Discovery and "The Orville" Comparisons

[Vger23]

Every series devotes a few episodes almost entirely to one character. I think the fans of Discovery hate the comparisons with Orville because they hate being reminded that Discovery can do so much better and are confronted with the evidence of that with new episodes of Orville every week. Hopefully the writers over at CBS learned something

Having an episode that focuses on a character isn't the same as character development. By definition, character development is taking a character from point a to b to c and that journey is permanent and impacts who they are.

Trek hardly ever did that. Having a Riker episode and a Harry Kim episode doesn't change anything for those people. It just put them in a generic adventure where they were the star for 45 mins.

The DSC characters have changed, evolved and been revealed over the course of just the 7 episodes we've seen.

So, you can criticize the lack of focus on individual characters (which is a bit unfair given that there's been 7 fucking episodes to this point) and that's fine...but you don't have a leg to stand on with character DEVELOPMENT.

The fans of Discovery hate the comparisons to The Orville because they are stupid, meaningless comparisons meant to cause conflict between two very different, independently functioning science fiction shows. Not because they remind anyone of anything.

Sorry breh.

 

[fireproof78]

The fans of Discovery hate the comparisons to The Orville because they are stupid, meaningless comparisons meant to cause conflict between two very different, independently functioning science fiction shows. Not because they remind anyone of anything.

Exactly so. It's a meaningless competition designed to tear down one show at the other's expense. Thus far, I have seen little that adds value to the conversation of what the shows are about, or what is working or not working on either of them.

Discovery is trying something a little bit different with character development. I'm glad to have consequences in the show, rather than small plot points that don't amount to much.

 

[Fateor]

The DSC characters have changed, evolved and been revealed over the course of just the 7 episodes we've seen.

No they haven't.

 

[Vger23]

No they haven't.

Excellent argument. Am I supposed to answer with "yes they have?"

 

[marsh8472]

Having an episode that focuses on a character isn't the same as character development. By definition, character development is taking a character from point a to b to c and that journey is permanent and impacts who they are.

Trek hardly ever did that. Having a Riker episode and a Harry Kim episode doesn't change anything for those people. It just put them in a generic adventure where they were the star for 45 mins.

The DSC characters have changed, evolved and been revealed over the course of just the 7 episodes we've seen.

So, you can criticize the lack of focus on individual characters (which is a bit unfair given that there's been 7 fucking episodes to this point) and that's fine...but you don't have a leg to stand on with character DEVELOPMENT.

The fans of Discovery hate the comparisons to The Orville because they are stupid, meaningless comparisons meant to cause conflict between two very different, independently functioning science fiction shows. Not because they remind anyone of anything.

Sorry breh.

It looks like you're confusing character growth and character development

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[fireproof78]

Excellent argument. Am I supposed to answer with "yes they have?"

Nope.

See, I can do it too

 

[Vger23]

It looks like you're confusing character growth and character development

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Ok excellent, so DSC has character growth AND character development. Thank you. The earlier series had very little. Mainly just random adventures that focused on a different cast member going through them.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

In past treks, more often than not character development was forgotten by the end of the episode or ignored in later episodes by the writers whenever they felt like it. DS9 was probably the strongest series in terms of showing the characters growing and changing over its seven seasons.

I don't understand this petty discovery/orville competition either. I prefer Discovery. The Orville hasn't grabbed me and there is a fair bit I don't like about it, but I've still managed to find enjoyment in the episodes that I have watched. I don't feel the incessant need to watch it just so i can rip it apart and tell people who do prefer The Orville, how much I don't like it.

 

[Greg Cox]

Every series devotes a few episodes almost entirely to one character. I think the fans of Discovery hate the comparisons with Orville because they hate being reminded that Discovery can do so much better and are confronted with the evidence of that with new episodes of Orville every week. Hopefully the writers over at CBS learned something

Or maybe some of us are already weary of endless debates about which show is better, as opposed to appreciating each show on its own very different terms? Let alone silly claims about which one is the "true" successor to the previous Trek shows, as though this is a matter of apostolic succession . . . . :

See also "Star Wars vs. Star Trek," "DC vs. Marvel," "DS9 vs Babylon-5," etc.

 

[Vger23]

The character focus stories in previous Trek usually contained virtually no development or growth.

For example, what NEW point of view do you gain on Riker and how does the character change based on what happens in:
Hide and Q
Matter of Honor
Future Imperfect
Frame of Mind
11001001

In most of those episodes, you could swap in any other character and virtually nothing substantial about the story changes.

They're not bad stories, and Riker is not a bad character...but to say that there was tremendous development and growth is incorrect.

 

[marsh8472]

 

[fireproof78]

So, it is Star Trek!

 

[marsh8472]

The character focus stories in previous Trek usually contained virtually no development or growth.

For example, what NEW point of view do you gain on Riker and how does the character change based on what happens in:
Hide and Q
Matter of Honor
Future Imperfect
Frame of Mind
11001001

In most of those episodes, you could swap in any other character and virtually nothing substantial about the story changes.

They're not bad stories, and Riker is not a bad character...but to say that there was tremendous development and growth is incorrect.

You learn about the psychology of the character, how they react, background. Riker likes fishing and playing instruments learned that from Future Imperfect. The Frame of Mind play reminded Riker of his first year in the academy.

http://www.cbs.com/shows/after-trek...SZRu_/after-trek-u-s-s-discovery-bridge-crew/

^I don't know a thing about any of these characters

 

[fireproof78]

You learn about the psychology of the character, how they react, background. Riker likes fishing and playing instruments learned that from Future Imperfect. The Frame of Mind play reminded Riker of his first year in the academy.

http://www.cbs.com/shows/after-trek...SZRu_/after-trek-u-s-s-discovery-bridge-crew/

^I don't know a thing about any of these characters

Let me see if I understand this correctly: You are comparing secondary Bridge crew members from Discovery to a main character from TNG?

 

[Vger23]

You learn about the psychology of the character, how they react, background. Riker likes fishing and playing instruments learned that from Future Imperfect. The Frame of Mind play reminded Riker of his first year in the academy.

http://www.cbs.com/shows/after-trek...SZRu_/after-trek-u-s-s-discovery-bridge-crew/

^I don't know a thing about any of these characters

I was thinking of a more thoughtful reply, but your take on this is so skewed and biased that further discussion is clearly meaningless.

These people you are clamoring to know more about are the Discovery versions of Kyle, DeSalle and Leslie. The show isn't about them.

It's fun to say "they're not developing the bridge crew characters" when the frigging show is about Burnham, Lorca, Tilley, Stamets, Saru and Tyler. How about the stuff we've learned about them (which is the intent of the show) and the growth they've seen thus far?

But no, since that doesn't help your ill-conceived thesis about characters in DSC, we won't acknowledge that. We'll continue to lament how red head noeye girl doesn't have an episode...even though she's not a primary or secondary character.

Also, it's been 7 fucking episodes.

Not 70.

7.

 

[marsh8472]

Let me see if I understand this correctly: You are comparing secondary Bridge crew members from Discovery to a main character from TNG?

They're on almost all of the episodes and are neglected to the point where you consider them secondary characters. Besides Morn, when did they have a character on almost every episode and not use their character like that?

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Anyone remember the riveting development of Ensign Gates on TNG?

 

[Vger23]

They're on almost all of the episodes and are neglected to the point where you consider them secondary characters. Besides Morn, when did they have a character on almost every episode and not use their character like that?

Dude. Stop.

They're glorified background extras. They just happen to be consistent for realism sake.
Again DeSalle, Leslie, Kyle

 

[Vger23]

Anyone remember the riveting development of Ensign Gates on TNG?

What about Security Officer Johnson / Galloway
Angela Martine
Lt Hadley (62 frigging episodes, no dialogue)
Lt Farrell
Crewman Lemli
Lt. Leslie
Lt. deSalle

C'Mon Man!!!

 

[ichab]

I think the fans of Discovery hate the comparisons with Orville because they hate being reminded that Discovery can do so much better and are confronted with the evidence of that with new episodes of Orville every week.