|
Hot Dog Day #82 posted:I am going to take bold and novel stance: I have more confidence in Orville being a good show than I do for Star Trek: Discovery I'm pretty confident that no matter how bad Discovery is, it will at least be better then McFarlane's warmed over TNG self insert fan fiction. EDIT: Also lol why am I not surprised that goons are lapping up the show starring a mediocre as gently caress white dude while actively wishing for the failure of the show led by two women of color Sinistral fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Sep 18, 2017 |
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
Hot Dog Day #82 posted:I am going to take bold and novel stance: I have more confidence in Orville being a good show than I do for Star Trek: Discovery Your stance is neither bold nor novel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:The positive reviews of the episode make it sound more cerebral than that. A clunky, preachy episode of Star Trek? Such a thing has never been heard of! Sinistral posted:I'm pretty confident that no matter how bad Discovery is, it will at least be better then McFarlane's warmed over TNG self insert fan fiction. Ahh, there it is. "You only like The Orville because a white guy is in charge." I fully expect one of the critics (probably i09) to run with that soon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Sinistral posted:I'm pretty confident that no matter how bad Discovery is, it will at least be better then McFarlane's warmed over TNG self insert fan fiction. I really don't think anyone wants Discovery to be bad so much as they're bracing for disappointment due to the review embargo and development issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Sinistral posted:I'm pretty confident that no matter how bad Discovery is, it will at least be better then McFarlane's warmed over TNG self insert fan fiction. Of all the poo poo to zero in on with Star Trek... Discovery looks like it's going to be a joyless, grimdark slog. If it isn't, I don't think anyone in this thread is going to continue hating it because the lead is the wrong shade.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:Your stance is neither bold nor novel. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
I would love for the first new TV trek in 12 years to be enjoyable, but there's so much working against it. Grimdark tone Development issues Review embargo Trope reuse (they are apparently going to the mirror universe in this first season already) loving CBS all access The last is the largest hurdle. If you expect me to subscribe to a sub par commercial infested streaming service, I need to be really invested in what you are trying to sell me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
The new star trek can be worse than the worst of Enterprise and Voyager and I would still probably give it a shot, but not with this CBS all access bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Eh, the demographics for the show were 35+ year olds who were around in Treks prime days. The reviewers who are bashing it are mostly millennials that never got to be part of that, and generally ragged on Family Guy for the same things. The 80s. They don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I really don't think anyone wants Discovery to be bad so much as they're bracing for disappointment due to the review embargo and development issues. Definitely this (combined with CBS' streaming service). I can't think of any examples of a review embargo being "Our show is so amazingly awesome we want everyone to be surprised and delighted without being spoiled by reviews" instead of "Our show is so mindbogglingly bad we want to trick people into paying for a single month of our service to make a little money off of it before the reviews drive everyone away". Personally I'm never going to subscribe to the CBS streaming service, and I got rid of all my  infrastructure years ago and I'm not going to get it set back up for Star Trek so unless it appears on Netflix, Prime, or Hulu at some point I'll never see Discovery anyway. At that point the only reason I'd be "rooting for it to fail" is so maybe CBS says "Man, if Star Trek can't even get people to subscribe to our service maybe we should rethink it" (as if that'll happen).
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
The next episode's probably gonna be about Wortus' strangely gendered child so it's probably the one that made critics think the show was too preachy. Not that Star Trek shouldn't be preachy.Azhais posted:Definitely this (combined with CBS' streaming service). I can't think of any examples of a review embargo being "Our show is so amazingly awesome we want everyone to be surprised and delighted without being spoiled by reviews" instead of "Our show is so mindbogglingly bad we want to trick people into paying for a single month of our service to make a little money off of it before the reviews drive everyone away". Have you tried having your files infrastructure be a single program and a google search
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Am I the only one wondering if they're just going to leave the possibly thousands+ of prisoners in the zoo without a second thought or am I just not used to (mostly) non-serialization any more? TNG certainly left some episodes unintentionally hanging on some potentially troublesome notes. Maybe there'll be a throwaway line in another episode. It's probably not going away but I'm skipping my way through anything that resembles the marriage drama in the zoo that was in this episode. The shuttle part was watchable but fuuuck anything that goes beyond that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:Am I the only one wondering if they're just going to leave the possibly thousands+ of prisoners in the zoo without a second thought or am I just not used to (mostly) non-serialization any more? TNG certainly left some episodes unintentionally hanging on some potentially troublesome notes. Maybe there'll be a throwaway line in another episode. Didn't the zookeeper agree to trade the entire zoo for the reality TV for some reason? I figured that was why the child was free, to show it wasn't just the humans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:Am I the only one wondering if they're just going to leave the possibly thousands+ of prisoners in the zoo without a second thought or am I just not used to (mostly) non-serialization any more? TNG certainly left some episodes unintentionally hanging on some potentially troublesome notes. Maybe there'll be a throwaway line in another episode. I thought the marriage drama was fine to the extent that it established it won't be an ongoing plot thread for a while at least, since they got any regret out of their systems. If it does come back immediately, it was worthless. Even if they end up together at some point, they need to spend more time interacting with other characters for now instead of being stuck in their own couple poo poo while the show's developing its ensemble. I'd be fine with them just abandoning that plot thread altogether, but I can't imagine they were introduced that way unless it's something that's going to be revisited eventually. I just don't want it to be soon. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Sep 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
I'm really hoping the realization that their relationship simply couldn't work is gonna lead to them becoming friends who've truly forgiven each other and can work together on the Orville but they never fall back in love. If the show did that I'd forgive it for a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Yeah, I really hope their relationship settles on something fairly amicable but not romantic. If they keep pulling the will they/won't they crap indefinitely or if they actually get back together, though, that would suck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
In fact I think how they handle MacFarlane&Wife's relationship is gonna be a litmus test for whether he can be truly subversive like Roddenberry or he's just a fanboy ill-suited to helm this project. 99% of TV shows with this setup would end up having the two back together by the end. So MacFarlane has a chance to defy TV conventions and show something that's never shown, and present it in a positive way. Like, becoming friends isn't a disappointment, it's their happy ending. But Seth MacFarlane is the kind of person who would have Peter say "Boy Lois, that's less likely than a straight man and a straight women being platonic friends" and then it cuts away to a humorous example of that failing to happen. And if he doesn't do it what's the point of even having the relationship? How does it fit in with the high concept or purpose of the show? If it ends in them being reunited it'd just feel like something that was superfluous and obligatory, like the show had to have romance so here it is. And it'd go against the show serving as an example of future people dealing with their problems in healthy ways, because I can tell you from personal experience that getting back together with your ex is not healthy. Pakled posted:Yeah, I really hope their relationship settles on something fairly amicable but not romantic. If they keep pulling the will they/won't they crap indefinitely or if they actually get back together, though, that would suck. A small amount of will-they-or-won't-they would be fine and maybe even help the setup for the subversion, but yeah, if they do get back together or keep hinting they will throughout the whole thing I might stop watching just because of that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Episode was good clean fun. I liked Alara's performance, especially the moments directly following a shot of "Selayan tequila." (She did a good job playing lightly sedated.) I think I dig it the most when it's basically blue collar Star Trek Voyager where they give the characters permission to talk like regular lowbrow human beings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:And if he doesn't do it what's the point of even having the relationship? How does it fit in with the high concept or purpose of the show? If it ends in them being reunited it'd just feel like something that was superfluous and obligatory, like the show had to have romance so here it is. And it'd go against the show serving as an example of future people dealing with their problems in healthy ways, because I can tell you from personal experience that getting back together with your ex is not healthy. Given Seth I'd give it about 40% this is the end of it and they're just a good working team from now on/40% they get back together with the finale of season 1 ending with Ed walking in on Kelly and Yaphit/20% continuing with the will they-won't they-oh god it sounded like a good idea but definitely isn't gimmick
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Ratings last night were good again. Only down %10 from the premeire and only down %3 in 'the demo' from the premeire, despite being delayed for football and the Emmys being last night. Guess we'll see Friday how it performed in its true Thursday time slot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
I think, "blue-collar Voyager," is my favorite description so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Sinistral posted:I'm pretty confident that no matter how bad Discovery is, it will at least be better then McFarlane's warmed over TNG self insert fan fiction. It's weird how you have no posts in the Star Trek thread 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
I want 3.75 inch action figures of Alara and Isaac and I want them now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Beachcomber posted:It's "impossible" because you can't make a qd chromosome set with 2 sets of qq chromosomes. quantum anomaly blah blah temporal inversion etc etc exposure to Norm MacDonald's species and so on and so forth edit: also two men are xy in humans so they could make xx
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
CassandraZara posted:quantum anomaly blah blah I didn't say it was impossible, the characters did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
it's also impossible to teleport someone at warp speed but how many times did star trek do it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
The original question was "how did they know it's a female instead of a mutant". I guessed "they used to have them in ancient history, but now they're gone, and a male/male mating shouldn't have been able to produce one" I have no doubt there is a technobabble reason this happened. If they go with "sometimes poo poo just happens" that would be amazing, though
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Sinistral posted:I'm pretty confident that no matter how bad Discovery is, it will at least be better then McFarlane's warmed over TNG self insert fan fiction. It's true, you have seen to the heart of me. I am a super racist who only likes shows made by white dudes from Rhode Island.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
I am wholeheartedly expecting that all those skeezy turbochud critics were edging themselves hoping that the end of the next episode would involve a post-partum abortion because Family Guy In Space, and that actually we're going to get Bortus' partner taking the girl and leaving the ship to raise her in the utmost care of their culture or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Ramen Pride! posted:Now I really need a toy or model of the ship to add to my spaceship collection. Because I think this show has legs and will stick around for at least two seasons. Same here. I have a bunch of Trek stuff and just got the Protector from Galaxy Quest. I like the going-to-warp effect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Didn't the zookeeper agree to trade the entire zoo for the reality TV for some reason? I figured that was why the child was free, to show it wasn't just the humans. You could see spikey guy in the background when everyone was around the screen. Not a huge deal considering the tone of the show though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Am I the only one that noticed that the director was the actor who played Tom Paris, who was obsessed with vintage TV? Then the aliens ended up obsessed with vintage TV? I really liked that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Sinistral posted:I'm pretty confident that no matter how bad Discovery is, it will at least be better then McFarlane's warmed over TNG self insert fan fiction. Lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
Can everyone please start saying "MacFarlane & Wife"
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Sinistral posted:I'm pretty confident that no matter how bad Discovery is, it will at least be better then McFarlane's warmed over TNG self insert fan fiction. This is literally the worst post I've read in over a week and I mostly read D&D and games. Beachcomber posted:If they go with "sometimes poo poo just happens" that would be amazing, though Bortus' daughter is reverse Gannondorf
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
I'm kind of wondering if they're maybe lying about their species being all-male. Maybe female babies are known to happen and are a source of great shame or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
CPColin posted:I'm kind of wondering if they're maybe lying about their species being all-male. Maybe female babies are known to happen and are a source of great shame or something. The Chinese Alien
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Selachian posted:They've mentioned two other Union ships so far and they were both named for early aviation pioneers: the Chanute last episode, and the fake transport in tonight's episode was the Bleriot. That's an interesting detail, though it makes you wonder why one of the worst ships in the fleet is named after one of the most prominent aviation pioneers. Maybe in the future, they recognize Santos-Dumont's flight as the first and the Wrights are just footnotes in history.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Pakled posted:That's an interesting detail, though it makes you wonder why one of the worst ships in the fleet is named after one of the most prominent aviation pioneers. Maybe in the future, they recognize Santos-Dumont's flight as the first and the Wrights are just footnotes in history. They name them based on ancient aviation history, with ship performance loosely based on how well ancient aircraft performed. The only crew in the fleet worse off than the Orville's are those poor bastards aboard the F-35
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
This episode felt more family guy then the last just with the like 50 modern day references, still has potential but I feel it's going the wrong way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 03:13
|
|
