|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Interesting, but I'd like to hear from the poster who thinks the only reason anyone likes Orville better is because it stars a white male.
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
turn left hillary!! noo posted:Oh yeah, you've got the smaller, less-prestigious ship with the somewhat more motley crew. The premise of Voyager was always good. Norm might be the Neelix equivalent. A horn dog that annoys people for fun whose role on the ship is entirely unclear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Ventana posted:It was a dumb point on his part yeah, but there is a lot more complaining about all access than they should be. It's bad, but people saying they're being "violated"? For me, I don't want networks all trying to premiumize their content, especially if the service isn't top notch or they have enough content to justify it, like HBO. It's a protest not a complaint that they don't have the right. I also happen to think it's stupid for them to think this was good enough to make its money back on All Access subs (I guess thats why there are STILL ads) and finally, I'm upset that people like my parents won't get to see it unless I literally pirate it myself and burn it on DVDs or something because while they have a ROKU and NETFLIX and a DVR there is zero chance of them getting an internet subscription to CBS and they enjoy Trek.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
turn left hillary!! noo posted:This is pretty close to accurate. The pilot is the most jokey of the three episodes so far, I would say. I'll agree with another poster in the Orville thread who said the closest contemporary analogue humor-wise is probably Agents of SHIELD. The humor can be a little cruder in Orville, but it's very clear that it wants to be TNG: The Less Serious Version, and it succeeds pretty well at that. I know the Orville got hammered with bad reviews. Probably because it was advertised as a comedy but was really just McFarlane just doing Star Trek instead of a Star Trek parody. I wonder if that show is going to catch on or if it'll get cancelled. And if it's not really a parody, it's dangerously close to copyright infringement territory. I would not be surprised if CBS sued him. In an ideal world, I'd just have Seth McFarlane do Star Trek instead of a Star Trek knockoff. That will never happen though, because McFarlane is with Fox, the Orville is definitely going to cause bad blood with CBS, and the Orville might not succeed and get cancelled. I'm a pessimist and always expect the worst, so take what I say with a huge grain of salt. But I'm kind of expecting Discovery to not do very well and get cancelled. As well as McFarlane's Not-Star Trek not doing well and getting cancelled. And Beyond didn't do well in the box office, either. This might mean no more Star Trek for a long time, because execs will see this and think that Star Trek just isn't profitable, when in reality it's that execs don't really understand Star Trek and what fans want. It's been said a million times, but nobody wants another prequel or reboot. I love TOS, but I'm so tired of the TOS era. There is no reason why you can't do a show set 50-100 years after DS9. You didn't have to watch TOS to enjoy TNG. A good deal of Star Trek really just stands on its own and doesn't require the viewer to have previous knowledge, honestly. I kind of feel like these days we need Star Trek more than ever, too. Everything these days is so grimdark, but Star Trek was optimistic and was a show that was more or less about trying to do the right thing and having principles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:And Beyond didn't do well in the box office, either. Beyond grossed $343 million worldwide, earning a profit of around $158 million. It did just fine. quote:I kind of feel like these days we need Star Trek more than ever, too. Everything these days is so grimdark, but Star Trek was optimistic and was a show that was more or less about trying to do the right thing and having principles. Amen to that though. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Well I'm glad Seth is being kept away from Trek. Beyond avoiding dystopia, I don't think he has a good idea of what Trek should be about. He's the one looking back at TNG and trying to retread that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Orville's first two episodes actually did very well with very little drop off between them, and the third episode did comparatively well for being up against NFL football and held its demo. So far from a ratings standpoint it actually looks like it will stick around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:I know the Orville got hammered with bad reviews. Probably because it was advertised as a comedy but was really just McFarlane just doing Star Trek instead of a Star Trek parody. I wonder if that show is going to catch on or if it'll get cancelled. And if it's not really a parody, it's dangerously close to copyright infringement territory. I would not be surprised if CBS sued him. I'm sure the show was thoroughly vetted by Fox's lawyers to make sure nothing actionable got through. There's a few dissenters, of course, but general consensus in the Orville thread is that no one knows what the critics were smoking, but probably some combination of thwarted expectations/didn't actually watch the show they were reviewing/knee-jerk MacFarlane hate led to the bad reviews.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Discovery wasn't awful, but it wasn't good enough to subscribe to CBSAA, either. Not when I can wait a few months and shotgun the whole series. The funny thing is, if they sold episodes over Amazon, I'd probably buy them as they came out. The subscription method guarantees I can watch the entire season for no more than $6, so I guess I'm better off. Did anyone else see the word "prophesy" for "prophecy" in the Klingon subtitles? I wasn't watching very closely by that point, but I could swear they used the wrong word.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Drone posted:Beyond grossed $343 million worldwide, earning a profit of around $158 million. It did just fine. Huh. I kept hearing it flopped. Maybe they consider a profit of $150 mil a "flop". Weird. I actually liked Beyond, by the way. It kind of felt like... you know, an actual Star Trek movie. It wasn't amazing and didn't blow my mind but was leagues ahead of the last one. Echo Chamber posted:Well I'm glad Seth is being kept away from Trek. Beyond avoiding dystopia, I don't think he has a good idea of what Trek should be about. He's the one looking back at TNG and trying to retread that. I think Seth McFarlane and guys like Branon Braga have a pretty good idea of what TNG was. What they don't have is an idea on how to move Trek forward and make something that's different from TNG but is still Trek. Voyager was basically 7 more seasons of TNG except with a different cast, and from what I understand, that's what the Orville is. Enterprise was supposed to be a prequel but still fell back on TNG tropes constantly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
I honestly do think having the characters being "basically good people but not perfect or the elite of the elite" is a huge step forward. This is something Discovery is going for as well but for me they made the decisions of the main character too terrible. Made characters like Saru out to be assholes though he seemed more or less reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:Huh. I kept hearing it flopped. Maybe they consider a profit of $150 mil a "flop". Weird. Yep, agreed there too. Beyond was the best of the three JJTreks, and comes closest to actually being a Star Trek movie. I guess people who panned ST:B as a flop were expecting it to get like... Rogue One levels of box office performance? Which, come on, Star Trek will never be able to do. The problem with modern Trek writing is that people forget that the series is at its best when it examines modern problems from the point of view of a society (and of characters) who have moved beyond them. The Wrath of Khan is powerful because you have a 20th century human hellbent on revenge, confronted with 23rd century humans who have moved beyond the need for it. Instead, CBS seems to think that the audience wants to see modern problems resolved through the lense of modern people who are still in the process of working through them. It weakens the inherent utopia of Star Trek, and makes it overall a much weaker franchise. Drone fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Sep 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Nothus Infelix posted:Did anyone else see the word "prophesy" for "prophecy" in the Klingon subtitles? I wasn't watching very closely by that point, but I could swear they used the wrong word. This is an extremely common mistake, so it wouldn't surprise me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
They did. I'm trying to find it in the episode so I can grab a screenshot, but ugh, watching the Klingon scenes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
I didn't even realize STD got it's own thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
I hope the new show is good. Not chomping at the bit to pay $10 a month or whatever. If they wanted to do a kickstarter for a new show, I would thrown some money at that. Still not sure why I should get a CBS All Access account otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:I think Seth McFarlane and guys like Branon Braga have a pretty good idea of what TNG was. What they don't have is an idea on how to move Trek forward and make something that's different from TNG but is still Trek. Voyager was basically 7 more seasons of TNG except with a different cast, and from what I understand, that's what the Orville is. Enterprise was supposed to be a prequel but still fell back on TNG tropes constantly. The benefit of The Orville is that, yeah, it's the most TNG show since Trek ended, but they can also poke holes in it with the humor, which at least for me keeps it fresh enough. And beyond that it takes a cue from "Lower Decks" where the crew is competent with potential, but not quite primo material for the flagship. There's enough to differentiate it. I could've said the same about Voyager in the first 3 episodes though, too, probably. So only time will tell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:Huh. I kept hearing it flopped. Maybe they consider a profit of $150 mil a "flop". Weird. Maybe it was something to do with domestic vs international box office receipts? I find that sort of number-crunching interesting but I'm not very clever about it. I believe the rule with these big tentpole blockbusters is that they need to make back twice their budget to be profitable when you account for the costs associated with marketing and advertising. In the post-Avengers world, too, the expectation is that big franchise action blockbusters (which may be the problem - that's certainly something Star Trek can be, but I don't think it's what Star Trek is) will be able to clear a billion at the box office globally. Remember that people were saying Batman v Superman underperformed or that it was a disappointment for Warners Bros. because it just fell short of a billion dollars, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
I feel like The Orville "gets" Star Trek better than Discovery does. In Orville, the characters are flawed human beings (or Moclans, or Xelayans...) but the Federation-esque society they've built is something positive and desirable. I like the message that we can achieve heaven on earth through peaceful, empathetic means. In Discovery, however, Federation values seems to be portrayed as a negative thing, like it's saying that the decadence and naivete of the Federation made us unable to defend ourselves from space-Wahhabis and we need to toughen up. I said as much in the Discovery thread already, but this feels like it was written in 2003 for as much of a jingoistic war porn it feels like. I'm half-expecting the coming episodes to start defending the Patriot Act and justifying torture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
So here's the thing. If the rumors are correct...(rumors/speculation hidden for the sensitive)...If Discovery really is the origin of Section 31 (NCC-1031 USS Discovery) then this whole series is the origin story of the bad guys hidden in the Federation who would later (according to the novels) be behind the attempt to start the war with the Klingons in Undiscovered Country, behind the deal with the Son'a in Insurrection, and are definitely responsible for trying to genocide the Founders in DS9. If this is the internal mythology of Section 31 as they see themselves, then it makes sense that they'd look upon the normal Federation ideals as naively optimistic at best, suicidally dangerous at worst. "Someone has to protect these dreamers from the dangers in their dreams. We'll be the monsters who do what we have to so that everyone else can live in paradise." In which case having one of the founders of Section 31 being a traumatized atrocity survivor who tries to apply logic, but can never quite escape her deep seated fears, make perfect sense. There's no guarantee that's actually what they're going for, or if that idea survived into the post-Fuller Discovery, but everything we've seen so far seems to be heading that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Pakled posted:I feel like The Orville "gets" Star Trek better than Discovery does. In Orville, the characters are flawed human beings (or Moclans, or Xelayans...) but the Federation-esque society they've built is something positive and desirable. I like the message that we can achieve heaven on earth through peaceful, empathetic means. In Discovery, however, Federation values seems to be portrayed as a negative thing, like it's saying that the decadence and naivete of the Federation made us unable to defend ourselves from space-Wahhabis and we need to toughen up. I said as much in the Discovery thread already, but this feels like it was written in 2003 for as much of a jingoistic war porn it feels like. I'm half-expecting the coming episodes to start defending the Patriot Act and justifying torture. This is pretty much what the rubber-mask villain in Beyond is on about too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:In the post-Avengers world, too, the expectation is that big franchise action blockbusters (which may be the problem - that's certainly something Star Trek can be, but I don't think it's what Star Trek is) will be able to clear a billion at the box office globally. Remember that people were saying Batman v Superman underperformed or that it was a disappointment for Warners Bros. because it just fell short of a billion dollars, for instance. I know you're not saying otherwise, but what you left unspoken is that that expectation is just flat wrong. It's sour grapes from dipshit executives and crybaby stockholders who are left feeling dickless at the golf course. What's usually forgotten is the fact that Avengers was the product of years of buildup from several other movies that did not clear a billion at the box office; if you compare movies like Iron Man or Captain America to the new Trek movies, it's a lot closer. But all anyone in Hollywood ever sees is THE AVENGERS MADE $1.5 BILLION DOLLARS  It's childish and stupid that anyone at Paramount or WB thought they could get the same results just by glitzing up their best-known properties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:This is pretty much what the rubber-mask villain in Beyond is on about too. And the anti-Risa guys Worf joins in "Let He Who Is Without Sin..."
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I know you're not saying otherwise, but what you left unspoken is that that expectation is just flat wrong. It's sour grapes from dipshit executives and crybaby stockholders who are left feeling dickless at the golf course. What's usually forgotten is the fact that Avengers was the product of years of buildup from several other movies that did not clear a billion at the box office; if you compare movies like Iron Man or Captain America to the new Trek movies, it's a lot closer. But all anyone in Hollywood ever sees is THE AVENGERS MADE $1.5 BILLION DOLLARS Sure, absolutely, and I'm sure that's why other studios and production companies (looking at you, Universal) seem to have put the cart before the horse with their franchises. Dracula Untold and The Mummy are the biggest offenders that occur to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
I'm not interested in a Federation Stasi hero Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Trying to watch this After Trek show. gently caress man, let Hardwick be Hardwick, we don't need people trying to be Hardwick. What now, After NCIS?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Drone posted:Yep, agreed there too. Beyond was the best of the three JJTreks, and comes closest to actually being a Star Trek movie. Yeah. For the most part, the Federation really doesn't care about race, sexuality, religion and so on and has moved past these things. Maybe it's not very realistic and we'll certainly never get past these things in my lifetime, but it provides hope for the future. I realize this isn't going to make a lot of sense, but in Star Trek, the Federation are really the space aliens, and the aliens worlds they visit are a reflection of problems on earth. The various alien species in Star Trek are the metaphorical humans, whereas the humans in Star Trek are the outside observers. It's kind of a role-reversal of a lot of other science fiction. The reason why tackling social issues in Star Trek works so well is because it is done from an outsider perspective. It lets us examine ourselves from a different point of view, if you get what I'm saying. I feel like when Star Trek is at its best, it's not really a show about exploring outer space, it's about exploring the human condition and trying to solve moral dilemmas. I mean, most of the recurring aliens in Star Trek represent some facet of humanity and it's usually really, really obvious what they are. The Klingons were the Soviets \ Chinese Communists in the 1960s. The Ferengi represent laissez-faire capitalism. The Cardassians are fascists. The Romulans are literally just the Roman Empire with pointy ears. I don't know what the Borg were supposed to represent in the 1980's other than really scary inhuman bad guys, but these days you could tell some really good Borg stories that are cautionary tales about the pitfalls of social media and echo chambers \ groupthink. Wheat Loaf posted:Maybe it was something to do with domestic vs international box office receipts? I find that sort of number-crunching interesting but I'm not very clever about it. I believe the rule with these big tentpole blockbusters is that they need to make back twice their budget to be profitable when you account for the costs associated with marketing and advertising. Honestly I think ultimately, it all just boils down to Hollywood accounting being a giant mess, and it always has been. And that Hollywood execs are dopes. GET IN THE ROBOT fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Sep 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Oh yeah, speaking of Bryan Fuller, I almost forgot. Trip report: DS9 Season 5, episode 24 "Empok Nor" As soon as I saw the other four crew members going along with O'Brien, Nog, and Garak, I knew they were all dead meat. I loved O'Brien's response to Garak: "Maybe you're right - maybe you're not a soldier anymore." "I'm not. I'm an engineer." BOOM! This was a pretty tense episode. I like what they did with the abandoned station, although the way these episodes are mastered there was a lot of noise and washed out blacks such that I couldn't see very well in some scenes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Has anyone else noticed that the episode on Netflix UK keeps changing contrast and saturation mid scene? It's like Netflix tried to apply a cinematic filter to the entire show and hosed up. It's horrible and sickly looking. It's also definitely not my equipment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:So here's the thing. If the rumors are correct...(rumors/speculation hidden for the sensitive)...If Discovery really is the origin of Section 31 (NCC-1031 USS Discovery) then this whole series is the origin story of the bad guys hidden in the Federation who would later (according to the novels) be behind the attempt to start the war with the Klingons in Undiscovered Country, behind the deal with the Son'a in Insurrection, and are definitely responsible for trying to genocide the Founders in DS9. If this is the internal mythology of Section 31 as they see themselves, then it makes sense that they'd look upon the normal Federation ideals as naively optimistic at best, suicidally dangerous at worst. "Someone has to protect these dreamers from the dangers in their dreams. We'll be the monsters who do what we have to so that everyone else can live in paradise." In which case having one of the founders of Section 31 being a traumatized atrocity survivor who tries to apply logic, but can never quite escape her deep seated fears, make perfect sense. Didn't they already sort of cover that in Enterprise? Or am I just misremembering crap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
I didn't get from the pilot: Why did the other houses suddenly decide to follow T'kuvma? They showed up, most were annoyed, even the ones who were willing to listen didn't seem to have any motivation. Captain Georgiou pops up on screen to say nothing particularly provocative one way or the other, and suddenly it's a firefight. They were just like "oh well we're here already might as well start a war with the Federation"? Feels like a lazy way to somehow both make Burnham right AND not actually at fault for starting the war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:So here's the thing. If the rumors are correct...(rumors/speculation hidden for the sensitive)...If Discovery really is the origin of Section 31 (NCC-1031 USS Discovery) then this whole series is the origin story of the bad guys hidden in the Federation who would later (according to the novels) be behind the attempt to start the war with the Klingons in Undiscovered Country, behind the deal with the Son'a in Insurrection, and are definitely responsible for trying to genocide the Founders in DS9. If this is the internal mythology of Section 31 as they see themselves, then it makes sense that they'd look upon the normal Federation ideals as naively optimistic at best, suicidally dangerous at worst. "Someone has to protect these dreamers from the dangers in their dreams. We'll be the monsters who do what we have to so that everyone else can live in paradise." In which case having one of the founders of Section 31 being a traumatized atrocity survivor who tries to apply logic, but can never quite escape her deep seated fears, make perfect sense. If that's really where they're going, then gently caress this whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:I didn't get from the pilot: Because he presented them with an opportunity for honorable battle, and they are Klingons?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:If that's really where they're going, then gently caress this whole thing. It isn't. That's all reddit speculation based purely on the registry number of the ship. Section 31 literally gets its name from section 31 of the Starfleet charter and existed in some form even before Enterprise's time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Mogomra posted:Didn't they already sort of cover that in Enterprise? Or am I just misremembering crap. No. You're right. There were like four episodes worth of Enterprise episodes about it that I'd forgotten about. Of course whether Discovery cares about those four episodes of Enterprise is another matter entirely.  Fidel Cuckstro posted:If that's really where they're going, then gently caress this whole thing. If handled well it could be a pretty interesting story that builds on themes from DS9 about it being easy to be a saint in paradise, but out at the bleeding edge things aren't so clear. If. I'm not sold that they have the chops to pull it off, though. It's a risky proposition because if you tilt too much one way the rest of Starfleet looks like morons, if you tilt the other way, then your main characters end up looking like trigger happy villains. At least as far as "The Vulcan Hello" goes, they managed to do both, with the Admiral and Captain Yeoh looking dumb AND making the main character seem panicky and irrational about the Klingons. It's not a good sign.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Is there any rights issues between all the CBS and Paramount mumbo jumbo that would have prevented a post-VOY show? I can't for the life of me figure why they chose a decade before Kirk unless they plan on doing a lot of references. I mean, the Enterprise is already out there under Pike at the time of the show. If they HAD to do something in established continuity timeframes, I wish they'd done like 30 years before TNG. It's a nice empty area with plenty of room to muck around in. So close to TOS seems like they'll either be sucking the dick of TOS constantly to pull in older Trekkies or they'll try to do their own thing and it'll get weird when there's no ships/crews/people that, by rights, should be trekking about the stars during the show's timeframe. The fact that they used all new ships for both sides of the conflict make me think the latter, but Rainn Wilson as Harry Mudd at least says they aren't afraid to tap into some of that. I liked the premiere. I don't think it was better than the pilot of any previous Trek show, even Enterprise, but I liked it better than I thought I would. Went in prepared to hate the poo poo out of it and, despite a lot of flaws, I liked it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Ds9 could only do a little of this kind of thing because it had tng to stand on. They could make that show but they need real Star Trek first. It won't work otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Beachcomber posted:Ds9 could only do a little of this kind of thing because it had tng to stand on. They could make that show but they need real Star Trek first. It won't work otherwise. I concur....but did anyone tell them that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:Because he presented them with an opportunity for honorable battle, and they are Klingons? Ok but what was any of his setup for then? The light show, the big speech, the predictions? The other Klingons didn't know about the cloaking device at that point so no reason they'd be impressed with that. If all he needed to do to get Klingons to rally to him was to get some Federation ships in front of them, seems like he could have just gotten some people drunk and taken them joy-riding to Andoria or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
jng2058 posted:I concur....but did anyone tell them that? They wouldn't have listened anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:47
|
|