not interested in comparisons. I'm interested in characters, Star Trek or not. Burnham has a complex background, Lorca is morally pragmatic, and there are other questions being brought. I haven't even brought up T'Kumva or Voq.
These characters are not unique to Star Trek and that's their appeal.
Exactly.
Yup, the biggest flaw in the argument that Orville is what trek should be or is more trek than trek, is simply that it is not trek.
I'm nostalgic for the original Star Trek, and am enjoying The Orville far more than Discovery.
The point is though the formula missed more often than it hit - even for beloved TNG. A lot of each season was filler - they had to make a deadline, usually could not do a character-focused episode, so they needed to throw around wacky, stupid sci-fi ideas until they got something potentially entertaining. Sometimes it was great, often it was not.
Compare this to DS9, where they actually let the characters change and grow over time. Not only entire episodes, but whole plot arcs were dedicated to character development - both consistent backstory and serialized development. They still struggled to fill out the season sometimes and had wacky filler episodes (like shrinking the runabout) but the issue was much less pronounced.
I see a dark series. I got into the dark stuff with that batman trilogy, walking dead, continuum, and game of thrones. But I'm all darked out now. I watched the same episodes you watched. Any deep meaning you're seeing to the show is probably your own invention.
However I won't stop watching. I've seen every episode of every series, even the animated series and not stopping. It's only an hour a week. Being disappointed helps me appreciate other things in life.
Oh yeah, because that trademark is your Assurance of Quality.
Not.
I mean, who cares? If Discovery was called "Star TreK: Free B*******!" it wouldn't be any better.
My statement wasn't one of quality. And I think the point is still a solid one.
The idea that Neostar put forward is very sound, and not one of quality either. It was one of expectation and of baggage. The flaw in the thought that "it's more trek than trek" or "is what trek should be" is simply that it is not Trek, and if it was Trek it would carry a whole different set of baggage and expectations and would be significantly different. It simply "isn't" Star Trek.
I strongly disagree. What you call filler, I call original thinking. Sci Fi should be at the center of the story. If you can set a story in a different setting, then it's weak and doesn't belong in StarTrek.
A character has a romantic conflict, is dealing with her troubled past, is facing a difficult decision etc. these are filler stories that should only be kept in the background.
I dunno. I mean, I've been a big reader of literary science fiction since childhood, though I've never read Trek books. Certainly in hard sci-fi novels (like something by Greg Egan, for example) the scientific exploration is the point of the book. But in most cases - even by established literary authors - the point of using a science-fictional setting is to explore elements of the human condition in a time or culture alien to our own. Trek did a ton of this as well - most of the "planet of hats" episodes could have been done in a non-futuristic setting, since they were really just about using humanoid aliens as a parable. In contrast, with a few exceptions the anomaly of the week/negative space wedgie episodes are lame, because they put the crew into a dumb crisis that we absolutely know will be solved by the end of the hour.
Great Trek episodes like In the Pale Moonlight, The Inner Light, Space Seed, Duet, The First Duty, Necessary Evil, The Visitor, or even The City on the Edge of Forever didn't really need to be science fiction at all, as the central conflict of the episodes involves characters, not technobabble.
In great science fiction characters are there to be your eyes. Rendezvous at Rama or the 2001 Space Odyssey, the characters need to be relatable and likable, but it's the story that matters.
What would Space Seed or the Inner Light be without sci fi? A guy has an amnesia and tries to solve his village's problems? I don't see how your examples would work or be interesting without the sci fi aspect.
Roddenberry of the 1960's would disagree. Part of what he writes in the writer's guide is that the stories should be able to work as regular drama, the sci-fi was the window dressing in his mind. IIRC.
That's typically why I liked shows like Star Trek, and even shows like X-Files.
The thing that stuck out to me with star trek was always how the characters acted within whatever event that was happening. Inner Light comes to mind here, I could think of a few backdrops that would allow that story to work virtually the same way. I enjoyed X-Files cause I loved watching a mans obsession with the hunt for his sister get in the way of other facets in his life, and his constant fight against govt suppression. Obviously the sci-fi was there but not necessarily the thing I liked most, I loved the character.
I don't mind the "filler" episodes, as long as they are well acted and well written, I kinda liked the shrunken DS9 crew.
I liked Clarke's work a lot as a child, but he wrote characters like a borderline autistic person.
There are tons of examples of classic science fiction where the "science" isn't key to the plot. Dune, 1984, Fahenheit 451, A Canticle for Leibowitz, The Left Hand of Darkness, Hyperion, The Forever War, etc. The science fiction setting was integral to the plot in some cases, whereas in others it was just sort of there to entertain via allegory. Regardless, the tonal core of these books was not grounded in some SF-nal concept.
Space Seed - A 19th century ship finds Napoleon stranded on a desert island. Hijinks ensue.
The Inner Light - A man is washed ashore into an isolated village where everyone insists he is someone else. He spends the rest of his life there, working through the tension between the life he remembers having and the life that he is now living.
Remember Me could just as easily be a movie about someone's mind collapsing around them as the result of Alzheimer's
Gotta disagree. As an editor, I used to see this in the slush fairly often: submissions that were all about big, cool, sometimes ingenious sci-fi ideas, but with little in the way of actual characterization or drama or emotion. At worst, they were just intellectual exercises in problem-solving, with the emotional temperature of lukewarm bath water.
I always rejected stories like that.
In general, I resist the notion that SF characters should just be the reader's eyes, although I suppose there are a few notable exceptions like "2001" and maybe some Stapledon and Lovecraft. . And certainly that doesn't apply to STAR TREK, which has always put passionate human dramas and moral dilemmas at the center of its best episodes.
Example: "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is not really about the galactic barrier or telekinesis. It's about absolute power corrupting Kirk's best friend, forcing Kirk to make an agonizing decision . . . .
^^^
Says an (like myself) old Star Trek fan.
Look I know it's easy to believe if you don't like something, it obviously musty not appeal to anyone else, or draw anyone to watch (that was the cry of many Star Trek fans who didn't like the JJ Abrams films; this fan who started watch Star trek in 1969 LOVED the Abrams films and I hope they make a fourth one day) - but, the fact is the JJ Abrams films created and drew in new Star Trek fans; and if the CBS stats (and pirated stats as well) are somewhat accurate, it's clear ST: D is drawing in/creating new Star Trek fans as well;. (And it's no secret I like ST: D as well.)
That's unfortunate, considering that these are the type of stories that readers want to buy.
1. My favorite aspect of space seed is the concept of cryonic preservation, which has now entered science fact, but was science fiction in the 60s. There are many pieces to the story, as well as the almost master and slave relationship with that female crewman, but it just wouldn't be the same story without the sci fi sexy that made it cool and fascinating.
2. Why would everyone insist that he's a different person? Also, the story is intriguing specifically because he lived a lifetime among a people long gone.
Similar threads
