User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 40

  1. #21
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asynartetic View Post
    Agree on TNG. I think the Trek Franchise can essentially be divided into two styles: character driven and story/situation driven. TNG had some good character development but it was usually more in the latter category, serving as a vehicle for topical, situational driven stories. I'd say TOS and Voyager fit more into that category as well. So even though there were great character episodes, there was a tendency for the "reset button" to be hit at the end of every episode. DS9, most of the films were more character driven. Enterprise sort of skirted both categories. JJverse is definitely more a character series as well, not concerning itself too much with philosophical implications to the extent that it's a space opera.
    I remember liking TNG in my 20's (it started while I was at college, I remember watching it with friends). I even recorded almost all the episodes on VCR tapes.

    Now I don't find it very watchable, my tastes changed a lot. There's a few classic episodes I will dig out on occasion; but yeah, I am not much one for the "status quo / reset" button pushed at the end of every episode, and it either got preachy or fluffy... 'up with people' in space kind of feel, although the character archetypes were decent even if implementation was sometimes wanting and they quickly became cliche. I remember liking the show more once Ro showed up. She was the bad penny who threw everything off and didn't adhere to the happy storyline premise.

    I've seen a bit of DSN and a season or two of Voyager, and just don't have much interest in it or spoofs of it that are too much like it.

    Not much into Seth MacFarlane either. I always felt like Family Guy was the more mean-spirited version of The Simpsons, without any real compass. South Park is always crossing lines but still seems to maintain some kind of affection for the characters, whereas Family Guy just felt so damned cynical all the time. I did see Ted, but only cared to watch it once... it was okay. McFarlane always seems a bit full of himself.



    ... all that being said, as far as this show, I have heard from a number of people off-forum whose opinion I respect, that while it's not like their favorite show, they liked the opener enough that they plan to keep watching.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft
    Likes asynartetic liked this post

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Totenkindly View Post
    I remember liking TNG in my 20's (it started while I was at college, I remember watching it with friends). I even recorded almost all the episodes on VCR tapes.

    Now I don't find it very watchable, my tastes changed a lot. There's a few classic episodes I will dig out on occasion; but yeah, I am not much one for the "status quo / reset" button pushed at the end of every episode, and it either got preachy or fluffy... 'up with people' in space kind of feel, although the character archetypes were decent even if implementation was sometimes wanting and they quickly became cliche. I remember liking the show more once Ro showed up. She was the bad penny who threw everything off and didn't adhere to the happy storyline premise.

    I've seen a bit of DSN and a season or two of Voyager, and just don't have much interest in it or spoofs of it that are too much like it.

    Not much into Seth MacFarlane either. I always felt like Family Guy was the more mean-spirited version of The Simpsons, without any real compass. South Park is always crossing lines but still seems to maintain some kind of affection for the characters, whereas Family Guy just felt so damned cynical all the time. I did see Ted, but only cared to watch it once... it was okay. McFarlane always seems a bit full of himself.
    I agree, sometimes TNG can feel overly preachy. Picard contradicts his own morals and values in various episodes, and the prime directive they always talk about gets broken a lot. And don't even get me started on Janeway, who has the nerve to preach about higher ideals and the prime directive, yet breaks them on a regular basis.

    My major problem with TNG and Voyager is both had some really great characters like Data, Worf, and the Doctor, but they would grow through an episode, only to have the reset button hit at the end of the episode. So it never seems like they really learn anything in the long term. At least DS9 develops its characters throughout the series and there's a sense there are lasting implications for actions they take in each episode. Sisko, the episode where he allows a Romulan Ambassador to be killed so they can blame it on the Dominion and engineer the Romulans' entry into their alliance, is a good example. He wrestles with it and you get a sense this action will stay with him. However, I feel DS9 sometimes compromises too much for characterization and forgets the higher ideals of the federation, but then that also makes it more realistic since nothing is ever as black and white in reality. DS9 and Enterprise are all about shades of grey.

    Difference between SouthPark/Simpsons and Family Guy is that there is still a moral or characters learn something and improve themselves in the first two (also true in Futurama), but this never happens in Family Guy. and it bugs me how certain characters changed. Joe for instance used to be a badass cop who despite his disability managed to be a hero and do a good job, but now he's just fodder for jokes about wheelchair people. The whole let's-bash-on-Meg gag has gotten old and played out too. Agree McFarlane is full of himself, explaining why he felt casting himself as the Captain was warranted. I'd rather see him take a behind the scenes role and give the Captain role to someone like Patrick Warburton
    Likes Totenkindly liked this post

  3. #23

    Default

    While the "The Cage"/"The Menagerie" comparison is apt, I thought episode #2 had a very strong "The Naked Now" feel or vibe. I understand that might not be the most obvious comparison but I can explain why if anyone cares for a long rant/ramble.

    And a side point-- "Command Performance" is a very TNGesque episode title.

  4. #24

    Default

    Visually, this series also has a slight Seaquest DSV look.

    I find it interesting how the warp quantum drive engines are placed on the ship. The rear rings arrangement is an interesting distinction from the usual nacelle style seen in Star Trek.

    The absence of a chief engineer character in the main cast also seems an obvious nod to TNG season 1. Having a chief engineer as a main character on the ST series always seemed problematic, in trying to find a way to work them into episodes where most of the action occurred on the bridge. So sometimes the writers had to have Geordi, Scotty or Belanna on the bridge, and it never really made sense to me that they would need to have an engineering station on the bridge, when the role of bridge engineering monitor/liason/officer could probably filled by one of their subordinates or an operations officer like Data or Harry Kim (or a science officer, and I just read that Isaac is both the science and engineering officer, so I suppose the engineer dude in episode 2 was just a subordinate to him?)--IMO the chief engineer's place would be down in the bowels of the ship supervising every aspect of keeping the engines running at maximum efficiency and they wouldn't be fucking off to go hang out on the bridge and monitor engineering from a station where they wouldn't be able to quickly jump into managing a crisis down in engineering.

  5. #25
    Senior Member tinker683's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,656

    Default

    A lot of the jokes fell flat for me but otherwise I enjoyed it. I watched it with my dad and we're both Trekkies and we both remarked that it felt more like a Star Trek episode than a new show. Which is a good thing. I hope the show develops more.
    "The man who is swimming against the stream knows the strength of it."
    ― Woodrow Wilson
    Likes asynartetic liked this post

  6. #26

    Default

    My one big issue with a lot of the jokes is that they almost break the 4th wall and seem more designed as references the audience should understand. This is set several hundred years from now, so I found it hard to believe some of the referenced pop culture would still be common or remembered by in-universe characters. The Dora the Explorer reference, for instance.

    However, I thought the Kermit the Frog on the desk was a nice touch.

  7. #27
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,480

    Default

    I liked the 2nd episode better, and seth macfarland is kind of cute looks wise.
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so

  8. #28
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asynartetic View Post
    While the "The Cage"/"The Menagerie" comparison is apt, I thought episode #2 had a very strong "The Naked Now" feel or vibe. I understand that might not be the most obvious comparison but I can explain why if anyone cares for a long rant/ramble.

    And a side point-- "Command Performance" is a very TNGesque episode title.
    I'm not seeing it. "The Naked Now" was TNG's re-enactment of "The Naked Time" in which the crew of the Enterprise goes stark raving mad.
    "If you try to build something that is idiot-proof, the universe will build a better idiot."
    I'm an extrovert trapped within an introverted soul.

  9. #29
    Senior Member riva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    MBTI
    estp
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,052

    Default

    Watched the second episode. Loved it. It's challenging Star Trek's stories, visuals and noatalgic feeling.

    However it's falling short on humour. Which I dont mind aslong as the stories are good. However if their aim is humour and viewers don't see it that way, they might cancel the show .
    .

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    I'm not seeing it. "The Naked Now" was TNG's re-enactment of "The Naked Time" in which the crew of the Enterprise goes stark raving mad.
    Plotwise, "Command Performance" bears little resemblance to "The Naked Now"

    I thought of a similarity after my wife said she thought the episode felt like it should come later than #2. Some of the situations seemed like something that should happen later in the season, or perhaps even in a later season. The situation with the couple placed together and forced to confront their unresolved relationship? I don't know, it felt like a little early to be exploring that. And it reminded me of how "The Naked Now" hints at some sexual tension between Beverly and Picard, when that was something I thought made a more interesting storyline in later episodes like the one where they're stuck on a planet and their thoughts are connected. But I suppose the writers are trying to get all of the "will they get back together or not" tension out of the way early on? I don't know. The egg subplot with Bortus also felt like the sort of interesting tidbit that might come later in the series and it could've been a nice setup for an episode where he took more of a central role in the story (i.e. "Amok time") exploring how his biological needs might affect his performance as an officer as well as his relationship to other crew members. Instead it got relegated to a humorous plot device to force the security officer into the command chair.

    And the general effect of "The Naked Now", partially due to it being a remake of a TOS episode, was that it felt a little forced and preemptive. It was a rush to present various character traits against the backdrop of a crisis. It's hard to explain, it just feels like a typically first season episode of any series where the writers aren't quite sure what to do with the characters yet, so they're coming out with some situations that might have worked better at a later point, or might be deadends in some cases. That's how the second episode of The Orville felt to me. Perhaps the plot with the Security girl becoming more confident in her command abilities may have been more rewarding at a later point in the series, a la Harry Kim commanding the night shift in Voyager or Geordi taking the conn in "Arsenal of freedom." I feel like they skipped a whole potential growth arc for her by placing her in such a situation in the second episode. Also, we barely even know how competent the new Captain and XO are at this point, so I thought a better early episode would be one allowing the Captain to prove he's actually fit for his job, perhaps facing some scrutiny and skepticism from some of his officers before proving himself by the episode's end, since the first episode didn't really focus on his competence as much as it focused on why he felt he needed his ex to stay around as XO.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO