Discovery and "The Orville" Comparisons

[marsh8472]

More accurately, you're including whatever you want, wherever you want. Double or triple standards across every series, just as long as Discovery comes in last. Through an incredible display of mental gymnastics, you've managed to convince yourself that Discovery is the only show to regularly feature undeveloped background characters and other Treks had up to 20 "main" characters while Discovery still only has 6.

All you had to say was that Discovery's main cast bores you. No one could say you are wrong about how you feel about them. Instead you pretended you were being objectively analytical, and came up with one of the most ridiculous and laughable arguments this forum has ever seen.

Anyone who is being truly objective and honest will be able to tell you who the main characters are after watching a season, even if they hate those characters. If you asked them to expand that list, they would include people like Seska, Dukat, and Admiral Cornwell, but they still wouldn't include recurring background characters like Ayala, Morn, Robot Person, or Lady With Messed Up Eye.

You pretending DSC's "so called main characters" are overshadowed by its background characters is incredibly, transparently dishonest.

Your argument that recurring background characters in other series are dissimilar, because they technically don't appear in "every episode" like DSC's, is grasping at straws. It's also factually incorrect because DSC's haven't appeared in every episode either, and the premise that a background character must be absent some episodes is absurd to begin with.

Your argument that DSC has a "shortage" of developed characters is, again, factually incorrect, and, again, the premise is absurd. A show's success is not related to the number of main characters.

This is all true regardless of your overall opinion of any of these shows or their characters.

I've received concessions already that Discovery has fewer central characters than the other trek series. The excuse was because they have fewer episodes in a season. Memory alpha quotes fewer central characters than any others. That's objective enough for me.

The background characters are more noticeable like the Robot person. Who puts so much work into a background character and not use them? What a waste of money.

You want objective, here's objective. From last weeks episode

Every single character on the bridge in this scene does not have an important role in the story except the captain. The only episode I can recall a fully manned bridge this happening is in Descent Part 2 . In that case Beverly was the captain and she had a skeleton crew. This isn't even a skeleton crew, look how many people are ignored.

Obviously there is some correlation between number of characters and ratings. If there were 0 actors there'd be no show at all. There are other variables at work such as quality of acting, which stinks too. Ignoring the character shortage is just dishonest, I think people can see what you're doing here. I can pretty much guarantee you that they will have to bring on new actors in this series or use the ones they are currently ignoring to improve the ratings.

 

[BillJ]

Obviously there is some correlation between number of characters and ratings.

Just no.

DS9 and Voyager had more characters than TNG. TNG had better ratings than either of them.

There are other variables at work such as quality of acting, which stinks too.

The acting is quite good. Actors can only do so much with the material they are given isn't great. If you could somehow bring TOS writers in their prime forward in time, and gave them actors like Isaacs, Rapp, Martin-Green, Jones and Wilson... you'd have one kick-ass show.

 

[zar]

I've received concessions already that Discovery has fewer central characters than the other trek series. The excuse was because they have fewer episodes in a season.

There was never a concession or an excuse. You tried to argue that Discovery should add main characters to increase "the likelihood of having a character that the audience will like" and someone pointed out that would give less time to each character. That's a simple fact.

Memory alpha [...] objective enough for me.

...Ha. Ha.

The background characters are more noticeable like the Robot person. Who puts so much work into a background character and not use them? What a waste of money.

Like I've said, they probably will use Airiam at some point because apparently the writers are enamored with her. But no, simply because they spent money on makeup doesn't mean she is supposed to be or should be a main character. Hell, even The Orville has done this. Whatever happened to those original aliens in the replimat in episode 3, hmm? It should be far less surprising when DSC does it, with its enormous budget. As a matter of fact, even Worf in TNG was originally supposed to be a background character until after the pilot. And it only changed because Michael Dorn "had presence". Not "because we paid Michael Westmore".

Every single character on the bridge in this scene does not have an important role in the story except the captain. The only episode I can recall a fully manned bridge this happening is in Descent Part 2 . In that case Beverly was the captain and she had a skeleton crew. This isn't even a skeleton crew, look how many people are ignored.

This show centers on Burnham and her colleagues, not the captain and his command staff. We have literally been told this since at least a year before the show was released. Is it really impossible for you to grasp the concept that the main cast does not regularly congregate on the bridge?

Obviously there is some correlation between number of characters and ratings. If there were 0 actors there'd be no show at all.

Yes, we need more actors because if there were 0 actors there would be no show. We also need more ships because if there were 0 ships then there would be nowhere to put the actors. Also, if there was 0 volume then we would hear nothing. BURNHAM SHOULD BE CONSTANTLY SHOUTING!

 

[Satron]

Every show gets directives from those that are funding its production. MacFarlane can probably get away with ignoring some directives due to his relationship with FOX. But, a good show is a good show, they overcome hurdles. We expect this from every other show we invest time in, why not Star Trek?

MacFarlane created a good show with the freedoms he can take. Disco could be a good show if we would get a little bit more substance and a little less style. I think they are trying too hard with DSC.

 

[Mudd]

I think that is unfair to the creative team behind Discovery. I'd guess that the much of what is to complain about in STD results from directives given by CBS.

I think this is maybe even more true than has been made public.

You mean discovery needs boner and glory hole jokes? A crew of people who get into trouble by dry humping statues, cutting off one another's legs, captain who panic runs off his bridge cause he found out his ex wife was is 1st officer?

A little of that could not have but improved STD. Make of that what you will.

 

[Mudd]

Every single character on the bridge in this scene does not have an important role in the story except the captain.

This is actually a good observation.

 

[Satron]

You mean discovery needs boner and glory hole jokes? A crew of people who get into trouble by dry humping statues, cutting off one another's legs, captain who panic runs off his bridge cause he found out his ex wife was is 1st officer?

Perhaps not as much in STD as in Orville but some of that would be, to quote CaptEnsign Tilly, fucking cool.

 

[Arvis Taljik]

You want objective, here's objective. From last weeks episode

Every single character on the bridge in this scene does not have an important role in the story except the captain. The only episode I can recall a fully manned bridge this happening is in Descent Part 2 . In that case Beverly was the captain and she had a skeleton crew. This isn't even a skeleton crew, look how many people are ignored.

Obviously there is some correlation between number of characters and ratings. If there were 0 actors there'd be no show at all. There are other variables at work such as quality of acting, which stinks too. Ignoring the character shortage is just dishonest, I think people can see what you're doing here. I can pretty much guarantee you that they will have to bring on new actors in this series or use the ones they are currently ignoring to improve the ratings.

Being an active duty service member in the US Navy, this scene is VERY true to life for me. The bridge of a ship IRL is NOT manned by the senior officers on the ship with the exception of the Captain and Navigator (sometimes the XO, but the XO is actually responsible for damage control in combat). Everyone else on the bridge is a NonCom/Enlisted/Crewman, including the helmsman, radar operator (e.g. sensors) and weapons. Never mind that weapons aren't controlled from the bridge, the person who actually presses the 'fire' button isn't an officer at all but rather a very junior crewman.

Having 'nobodies' on the bridge is very true to life. Whether intentional or not, it makes perfect sense to me.

 

[marsh8472]

There was never a concession or an excuse. You tried to argue that Discovery should add main characters to increase "the likelihood of having a character that the audience will like" and someone pointed out that would give less time to each character. That's a simple fact.

oh ok so facts can't be excuses, got it.

...Ha. Ha.

Hey you clipped what I said. Your desperation has no bounds. I think we can safely say everyone is onto you now. I wasn't saying memory alpha was objective. I was saying the content that's located on that memory alpha page is objective enough in this instance.

Like I've said, they probably will use Airiam at some point because apparently the writers are enamored with her. But no, simply because they spent money on makeup doesn't mean she is supposed to be or should be a main character. Hell, even The Orville has done this. Whatever happened to those original aliens in the replimat in episode 3, hmm? It should be far less surprising when DSC does it, with its enormous budget. As a matter of fact, even Worf in TNG was originally supposed to be a background character until after the pilot. And it only changed because Michael Dorn "had presence". Not "because we paid Michael Westmore".

So you're comparing extras in the replimat in Orville with the bridge crew... I think that argument speaks for itself

This show centers on Burnham and her colleagues, not the captain and his command staff. We have literally been told this since at least a year before the show was released. Is it really impossible for you to grasp the concept that the main cast does not regularly congregate on the bridge?

okay then, and people don't care about Burnham.

Yes, we need more actors because if there were 0 actors there would be no show. We also need more ships because if there were 0 ships then there would be nowhere to put the actors. Also, if there was 0 volume then we would hear nothing. BURNHAM SHOULD BE CONSTANTLY SHOUTING!

Nice strawman. My statement is to prove that a correlation exists between number of characters and show performance. Imagine watching TOS with only McCoy, Spock, and Kirk and no one else on the series then tell me it's just as good. Anyway that argument has eliminated all doubt of your desperation on this matter.

 

[zar]

oh ok so facts can't be excuses, got it.

Except it wasn't an excuse. You realize it was BillJ who said it, right? The same person who just said Discovery bores him to tears? As I said earlier, these are simple facts that have nothing to with how you feel about the show. Your argument is just completely ridiculous, and everyone can see that.

Hey you clipped what I said. Your desperation has no bounds. I think we can safely say everyone is onto you now.

Obviously I clipped it, hence the [...], to highlight the irony. It was hilarious. It got a genuine, audible laugh from me. Probably anyone else who witnessed your shenanigans in the "Tech issue" thread would agree. The irony is enhanced further by you now saying "Your desperation has no bounds. I think we can safely say everyone is onto you now." Good one!

I wasn't saying memory alpha was objective. I was saying the content that's located on that memory alpha page is objective enough in this instance.

Because, as we all know, "objective" means "anything marsh agrees with". If it listed anything different, it would no longer be objective.

So you're comparing extras in the replimat in Orville with the bridge crew... I think that argument speaks for itself

I believe this answers my question "Is it really impossible for you to grasp the concept that the main cast does not regularly congregate on the bridge?"

Nice strawman. My statement is to prove that a correlation exists between number of characters and show performance. Imagine watching TOS with only McCoy, Spock, and Kirk and no one else on the series then tell me it's just as good. Anyway that argument has eliminated all doubt of your desperation on this matter.

Yes, I am desperately trying to convince people that you literally suggested that Burnham should be constantly shouting. Please do yourself a favor and learn the difference between "strawman" and "reductio ad absurdum". Oh, and that first sentence was something called sarcasm, not a "concession", BTW.

If there was no one else on the bridge, then yes that would be strange. But that's not what's happening in DSC. The bridge is always fully staffed, but usually with extras. Just like every other set on Star Trek: Sickbay full of extras except the main cast doc, Engineering full of extras except the main cast engineer. Once again this show doesn't focus on the bridge crew, like they told us it wouldn't from day one, and for some reason you just can't wrap your brain around that.

Instead of a full-time bridge science officer, conn officer, ops officer, and tactical officer, like we're used to, this show's main cast includes an ex-con turned mission specialist, a cadet, another mission specialist, and a security chief, and these people do not have bridge stations. I'm sorry that this is too shocking for you to accept. If it helps, you could pretend they do have bridge stations, but all the bridge scenes happen to be on a different shift.

 

[Prax]

Altogether? No, it didn't. Calling the space warp the Glory Hole and blasting apart the game device were both comedy. Not the only examples, I'm sure.

And I clarified that.

 

[Prax]

This discussion of background characters is terminally ill.

 

[marsh8472]

Except it wasn't an excuse. You realize it was BillJ who said it, right? The same person who just said Discovery bores him to tears? As I said earlier, these are simple facts that have nothing to with how you feel about the show. Your argument is just completely ridiculous, and everyone can see that.

of course there will be less time per character with more characters. The series can still improve while having less focus on any one character. It's a red herring.

Except it wasn't an excuse. You realize it was BillJ who said it, right? The same person who just said Discovery bores him to tears? As I said earlier, these are simple facts that have nothing to with how you feel about the show. Your argument is just completely ridiculous, and everyone can see that.


Obviously I clipped it, hence the [...], to highlight the irony. It was hilarious. It got a genuine, audible laugh from me. Probably anyone else who witnessed your shenanigans in the "Tech issue" thread would agree. The irony is enhanced further by you now saying "Your desperation has no bounds. I think we can safely say everyone is onto you now." Good one!


Because, as we all know, "objective" means "anything marsh agrees with". If it listed anything different, it would no longer be objective.


I believe this answers my question "Is it really impossible for you to grasp the concept that the main cast does not regularly congregate on the bridge?"


Yes, I am desperately trying to convince people that you literally suggested that Burnham should be constantly shouting. Please do yourself a favor and learn the difference between "strawman" and "reductio ad absurdum". Oh, and that first sentence was something called sarcasm, not a "concession", BTW.

If there was no one else on the bridge, then yes that would be strange. But that's not what's happening in DSC. The bridge is always fully staffed, but usually with extras. Just like every other set on Star Trek: Sickbay full of extras except the main cast doc, Engineering full of extras except the main cast engineer. Once again this show doesn't focus on the bridge crew, like they told us it wouldn't from day one, and for some reason you just can't wrap your brain around that.

Instead of a full-time bridge science officer, conn officer, ops officer, and tactical officer, like we're used to, this show's main cast includes an ex-con turned mission specialist, a cadet, another mission specialist, and a security chief, and these people do not have bridge stations. I'm sorry that this is too shocking for you to accept. If it helps, you could pretend they do have bridge stations, but all the bridge scenes happen to be on a different shift.

I did almost include reductio ad absurdum in with the additional strawman argument but figured the strawman was sufficient. That's good that you are self aware of your own fallacious arguments.

Given how absurd your arguments have become I'm just going to say I won this

 

[zar]

I did almost include reductio ad absurdum in with the additional strawman argument but figured the strawman was sufficient. That's good that you are self aware of your own fallacious arguments.

Well, there it is. You just removed all doubt that you have no clue what most of those words mean.

 

[BillJ]

Given how absurd your arguments have become I'm just going to say I won this

The only way to win, is to not play the game. How much time have you lost in your "triumph"?

 

[GeekUSACarl]

The only way to win, is to not play the game. How much time have you lost in your "triumph"?

I don't know much of your debate

But I've never understood the idea of winning or losing an argument on the internet. Maybe I just lack a certain instinct for winning or losing but It just never occurred to me "I wanna win this one" or "I sure don't hope I lose"

I mean it's a conversation, as long as it's open and honest what's there to lose or win?

 

[Prax]

Sometimes when my oldest daughter becomes argumentative, I just blurt out "I'mrightYou'rewrong!IwinYoulose!"

You'd be surprised how well it works.

 

[zar]

To manufactured triumphs!

Hear hear!

 

[ichab]

All this talk about "not enough characters" in discovery almost makes me forget that the most popular Trek series mainly focused on three characters. Almost....

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I'm glad we finally reached a point where we can have TV shows that afford background extras that look varied and alien. The only reason why Spock was the only alien we saw in TOS was because make up effects cost money and it was much affordable to just have extras as human, despite the fact that the Enterprise is supposed to represent a Federation of plants.

When TAS was made, that finally gave the makers the ability to depict Kirk's ship with background characters of different origin like the three armed alien. The TOS movies having larger budgets were able to depict the crew comprising of many species.

But when scaling back from film to television with TNG in the 80s, we only occasionally had background extras being alien. Then in the 90s DS9 having better production values with Michael Westmore having mastetered alien makeup was able to afford more extras in elaborate makeup to better depict a very diverse people. ENT being about early Starfleet of Earth meant only Phlox and T'Pol needed makeup, so money was saved and extras could be all human.

nuTrek was a return to having a varied collection of species on the Enterprise. So many extras was elaborate makeup, yet no lines! But that's okay, and I'm happy DISCO took the same care to truly depict a starship representing a Federation of planets.