That's a definite NO for me.
Discovery and "The Orville" Comparisons
- Thread starter Jedi_Master
- Start date
I think DSC is more consistent than any Trek series, as a result of having a fully mapped out, tight 15-episode season arc. For some that means consistently good, for others, consistently bad.
It remains to be seen whether anyone will rate every episode in this series a 7 out of 10 (or a 3-5 out of 10). I wouldn't be surprised if individual rating trends fluctuated by season.
You must... Encourage the show, build up her confidence. Tell her she is pretty, and speak softly. Tell her she is great. You must reward her with her favorite treats(10 star ratings)
Then she will feel stronger, and prettier, and more confident.
46 episodes. 7 seasons.
http://scriptsearch.dxdy.name/?page=results&query=({series|tng,}) and ({speaker|gates,})
Forty-six.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Gates#Appearances
In case you missed it, that's 46 episodes.
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".
The Orville set design and lighting is perfectly suitable for sitcoms today, but it would not be accepted in dramatic television. If Discovery had those sets they would have likely been mocked as looking cheap and outdated. The Orville is intentionally evoking the 80s aesthetics of TNG but doing it under the guise of a comedy, so it can easily get away with that old school look under that pretense.
What I am continually impressed with is the ascending quality of each episode of The Orville, even when they are using low budget locations and sets. Absolutely fantastic.
I miss the bridge scenes on Discovery, so having an opening battle sequence in the last episode was much needed, for me anyway. That being said it feels like the lighting and blue, blackness is a night feel - all the time. There's something about the spacing too. I prefer the team to be more intensely seated close to each other, Discovery's bridge is too big.
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".
Marsh you know this argument of yours holds no value. Data, Worf, and Troi were actually regular main cast members that had their names featured on the title credits. The bridge officers you've been referring to in Discovery are NOT main cast members, therefore your argument that not giving them lines is like not giving Worf lines is utter bullshit.
For example, Tim McCormack and Dexter Clay played regular bridge officers on TNG. They were practically on every episode of the first season, but were given nothing to do other than be background players. Now, by your logic, TNG made a great error in not giving them anything to do. Why have them featured regularly if you're not gonna do anything with them?
See my point. Your argument is flawed, so find something else to nitpick or just go watch TNG on repeat nonstop.
Last edited:
The argument is fine, it was an either-or argument. Either they were still intending on bringing those 4 characters into the fold later or Star Trek Discovery is just going to be lacking in the main character department compared to the other star treks. CBS was the one that made a video about these people on their site, not me. Did paramount do that for the people you're mentioning as counter-examples?
Last edited:
That's just something for fans to delve into outside of the show, kind of like how Star Wars has background info on every extra featured in the cantina scene
And once again, those are NOT main characters. Maybe somewhere down the line they'll get more like Chief O'Brien eventually did (who didn't even have a name until season 2!), but we're not there yet.
And once again, those are NOT main characters. Maybe somewhere down the line they'll get more like Chief O'Brien eventually did (who didn't even have a name until season 2!), but we're not there yet.
I can't believe you're pursuing this. Why not just laugh it off? It's clearly ludicrous.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".
You said every other Trek series did this better. They clearly didn't, so now you're making excuses for the other series and moving the goalposts.
So now it doesn't matter that Gates was in 38 more episodes than DSC's background characters. All those episodes get a pass because they weren't in season 1. Only season 1 matters now, and having background characters in every season 1 episode (no matter how small a part) is unacceptable because season 1 should be entirely devoted to the main cast.
Okay, fine. Now, let's talk about DS9.
In 20 episodes of season 1, of DS9's main cast, Quark was in 18, O'Brien was in 17, and Jake Sisko was in 9.
Broik the Ferengi waiter was in 10.
Morn was in 19.
So how do you excuse this? Is it because Morn technically still wasn't in "every episode"? Well, I guess you'll have to excuse Owosekun, Airiam, and Richter too, then. And if Detmer misses one of the next 7, you'll have to give up the whole thing. But even as is, DSC is doing better than DS9 at meeting your criteria so far. Will you agree? Will you admit this argument is a dead end? Or will you just move the goalposts again? I have a guess...
Haha you're still on this? I laugh you off, not the argument. DS9 had the most main characters of any series, they can afford to have a few on regularly and ignore them. Discovery has a shortage of main characters. The few they do have are not very likable. You'd think they'd fall back on the other characters regularly on the bridge, but of course not.I can't believe you're pursuing this. Why not just laugh it off? It's clearly ludicrous.
You said every other Trek series did this better. They clearly didn't, so now you're making excuses for the other series and moving the goalposts.
So now it doesn't matter that Gates was in 38 more episodes than DSC's background characters. All those episodes get a pass because they weren't in season 1. Only season 1 matters now, and having background characters in every season 1 episode (no matter how small a part) is unacceptable because season 1 should be entirely devoted to the main cast.
Okay, fine. Now, let's talk about DS9.
In 20 episodes of season 1, of DS9's main cast, Quark was in 18, O'Brien was in 17, and Jake Sisko was in 9.
Broik the Ferengi waiter was in 10.
Morn was in 19.
So how do you excuse this? Is it because Morn technically still wasn't in "every episode"? Well, I guess you'll have to excuse Owosekun, Airiam, and Richter too, then. And if Detmer misses one of the next 7, you'll have to give up the whole thing. But even as is, DSC is doing better than DS9 at meeting your criteria so far. Will you agree? Will you admit this argument is a dead end? Or will you just move the goalposts again? I have a guess...
How do people come to like any form of entertainment? Why would sports be such a mystery?
The team is in your city or region.
You go to games with your parent(s) growing up.
You idolize a certain player from the team as a kid.
You meet a member or members of the team.
You use a team or a player as inspiration for your own athletic dreams or goals.
You enjoy watching the games with your parents or grandparents or friends.
etc.
I just want reiterate:
These are NOT main cast members. They are not the Discovery equivalent of Data, Worf, Troi, Harry Kim, Dax, and any other main cast member that has their names featured on the main title sequence of their respective shows. This show is NOT about them. This show is about Burnham, Saru, Tyler, Stammets, Tilly, and Lorca. Anyone else is either a guest role, recurring, or background.
This is not hard to comprehend.
These are NOT main cast members. They are not the Discovery equivalent of Data, Worf, Troi, Harry Kim, Dax, and any other main cast member that has their names featured on the main title sequence of their respective shows. This show is NOT about them. This show is about Burnham, Saru, Tyler, Stammets, Tilly, and Lorca. Anyone else is either a guest role, recurring, or background.
This is not hard to comprehend.
I just want reiterate:
These are NOT main cast members. They are not the Discovery equivalent of Data, Worf, Troi, Harry Kim, Dax, and any other main cast member that has their names featured on the main title sequence of their respective shows. This show is NOT about them. This show is about Burnham, Saru, Tyler, Stammets, Tilly, and Lorca. Anyone else is either a guest role, recurring, or background.
This is not hard to comprehend.
Yeah I've been lurkin, following this one for a bit, and I'm not quite sure where this was supposed to go or what the point was but yeah, these people aren't equivalent at all.
I'd be interested to learn more about them. Burnham is dull as dishwater and I'd rather learn more about Detmer and Airiam.
I just want reiterate:
These are NOT main cast members. They are not the Discovery equivalent of Data, Worf, Troi, Harry Kim, Dax, and any other main cast member that has their names featured on the main title sequence of their respective shows. This show is NOT about them. This show is about Burnham, Saru, Tyler, Stammets, Tilly, and Lorca. Anyone else is either a guest role, recurring, or background.
This is not hard to comprehend.
K here are the people in the credits of each series in order of appearance
Star Trek Discovery
Sonequa Martin-Green (Michael Burnham)
Doug Jones (Saru)
Shazad Latif (Ash Tyler)
Anthony Rapp (Paul Stamets)
Mary Wiseman (Sylvia Tilly)
Jason Isaacs (Gabriel Lorca)
Star Trek (grabbed season 2)
William Shatner (Kirk)
Leonard Nimoy (Spock)
DeForest Kelley (McCoy)
Star Trek The Next Generation (grabbed season 4)
Patrick Stewart (Jean-Luc Picard)
Jonathan Frakes (William Riker)
Levar Burton (Geordi La Forge)
Michael Dorn (Worf)
Gates McFadden (Beverly Crusher)
Marina Sirtis (Deanna Troi)
Brent Spiner (Data)
Wil Wheaton (Wesley Crusher)
Star Trek Deep Space Nine (grabbed season 5)
Avery Brooks (Sisko)
Rene Auberjonois (Odo)
Michael Dorn (Worf)
Terry Farrell (Dax)
Cirroc Lofton (Jake Sisko)
Colm Meaney (O'Brien)
Armin Shimerman (Quark)
Alexander Siddig (Bashir)
Nana Visitor (Kira)
Star Trek Voyager (grabbed season 4)
Kate Mulgrey (Kathryn Janeway)
Robert Beltran (Chakotay)
Roxann Dawson (B'Elanna Torres)
Robert Duncan McNeill (Tom Paris)
Ethan Phillips (Neelix)
Robert Picardo (The Doctor)
Tim Russ (Tuvok)
Jeri Ryan (Seven of Nine)
Garrett Wang (Harry Kim)
Star Trek Enterprise (grabbed season 2)
Scott Bakula (Jonathan Archer)
John Billingsley (Phlox)
Jolene Blalock (T'Pol)
Dominic Keating (Malcolm Reed)
Anthony Montgomery (Travis Mayweather)
Linda Park (Hoshi Sato)
Connor Trinneer (Charles Tucker III)
Obviously your method of using the intro credits to establish who is a main character falls flat with the original series but I think it does help establish that Star Trek Discovery has fewer characters to work with than any other series. Thanks
He's saying that they're decoration. His analogy was something like "Imagine TNG where an android named Data was a background character on the bridge, and we never learned anything about him." like, there's this weird guy with pale skin and yellow eyes walking around who may or may not be an android, or alien, who knows.
They're introducing an intriguing new species/robot something via a background character. This is done for the "cantina effect."
In the older shows, the background extras would be human, sometimes vulcan. If they go to the trouble of showing an atypical race, they would also go to the trouble of adding them to the story. Or if they go to the trouble of adding a new alien race, they would have a story about them.
That's what I gather from the posts, but good news: this thread has taught me her name. It's "Airiam" and her species is "Augmented Alien."
Does anyone know the name of the Das Punk girl? I assume she died, along with frightened black Lobot.
And what's you're point? Please elaborate on why Discovery having 6 characters instead of 7 is a bad thing. You're grasping at straws.
So we're judging STAR TREK shows by how many regular and recurring characters they have, because that's a reliable measure of quality? How does that many any sense?
And who knows? Maybe Detmer will become the next O'Brian, after a season or two. Or maybe she'll just be another Lt. Kyle, who never really gets fleshed out because she's just a bit player. The show is not required to be an ensemble show about the bridge crew, just because some of the previous Trek shows took that approach. This is a different show, taking a different approach.
Similar threads
