Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Post
  • Reply
Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



Baronjutter posted:

I loving hate Seth MacFarlane and his smug stupid face but I'm going to give this show an honest go, I think his heart is in the right place here and it sounds like he's trying to do something more akin to Galaxy Quest or Red Dwarf where you try to find this perfect blend of comedy and legit scifi.
Basically my thoughts on this.

Plus it seems like it's trying to bank on TNG nostalgia, rather than TOS nostalgia, which is a rare and good thing.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



On the other hand, the first trailer had a 'men leave the toilet seat up' joke, featured the captain and his ex-wife CO bickering, and had a drunk driving joke.

MacFarlane is saying all the right things, and I really hope we get some nice charming utopian sci-fi... but we might still get enough Family Guy in space to drag it all down.

Seriously, "his CO is is ex-wife!" is the most worrying part of the premise.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



On a more optimistic note, rewatching the first trailer to refresh my memory about how bad the ex-wife stuff was made me notice the design for the Krill destroyer:


Looks okay at first glance, but that thing is obnoxiously asymmetric.

Between that and the framing gag on the viewscreen it makes me think those aliens just don't have the same sense of aesthetics that humans do in a way that's really annoying to us, and I think that's a pretty good sci-fi joke all things considered.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



Baronjutter posted:

I'd love something slightly cyberpunk grimdark like the expanse to actually over the seasons show how things can get better, show the transition to a more optimistic future. What I hate is this idea (how ever valid it might be) that nothing will ever get better, any human society will just be hopelessly terrible and every good act will be undone, every step of progress rolled back or countered by something worse.
Yeah, I think the Expanse avoids that cynical extreme. The books especially show pretty idyllic attitudes towards sex/gender/non-standard relationships, for instance. All of that stuff is explored and fine in the future. But people are still people and capitalism is still capitalism (even if it's a given that everyone's in a union, and no one on Earth has to pay for housing and healthcare), and there are still deep divides between people and individual greed that leads to horrible tragedies.

It's not the anti-Star Trek. It's not exploring a pessimistic extreme in contrast to an optimistic ideal. It's just kind of grinding along, with some things improving but people continuing to be people. I think it's going to ultimately be optimistic- it's about people trying to make a difference in a lovely world- but the books are pretty drat dark so far.

If you want something that looks dark but is about the potential transition to something more ideal, you're looking for some more recent Kim Stanley Robinson books, particularly New York 2140.

And if you want something that's totally utopian but still explores darker aspects you're looking for Ian M Bank's Culture books.

I really like utopian fiction. When you get down to it though it's a lot harder to make it work as a story than dystopian fiction. Exploring an ideal society in a story that naturally has to feature conflict (or it's a boring story) is difficult. I hope The Orville doesn't gently caress it up.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



I think Star Trek Discovery could end up being a good show.

And I'm eagerly anticipating seeing The Orville in an hour.

Either one of them could be garbage, and I'm not going to be shocked or devastated if either one is poo poo, but right now, without knowing or assuming anything, I'm happily anticipating both.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



Some good characters with potential there. And there was some good humor there too. Mainly the less crass stuff, ("That's our head biologist" and "I'm still learning names" both landed for me, as did the visual at the end with the tree).

But jesus christ I cannot stand that rear end in a top hat helmsman bro. Like I guess he's supposed to be a lovable scamp or something, but he just comes off as a hateful rear end. The guy he sits next to was a much better "amusingly unprofessional" character because he wasn't also a jerk.

Ex-wife shenanigans were exactly as cringy as I imagined, but they feel like the dumbest parts are already resolved by the end of this episode. I'm okay if they're a bit sarcastic at each other, but constant open hostility was not fun or funny at all.

I like the robot so far and can't wait to see more of him, and Bortas might be a stock character, but that kind of deadpan is pretty good in a comedy setting. There's pretty decent plot hooks for most of the senior staff.

Solidly okay so far. Has potential. This was kind of the best case scenario in my mind, given what we knew, so I'm satisfied.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



Cojawfee posted:

That's probably why its an ensemble show. The ex wife character and helmsmen are probably supposed to help take up some of the slack.
Oh well that's bad loving news.

Ex wife seems... maybe okay? I have no idea who she is besides "ex wife," but her fleeting moments as a real person seemed fine.

Most of the aliens seem interesting though.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



bull3964 posted:

Not much different than TNG days when there was a 6 foot, 4 foot, and 2 foot Enterprise model depending on what the shot required.

The big thing is even the CGI models would be based off of scans of the physical model rather than just existing as CG. That alone can make a huge difference in the quality of effects.
I don't know if it makes a difference but it's the other way around. They 3D printed their CG model.

StringOfLetters posted:

I think I see what's going on here. They're going to start with 'Basically TNG,' and then when some cool sci-fi poo poo with implications comes up, they're going to follow those implications to their horrifying and absurd extremes.

Wow, no, that's miles away from the good feeling fun science adventure they're going for.

I mean, I like Rick and Morty too, but that's totally not what this is.

The whole point of this show is that there's too much dark cynicism out there, and we need something to look up to too.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



Having just gotten around to watching the episode... it was kind of great.

The only criticism that makes sense to me is the way it didn't really get into gender identity vs biological sex. Yeah, that's not what the issue was about, but it was tangentially related. The idea that letting the girl make the decision when she's old enough not being acceptable because "the damage would have already been done" is one that can only really be evaluated by considering what their gender identity means for the child.

I also accept the idea that it kind of accepted the gender binary a bit too thoroughly. Was there no way to raise the child in a gender neutral way? The most obvious parallel I could think of was the way intersex babies are assigned a gender at birth, rather than being left as they are to figure it out on their own. Basically the modern version of this problem is that we're stuck on gender binaries, but this episode which seemed to allegorically address why that's wrong... was also stuck on gender binaries.

But ultimately those are nitpicks. I'm thrilled that they even attempted to address this kind of issue, and ended up addressing the issue depicted (even if they left out some pertinent real life issues) in a really humane and emotionally resonant way.

Bortas's arc this episode was great. Moclan society was really interestingly built up in such a short episode. Industrial planet, enforced mon-gender, no-nonsense weapons manufacturers... who value stories. Bortas is deeply affected by a human children's story, and while it is a pretty funny scenario on the face of it, it ends up characterizing him and his people in a way that gets you further into this society, rather than being a silly gag that takes you out of things. And it's paid off when the literary giant of their society turns out to be a woman.

Very few episodes in I already get the impression that there's a really solid sense of what all these worlds are supposed to be like. The red guys from episode 2 who look down on the Union species, but respect the robot are another example. Not a complicated one, but there's definitely the sense that here's an idea, it makes sense, and it's depicted well and important to the plot.

I was holding off getting too invested in the series until this episode based on the reviews and my preconceptions about MacFarlane, but having done a pretty drat solid Social Issues episode, and generally having solid characters, I feel I can actually relax and just enjoy this good show.

It can always gently caress up and turn terrible, but I'm not actively worried about that anymore.

Fake edit:

Kibayasu posted:

So it turns out I can actually enjoy this show when half of every episode isn't filled with divorce jokes!
Also a lot of this.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



Baronjutter posted:

Discovery is humourless poorly written over-produced trash with no soul, Orville is someone's unfunny fan-fiction that at least has some heart and love for the source material. It's really a matter of taste which is worse but we have a new season of The Expanse to eventually look forward to so who cares.
Alternately, Discovery is a visually impressive look at darker times in the Star Trek world that promises to show the utopian ideals of the series upheld in a situation where doing so is difficult for the characters, and The Orville is a fun lighthearted bit of TNG nostalgia with pretty good characters and just enough earnestness to pull off a serious look at social issues when it wants to.

They both have flaws, but I'm really enjoying the variety of space adventures on TV at the moment!

I would agree that The Expanse is the best of the lot though. It's everything I personally want in a TV space adventure.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



I like that the guy with trollsihly simplistic objections is getting people to explain the themes of the episode in interesting ways.

Thanks obnoxious rabblerouser guy for indirectly causing some good posts.


One idea that's come up that I think is kind of interesting is that the gender stuff wasn't even the chief conflict. I think it was the one the writers were most concerned with, but they story as presented had cultural differences as the most compelling conflict. Like, what do you do when people of another culture have morally objectionable beliefs/practices? That idea wasn't too deeply explored, even though it was central to the episode. Some nasty issues were avoided by presenting the two cultures as fairly equal. The humans weren't in a position to impose anything on the Moclans, which would have been uncomfortable.

It's an interesting and difficult issue. It's utterly unresolved by this episode (how could it be?) but I thought it was really interesting to see people grappling with the issue.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



Just saw episode 4.

Wow

I don't know how much of my being blown away I should attribute to low expectations, but I was blown away. The first look at that massive ship was really cool, and then the final scene where they open the sky was absolutely awe inspiring. And it was just as meaningful as it was beautiful in the context of the story. It all logically followed from really, really neat concepts.

It's far from perfect. The humor really often fell flat. Being snarky to the security guards was the most tonally "wait, what" moment for me. And things could have stood to be a bit more fleshed out. The theocratic dictatorship just kind of shrugs and evaporates? They built up a really brutal dystopian society and kind of just handwaved the consequences of it.

I was worried it'd get into smug atheism for a bit there, but the only smug atheist was Issac, and it made sense coming from him. The humans were actually as quiet on their religious views as they were quiet on circumcision last episode. I guess they actually know how to be tactful about some things.

I wonder if the really awkward tone of the humor and the lack of meaningful resolution would have bothered me more if I weren't primed for low expectations by it being a light and simple show. There was a long argument last week that episode 3 didn't get gender just right, and I honestly don't even disagree with that position, but it personally didn't bother me because there was a lot of good stuff that was actually there, even if they missed some important stuff. I guess I feel the same about this episode and how the whole society is thrown into chaos and... the end!

Well if I only like it because of my forgiving expectations, that's fine. 'Cause I really quite like it and hope it keeps being this neat and interesting!

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



3 DONG HORSE posted:

I am not sure even Star Trek solved a society's problems at the end of every episode. Half the time it was "well good luck, we'll be on our way".The Orville is at least sending Union engineers to educate them so it's not like they're hosed.
I'm saying there should have been a happy resolution to the theocratic dictatorship, just that there should have been an acknowledgement that it was a messy situation.

I felt the scenario with the sky opening up was both beautiful and terrifying. It represented awakening to possibility, but also a horrifying loss of certainty. The people in that world were certain that their way was best. Their only anxiety was rabble rousers would upset the order, and they were anxious enough about that they literally killed people to feel better. And now their order is gone, the order that they killed for just hours ago.

That's incredibly hosed up, and more to the point really interesting! I loved the scenario and its implications, and I did think the sky opening up was beautiful and empowering, but I think it's a mistake to have ended the episode on such an unambiguously happy note after all the dark things we saw.


The one thing I kind of wonder is if they're setting things up to revisit this situation. There was that one random mention of people from below or whatever, and they made a point of noting that there was an up and a down button on the elevator, without ever seeing what was down. I'd be down with this happy ending if we eventually came back to a far more complicated situation than our characters assumed.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



Wow, I don't think I've ever seen clickbait in trailer form before. That's a terrible preview.

Or maybe I'm missing something because I don't know who the guest star is?

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



Accretionist posted:

It's Chad Coleman!
Chad Coleman is the best! The Wire, the Expanse, I even liked him in Walking Dead! I can't wait!

(Seriously, I really like Klyden and it blew my mind when I found out who he was.)

Eiba fucked around with this message at Oct 5, 2017 around 01:56

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



The Fuzzy Hulk posted:

You don't know who Charlize Theron is?

2017 The Fate of the Furious
Cipher
2017 Atomic Blonde
Lorraine Broughton
2016 Kubo and the Two Strings
Monkey (voice)
2016 The Last Face
Wren
2016 The Huntsman: Winter's War
Ravenna
2016 Dior J'adore: The Absolute Femininity (Video short)
Model
2015 Mad Max: Fury Road
Imperator Furiosa
2015 Dark Places
Libby Day
2014 Dior J'adore: The Future Is Gold (Video short)
Model
2014 A Million Ways to Die in the West
Anna
2012 Snow White and the Huntsman
Ravenna
2012/I Prometheus
Meredith Vickers
2011 Young Adult
Mavis Gary
2010 Brandon Flowers: Crossfire (Video short)
Heroine
2009 Astro Boy
'Our Friends' Narrator (voice)
2009/I The Road
Woman
2008 The Burning Plain
Sylvia
2008 Hancock
Mary
2008 Sleepwalking
Joleen
2007 Battle in Seattle
Ella
2007 In the Valley of Elah
Det. Emily Sanders
2006 Robot Chicken (TV Series)
Daniel's Mom / Mother / Waitress
- Book of Corrine (2006) ... Daniel's Mom / Mother / Waitress (voice)
2005 Arrested Development (TV Series)
Rita
- The Ocean Walker (2005) ... Rita
- Notapusy (2005) ... Rita
- Mr. F (2005) ... Rita
- Forget Me Now (2005) ... Rita
- For British Eyes Only (2005) ... Rita
2005 ∆on Flux
Aeon Flux
2005 ∆on Flux (Video Game)
∆on Flux (voice)
2005 North Country
Josey Aimes
2004 Head in the Clouds
Gilda Bessť
2004 The Life and Death of Peter Sellers
Britt Ekland
2003 Monster
Aileen
2003 The Italian Job
Stella Bridger
2002 Waking Up in Reno
Candy Kirkendall
2002/I Trapped
Karen
2001 The Curse of the Jade Scorpion
Laura Kensington
2001 15 Minutes
Rose Hearn
2001 Sweet November
Sara Deever
2000 The Legend of Bagger Vance
Adele Invergordon
2000 Men of Honor
Gwen Sunday
2000 The Yards
Erica Soltz
2000 Reindeer Games
Ashley
1999 The Cider House Rules
Candy Kendall
1999 The Astronaut's Wife
Jillian Armacost
1998 Mighty Joe Young
Jill Young
1998 Celebrity
Supermodel
1997 The Devil's Advocate
Mary Ann Lomax
1997 Trial and Error
Billie Tyler
1997 Hollywood Confidential (TV Movie)
Sally
1996 That Thing You Do!
Tina
1996 2 Days in the Valley
Helga Svelgen
1995 Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest
Eli's Follower
Oh, she was Furiosa? Cool. Didn't recognize her.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



Rocksicles posted:

People are mad the sci-fi shows aren't god fearing?

Shocker.
I don't think so. I don't think the types of people in that guy's facebook group are capable of enough self reflection to realize the show was calling them lovely too. They see lovely Krill bad guys in the show and happily leap to the conclusion that they're a reference to the "real" lovely bad guys: Muslims. A happy conclusion reached, logical inferences end, and their worldview remains unthreatened.

This could be the most overtly pro-athiest show in the world (and that's probably what it's going for) and they'd remain happily oblivious to it if they liked what they thought it was saying.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



Rutibex posted:

I don't think the show was making a bold stance for atheism. I think that line about species abandoning religion when they advance to space was what was known as a "joke"
Yeah, it's not specifically about atheism, but "irreligiosity" is a really awkward word so I've been saying atheism instead.

And no, it clearly wasn't a joke. It's secular sci-fi orthodoxy. It's one of those classic "No one [does common modern day thing] today!" in sci-fi that is an implicit criticism of said thing. Star Trek was built on that method of criticism. "No one fights with each other today" "No one uses money today" etc.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



WampaLord posted:

I'm kinda playing Devil's Advocate a bit, obviously I'm not condoning child murder, but it's a pretty interesting ethical question. If you can be effectively 100% sure that they're going to become your enemy, why not just deal with it now?
Because it's not a utilitarian calculation. No reasonable person sits down and goes "hmm, maybe it would be more efficient in the long run to kill these children."

Even if a child is 100% guaranteed to be an "enemy," say by perfect brainwashing or something, they are still, currently, children. They do not have developed moral senses, and they do not have any agency. They do what adults tell them and don't have the ability to tell when they're being told something wrong. Therefore they have no culpability, and there's no justification to kill them.

All the adults on that ship were soldiers. Soldiers are typically cognizant of what they are complicit with. We don't know the Krill system, but it's likely they signed up and essentially agreed to make themselves legitimate targets by engaging in violent action against other people.

Personally, I'm sympathetic to more radical pacifism- even though they're soldiers killing them needlessly is not good, perhaps they could have just fried the bridge crew and taken over the ship that way? Though a lot of that runs into issues of unknown ability. Maybe a plan like that wasn't possible. If you get down to it, if there was no way to save the children and the colony... Mercer probably would have killed the children to save the colony.


And in any case all of this ignores the fact that their mission was an attempt at establishing peaceful relations with the Krill. It was built entirely on the notion that the future does not have to be like the present, so the premise that the kids will definitely grow up to be "enemies" is not the one presented in the show. You acknowledge that, but it's kind of the real crux of the moral dilemma in the show.

But even outside of that context, killing kids is bad.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



WampaLord posted:

Funny how suspension of disbelief works, isn't it?
I think most people can only manage it for stuff that they otherwise like. Or maybe for stuff when they were younger. When the spore drive shows up as a new type of technobabble in a show they're not on board with they call it dumb and unrealistic and end up sounding like they've never seen Star Trek before.

Personally I can find no faults with the spore drive. It's pretty well done technobabble- it's a pretty interesting and novel concept and it's being used to explore interesting stuff. I wouldn't go out of my way to defend Discovery's tone or characters or aesthetic choices, but the spore drive is totally not the issue with that show, and is in fact pretty neat.

I'd agree that the fact that it's a prequel is lame and knowing it won't be a thing in the future takes away a bit from the discovery of the spore drive.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



Kurieg posted:

To clarify, i have no real problems with there being a magic spore drive that lets you go super fast.

I have issues with it in the context of this show, because they keep darker and edgier-ing the gently caress out of it. Like apparently in the most recent episode the science guy hooked himself up to the drive and figured out that it only takes a sentient mind to enhance the drive, not specifically a tardigrade with nipple clamps. Meaning that the whole bit with torturing a tardigrade was completely superfluous beyond MAXIMUM EDGE. And yes I get that this is a super sekret military blacksite ship (Which is a thing that the federation apparently has now) but narratively the drive is just a way for them to have super fast ships while still doing a prequel series.
You, uh, made this post... and you haven't seen any of the series?

They tortured the tardigrade before they knew how it worked at all (which was hosed up, and presented as hosed up), later they learned sentience was an important component, but not the only important component. They needed its technobabble DNA. The development this episode was injecting the technobabble DNA into a human, against the direct orders of the acting captain who called it out as banned genetic experimentation. The cliffhanger at the end of the episode was the implication that there were... side effects from this procedure. There's really no implication that this tech is at all viable in the long term.

This is a developing story you haven't even seen and you're trying to nitpick specifics? Jesus. Carry on I guess.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



zoux posted:

Ha, like two things simultaneously? The very idea.
I mean, if you write a thinkpiece article to that effect partisan fans aren't going to go back to their community to share your article in indignant rage/smug satisfaction. And if your article is stupid and lopsided enough you can get fans who appreciate both sides to get pissed off, increasing your viewership even more!

That said in this case it's working because I have to point out this line from that dumb review makes me want to tell everyone about how dumb it is:

that dumb article posted:

No, I did not watch the third episode because, like, every critic called it one of the most tone deaf hours of television ever (although most Orville viewers say itís when the show gets good! I have no idea what to believe!!).
If you don't know what to believe you could watch the episode.

I guess the implication is, since he didn't watch the episode but included that parenthetical aside, that he thinks it's a joke to even consider the viewer's point of view if it contrasts with that of the critics.

I have no idea what's wrong with critics. The only thing I can think is all the anti-Macfarlane sentiment, but even that doesn't make sense because I loathe the guy (I don't even like American Dad) but quite enjoy this show anyway. Maybe it's a special kind of cliquish identity that makes it so you're afraid to display impure/nuanced views on a subject.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



mllaneza posted:

After the last half dozen episodes I think they can pull it off.
The last half dozen episodes have been good because they haven't featured tension between those two.

I've been really liking this show since episode 3, but that synopsis looks like it's just piling everything that's poo poo about this show all together.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



Just saw the last episode. It justified all the discussion it's generated. Glad this isn't some dumb temperature derail and actually about something meaningful.

When I watch things I tend to be somewhat uncritical. I was expecting to be annoyed by relationships bullshit, and to my surprise Ed and Kelly were... pretty watchable and the relationship bullshit was quite funny in a lot of scenes so I was more or less on board with the episode.

And then they used the pheromones to coerce the ambassadors. And then my critical thought started up.


And so I really get it when people have trouble with how hosed up this episode was. I enjoyed it. I don't want to feel bad about it. The easiest way to do that is to pretend like there's nothing wrong. That's a really easy argument to make to yourself. You can pick up on any kind of justification that you want and while you're considering that justification things still seem good and you don't want to let that go so of course that justification convinces you.

But this episode featured obvious sexual coercion. People who were very obviously chemically impaired were being taken advantage of for sex. Unambiguously. That's surprise sex.

Consider how the doctor felt about the blob at the start of the episode. Very clear discomfort, to the point of threatening to make a totally justified harassment complaint. After exposure to a chemical she feels compelled to have sex with him. That's not just the affect of someone trying to look nice or any bullshit like that that people have tried to say. That's being drugged.

There's a good argument to be had about how culpable the blob guy was- he was pretty ignorant of the whole situation, but could reasonably have been expected to see there was something wrong with the doctor- but the blue guy knew what he was doing.

The fact that it was "okay in his culture" is not some sci-fi fantasy scenario that excuses his behavior, it's exactly the justification that often leads to real surprise sex. Feeling like your partner is obliged to sleep with you after you bought them dinner is cultural. Feeling like drunken consent is real consent is cultural. He felt his surprise sex was culturally justified and that's incredibly relevant to real discussions of surprise sex.

This episode depicted surprise sex in a very real and relevant way, and while it was not presented as good when the blue guy did it, it was played for laughs, and then actually presented as good when they manipulated the ambassadors.


And the shame is... it was a pretty good and funny episode! I enjoyed it quite a bit at the time without really thinking it through, and I would probably be happier if I just didn't worry about it.

But it handled its depiction of sexual coercion really badly, and there's no way to deny that.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



Grand Fromage posted:

I think he just isn't autistic and is able to not constantly be going on about it. Every time he's explicitly asked, he does happily tell them that he is a superior being.
Yeah, this is an interesting thing about Isaac. We're told he's racist, and when asked, he demonstrates he believes entirely in his superiority, and the rest of the crew's inferiority... but he doesn't read like a racist. I guess that's because when we think of a real human racist we're thinking of a racist rear end in a top hat. Someone who feels some sort of insecurity and a need to put themselves above others. It comes off as petty and cruel and is one reason racism is so gross to see.

But Isaac has no insecurity. He has no reason to be cruel. And so he doesn't feel racist, when he totally is.

(This is putting aside the fact that in this sci fi world he might be factually right about his superiority in many respects and that also makes his attitude less grating.)


Isaac is great, and him going evil was one of the only scary bits that worked for me personally. Not the bit where his voice went "creepy" which was a bit too over the top for me, just the part where there's a slow realization that he can't be trusted, but he's still saying everything in his completely matter-of-fact tone. He's been their magic bullet, probably solving half the episodes' problems by himself, so we've come to respect his near godlike capabilities. Slowly realizing he's not working with you anymore is really unsettling.

Like that TNG episode where the crew loses time and Data starts lying about stuff. That's good creepy robot man stuff.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



cheetah7071 posted:

It might be better but I'd still rather they not
I mean, the chances that they won't are pretty minuscule if this show goes on for even a few seasons. It's exactly the kind of silly, awkward premise this show was built around.

Snowglobe of Doom posted:

My housemate watches all the RLM youtube videos and he's going to watch some Orville episodes because of them. I guess they either said enough good things about it to sell him on the idea or he's familiar enough with their opinions that he can see through their pedantic nitpicking
If you watch RLM for long enough, you will see them making GBS threads on something you like by totally missing the point. An obsessive watcher would be more likely to not take their conclusions seriously and be intrigued by what they actually say about it.

And I mean, the critique in that video was "it makes me think of Star Trek!" which could very easily be translated into not being a problem. It's pretty clear, even to them, that they're just being old and bitter.

(I kind of liked their Best of the Worst series, but eventually ran out of those, but then didn't have anything to watch when eating meals, so I looked into their Half in the Bag reviews. I wish I hadn't, but I've seen a lot of them now.)

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007



swickles posted:

That would make them agnostic, not atheist. I have been very careful to attach modifiers to single out the aggressive atheist, not the one that simply doesn't believe.
Even the staunchest of obnoxious internet atheists is probably a "weak" atheist- someone who just doesn't believe, rather than someone who actively believes in the absence. If they're going on about evidence and delusions and such it's going to be in the context of what Barronjutter said about being pretty sure we've got enough evidence to reach a practical conclusion, without bothering to engage with the philosophical mess that is an unprovable god.

Like, you can just say some atheists can be weirdly passionate and off-putting without having to come up with some kind of gotcha position to make them look worse.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply