On the strength of the opening two-parter, I'd say Mr Thielman has got it wrong.
I reckon it's looking good for this, the 6th TV series to emerge from the Star Trek franchise.
Typical Guardian review; clearly he liked the pilot, the casting, the acting, the action and the pace, but inevitably gave it less than 3 stars because it was apparently a bit visceral, quick-draw and reminded him of Trump. Somehow.
Reading less 'between the lines' and more of the lines of actual commentary rather than the somewhat po-faced social contextualising stuff; I'd say it's worth a look and will do so.
Problem for me is I've only really enjoyed the original series and I suspect that's because I liked the sexism, short skirts, punch-ups, doomsday machines and cheeky-chappy blokey banter.
On the strength of the opening two-parter, I'd say Mr Thielman has got it wrong.
I reckon it's looking good for this, the 6th TV series to emerge from the Star Trek franchise.
As solid and as worthy as Star Trek Discovery may be, it's overshadowed by something else I'm watching at the moment: The Expanse. It's the best sci fi TV series I have seen for years, aside perhaps for last year's Westworld.
Four episodes into its first series is "The Orville".
Quite a peculiar item. Here are some critical responses (from wiki)...
"The review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 20% approval rating, with an average rating of 4.61/10 based on 35 reviews. The website's consensus reads, "An odd jumble of campiness and sincerity, homage and satire, The Orville never quite achieves liftoff." Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned a score of 36 out of 100, based on 21 reviews, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews".
"Liz Miller writing for IndieWire compared the series to Star Trek, calling it a rip-off and "Creatively, Morally, and Ethically Bankrupt". She criticized the lack of creativity, the blatant imitation, and was surprised that the show is "uninterested in being a comedy".
"Erik Kain of Forbes, gave a positive review of the show with the observation that "All the optimism and sincerity and lightheartedness of Star Trek is here, and in many ways it's kind of wonderful. I'm honestly surprised something like this exists." He says the critics were wrong and suggests their opinions are based on disliking MacFarlane and his type of humor."
Originally posted by @fmf As solid and as worthy as Star Trek Discovery may be, it's overshadowed by something else I'm watching at the moment: The Expanse. It's the best sci fi TV series I have seen for years, aside perhaps for last year's Westworld.
I'm currently distracted by The Americans (in to the 4th season) but will get round to Star Trek Discovery.
My view is that they've tried to inspire equality, an almost utopian aim for the future, and this is continuing in the latest series.
Well, for example the captain decides to destroy some medical knowledge that was gained in an unethical way. I disagree but understand. However, riker now needs that knowledge, so we'll save riker and then destroy the knowledge, and that is self-serving bs.
What bothers me more is that starfleet personnel do not get paid, which is a result of that utopian thinking which cannot make sense.
The original series did raise the bar for ethnic casting. And kirk was an equal opportunity inter-stellar um, kisser.
Originally posted by @paul-a-roberts I've watched the first two episodes tonight, and it's been left on a questionable edge; drawing me into the third episode when it arrives.
The visual effects are good, the Roddenberry moral compass still constant and strong, it's nice to have bad ass Klingons again.
I'll watch a while longer.
The third episode on Star Trek Discovery is a stonking one... straight from the top drawer of that boiling fondue of personalities, hyperventilating science blather, and things exploding that the Star Trek franchise dishes up. Top notch. Bodes well. Seven series in the next 5-6 years. That's my prediction.
The new Star Trek series
27 Sep '17 06:05
Back to Top