I think they'd be more likely to say homosexuality is illogical and repress it. Could make an interesting plot point.
The converse is that making a specific distinction based on sexuality like that is also illogical in what is supposedly the enlightened 24th century Federation.
They're not the ancients of the 21st century, who would be so concerned with such primitive things.
im not sure how one is slapped across the face with normalcy but if you’re saying discovery didnt go far enough with the barely-disguised left wing messaging we usually see in star trek i agree wholeheartedly
In fairness, that messaging has taken rather a back seat ever since Trek became big, probably because the networks see it as a cash cow, and no longer give it liberty to take the same risks.
DS9 only got as far as they did pushing the boundary because Voyager had most of the attention, for example.
You don’t really see any new Trek show pushing the boundary quite like TOS did back in the day, to the point where it was very nearly cancelled outright due to the outrage it produced. Roddenberry even wanted to add an LGBT character to it at some point, but it was shot down by the other producers. Compared to TOS, Discovery’s representation and messaging is almost contemporary, with relatively little boundary-pushing.
Compare to that to the Orville, which doesn’t have that baggage by virtue of being new, and relatively unknown, so they can get away with more on-the-nose messaging a good bit more without getting into trouble. There’s no established IP and format that the network would prefer that they keep to, or stay uncontroversial so it’s still palatable to wider audiences.
Disco had a lot of flaws, and most of them were the same flaws we saw in Picard: the writers just couldn’t write full season plot arcs that were satisfying and believable. This is made worse because each season had to raise the stakes, to the point where it just got kinda exhausting. Meanwhile the show just took itself way too seriously, without really earning my emotional investment.
Some of the were exacerbated by the production issues that happened in the early seasons of the show, too.
They went through a bunch of different showrunners/producers in that time, and it shows. Much of Seasons 1 and 2 of Discovery felt like four different shows all overlapping with each other, which did not help in the slightest. It started to find its footing in Season 3, but after that was also when CBS took it off of Netflix, which also made it harder to watch, unless you were willing to subscribe to another service (that might not even be available in your country) for the one show.
It might have been more interesting if it had stabilised itself and found its footing early on, but alas. On the other hand, it being what was basically an experimental testing-ground for a bunch of different concept gave us the short treks, Strange New Worlds, and a few other shows besides, so can’t fault it that badly.
Are you claiming it is in fact equivalent to the standard “trolley problem”? (I don’t think you are, but if you are, I’ll add)
Not exactly, was more thinking along the lines of both choices involving an end to the consciousness of one or the other. Either Tuvok and Neelix are held in limbo/non-existent from that point onwards, or Tuvix is unwound.
If the point is even “arguable”, I claim that is enough to distinguish it from the trolley problem, because that argument doesn’t come up there.
But I am curious, would it not? From my understanding, at the end of the shift, you’re still sacrificing one life to save two, or two to save one, which seems like it would harken back to the fundamentals of the issue. Assuming that no cloning or replicative shenanigans takes place, either Neelix/Tuvok are retained, or Tuvix is.
That said, there was some leeway in that Janeway had no urgent time-pressure to return them back to their bodies at the time, unlike with something like Transport-split Kirk. She mentions needing her crew back, but that could easily happen at some point in the future, and that might alter the variables of the problem, since part of the trolley problem is that there isn’t any time to take a third option, nor get help from other places.
Neither choice here would end, say, Tuvok’s consciousness.
Arguable, since the result is neither Tuvok nor Neelix, but a new one based on those two. They’re not active, seperate consciousness stuffed into a Tuvixian body.
And unwinding Tuvix ends Tuvix’s consciousness. Neither Tuvok or Neelix keep Tuvix as part of themselves afterwards, he’d basically die if that was to happen.
In fairness, Picard is extremely upfront and honest that he has broken the Prime Directive in situations where he’s felt it would be callous not to.
And he’s generally careful about trying to make sure that there is justification for breaking the Prime Directive before doing so.
He was particularly put out about being involved in Klingon political successsion because it would be a violation of the Prime Directive, and he’d be wading into Klingon business, with no justification for his being so, other than that he was appointed.
The Orville has nicer ships, for example. Besides the middle segment of the quantum drive giving me a twitch for being misaligned compared to the other engines, it’s cool and sleek in a way Federation ships aren’t.
In terms of progressiveness, I’d say The Orville does better. Personally, I blame the Star Trek brand being as big as it is for that.
It’s big enough that the networks would never allow any new show to push boundaries the same way that the original series did. The Orville isn’t established enough as a brand for them to have that problem just yet.
By in terms of tonal consistency, I prefer Trek for that. The Orville has a habit of suddenly having a joke in there that gives you a bit of a weird tonal whiplash. Trek also does that, but it’s much fewer and far between. They could be having a serious plot, which will be briefly derailed by the Captain/XO bringing up that they’re divorced, and arguing/joking about that for a time.
In terms of character design, though, The Orville does a bit better with variety, and feels a bit more diverse than Trek’s mostly-human Starfleet crews. Although most of theirs could pass for humanoid, it’s still a nice touch that makes the world feel more expansive. It was an inspired choice to make the head of one of the main crew a weapon.
But other than that, the world building does feel a little weaker than it is in Trek. Unfortunately, not surprising, since The Orville, whilst inspired by Trek, lacks the corresponding history, and I don’t think Seth McFarlane is the best world builder. A few of the details and various aliens seem to only pop up when they are plot-relevant, for example, and are mostly absent otherwise.
I’d argue that the Star Trek history weighs it down more than that. Even without the historical references, much of the shows seem to be held back by the trying to live up to it, or having to stick to the same formula. Enterprise and Voyager famously suffered from considerable network meddling to try and recapture TNG, for example.
It could work, but it also means that much of any social commentary that does show up is a bit hampered, since the network wants a safe, conservative star Trek show (and the fans might be partly to blame, because they also want more of the same too, so much of the time).
A modern TOS that pushed boundaries as the original could never be made under the same brand. It’s far too controversial for the network to accept, with all of its progressive and social commentary elements intact.
Not that it’s a fault of Star Trek’s specifically, just an issue with how big it has become. If the Orville became a similarly established brand, instead of Star Trek, it would almost certainly have had the same issues.
One definitely gets the sense that there are so many senior executives at Paramount and CBS Studios giving notes as they seek to differentiate the shows that the creators’ ideas get muddied.
Considering the production issues that Discovery had behind the scenes, I wonder if it might be the opposite. The show’s creatives are being hampered by the executives, who would prefer that they kept to the standard “Star Trek Brand” instead. It’s happened before, with both Voyager and Enterprise, and the current model of the show is meant to be “A Trek for Everyone”, which would be difficult to pull off if all the shows kept to the same sort of formula.
The first few episodes are a bit rough. They make it seem more like a Rick and Morty-type show, which isn’t quite what I was after for Trek. The show does get a bit better later on, when they settle in.
I remain slightly miffed about how Dr Pulaski, one of the few characters that received any development in TNG S2, was so hated by some fans that it caused to Diane Muldur to swear off of Trek altogether.
She might not have entirely understood Data to begin with, but she did become better at that later on, a stark contrast to much of the rest of the Federation, which would still be arguing whether he, or his children had personhood, and is the only Starfleet Doctor in RetroTrek to actively take an interest in and engage with her patient’s cultures.
I can’t envision early Dr Crusher taking part in Worf’s Klingon tea ceremony, for example.
I believe McFadden was fired, which was why she disappeared for no reason or fanfare.
TNG had serious problems in the beginning and had some pretty big flaws even as the show got going. Off the top of my head
You’re not wrong. I think the only main character that really had any development in the first 2 seasons is Dr Pulaski, going from someone completely unfamiliar with Data, and conscious machinery, to being an ardent supporter of his. We had a little but in Data settling into being an emotionless Android trying to learn to be more human, and Geordi becoming Chief Engineer, but they were very minor background tweaks to the characters.
Everyone else barely changed at all in that time, except for Lt. Yar, who went from being a living breathing person to corpse.