The word "critic" is in the name of this blog, so I do, occasionally, actually critique things! Today I must break the silence. I am compelled to write on an issue that has gripped a nation. Trek Nation, that is. The issue at hand? Star Trek: Discovery, the divisive new entry into the Star Trek franchise. And one can hardly discuss fan reaction to Discovery without discussing Fox's alternative, The Orville. Get ready for some serious in-depth nerdiness.
First up . . .
Star Trek: Discovery
Anticipation
A new Star Trek show was announced almost two years ago, and that was music to my pointed prosthetic ears*. Music that ended on a sour note: in an era where the highest-rated television dramas are all doom and gloom, zombies and bullets, meth labs and chemists, dragons and thrones . . . can CBS resist the temptation to drag Star Trek there too? Star Trek is fundamentally optimistic. What would Star Trek look like in the modern TV world? Would it be anything I wanted to see?
Then there is the question of serialization. It's not a concept Star Trek fans take to without hesitation. Serialization would deny the flexibility of story that made previous Star Trek shows such a joy to watch. One episode could be a procedural, then a romance, followed by a comedy and then an action episode or a family drama. Those shows could go wherever the characters needed them to go, and allowed ample room for very lighthearted dabbles here and there. Would this freedom be retained? Could they rework it into a mix of both?
Bryan Fuller was announced as showrunner. On the one hand, his career started with Star Trek in the 90's. On the other hand, his career really kicked off when he ran other more modern serialized shows. See the above two paragraphs.
They announced it would be set in the Prime Timeline (the one that includes literally everything except the three recent Abrams-produced films), but it would take place ten years before Kirk. Okay. There have been five main Star Trek shows before, and only one of them is widely considered a failure. That would be Enterprise. It also happens to be the only one that went backwards in time and was set before all the rest. Right out of the gate, the only thing we knew about this new show was that it shares a significant commonality with the one Star Trek show that isn't well loved. #worried
Then they announced the title. Star Trek: Discovery. That sounded like they were going in the right direction with the tone. Exploration is a hallmark of Star Trek, and a Starfleet ship called the Discovery sounds like a great fit. But then you have the abbreviation issue. Trekkie shorthand includes TOS for the original series, TAS for Star Trek: The Animated Series, TNG for Star Trek: The Next Generation, DS9 for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, VOY for Star Trek Voyager, and finally ENT for Star Trek: Enterprise. And that brings us to . . . STD for Star Trek: Discovery. With time though, I'm sure DIS will be the official shorthand.
From there all the announcements amounted to an array of big question marks. Not the good kind of question marks, like fans desperate to get a look at what's coming. Bad question marks, like why was he let go? Why were those other two fired? Why has it been delayed? Twice? Why does the ship look so stupid? Why do the klingons look so stupid? Why does the main character, who is a woman, have a man's name? And most importantly, what is up with all these nutty stories I've heard about things going on behind the scenes? There was not a single behind the scenes story or official announcement that inspired confidence. Not one. #extraworried
I almost forgot the biggest bit of information that made fans ill at ease. Star Trek: Discovery was to premiere on network television and then make the transition to a CBS All Access exclusive. So you can watch the first one free, but then you have to cough up $6/month minimum to watch the rest. And that plan comes with limited commercials. Also, the general opinion is that all other CBS All Access content does nothing to tempt the potential subscriber. #seriouslyconcerned
At point of release, many fans were not asking the question, "Will it fail?", but rather, "When it fails, who will be blamed?" The concern was that the cash-grab decision of requiring a subscription to a show that was already unappealing to fans would doom the show to a swift cancellation, and that the franchise itself would be blamed for the failure, rather than the business model or this particular version of Star Trek. In short, we were afraid Trek Nation would be left high and dry with a cancelled reboot and no hope of another chance.
Execution
Allow me to bottom line this for you. The pilot sucked. Big time. Weak story, poor performances, dreadful characters, and some truly terrible writing. And these are general complaints. To go into Star-Trek-specific complaints would take too long.
I can trudge through bad acting and lame stories for a pilot. I can get over klingons that are all wrong. What I can't forgive is characters as bland, boring, and hopelessly stupid as these. I don't mean two-dimensional, I'm talking one-dimensional here. In the pilot episode the main character of the show does something so colossally and bafflingly senseless that it may have destroyed the whole series for me. This may sound like an overreaction, but much of the premise of the entire show indeed rests on this decision and an equally troubling one in the second episode.
I guess I have to get into some nerdy specifics here for a couple additional grievances. The main character is a human raised by vulcans. Fine. She's Spock's adopted sister (who has never been mentioned before by Spock or either of his parents). A little tougher to swallow, but okay. She went straight from failing entrance into the Vulcan Expeditionary Group to immediately becoming the first officer of a Starfleet ship - without any Starfleet training whatsoever. I'm sorry . . . WHAT!!?? No. That makes no sense at all. And then there's the small matter of her being completely ruled by her emotions throughout the first two episodes. I remind you that this is the character who was raised by vulcans. This is a race noted for its absolute control over emotion.
It's like this for all of the first five episodes. In each one there's one or two giant lapses in judgment that a real person just would not make, or a decision that in no way fits with what we already know about Star Trek. In one episode a Starfleet captain willfully leaves a Federation citizen behind in a POW situation. Unbelievable. Even if the character was a liar and even a turncoat of sorts, he's still a Federation citizen who that captain left to die! For those of you who don't know, that goes against every oath a Starfleet officer must swear to begin service. And while we're on the subject, we actually know this turncoat character from earlier shows, and he is definitely a liar, cheat, swindler, and scoundrel, but he was ultimately a nuisance at worst. To make him into a traitor and - in a later episode - a savage murderer is one heck of a stretch to say the least.
Those are just a few of literally dozens of examples of bad writing in the seven episodes I've seen.
Verdict
I watched seven episodes of Star Trek: Discovery because of the Star Trek name, and because I could do so for free with a trial version of CBS All Access. On the bright side, Jason Isaac's performance has definitely been a highlight, some story elements were very compelling, and the last three episodes have brought on the very likable character (almost the only likable character in the show) of Ash Tyler. Also, the last two episodes in particular were very nearly recognizable as Star Trek, with the latest episode even successfully demonstrating lightheartedness and humor - something Star Trek: Discovery is gasping for. But on the not-so-bright side: everything else. Story concepts are still weak or borrowed. The show's premise and setting show limited potential. And the main character took six episodes to even show signs of likability. That's a weak start. And I'm not paying six dollars a month to count the weeks until they make Star Trek great again. #MSTGA
And in this corner . . .
The Orville
Anticipation
May 16th was the day before the first look trailer debuted for Star Trek: Discovery. Many Star Trek fans were eagerly awaiting that trailer, and some were hoping it would soothe their concerns and fears for the upcoming series. In this unsure atmosphere among Trekkies, Fox released its first look trailer for The Orville. The day before the Discovery trailer. Coincidence? I think not.
And that was it! Before release, The Orville got maybe one one hundredth of the press that Discovery got. But you better believe that trailer got the attention of Trek Nation, just like Fox hoped it would. It was an invitation. It tantalized us with its well-lit sets and bright colors (just like old Star Trek!). Trek fans immediately began in earnest to produce YouTube video essays and debates, blog posts and online conversations, all about comparing and predicting the differences and successes of Discovery and The Orville. If you search "discovery vs orville" on youtube you will never run out of videos comparing the two.
Execution
I'll bottom line it for you again. The pilot was very okay. It had a few belly laughs and a decent story - but with promising characters. The second episode was better and much more character oriented. The third episode is where the revolution began. The third episode was truly Star Trek reincarnate. It was thinly-veiled social commentary of the highest order. Since then The Orville has consistently proved itself worthy of Trek Nation attention. A spiritual reboot, if you will. The true modern torchbearer of Gene Roddenberry's vision.
While advertised as a spoof of Star Trek, The Orville has revealed itself to be something else entirely. This is not a spoof. It's a full-fledged drama with some jokes on the side. Furthermore, the love for classic Star Trek is dripping from the screen from start to finish. Seth MacFarlane loves Star Trek.
All the sense of adventure, the brightness and hope, the faith in humanity, and the commentary on today's world - all of what Star Trek was, The Orville is. In seven episodes, The Orville has tackled issues like the cycle of violence, social media and mob justice, transgenderism, and isolationism. In the same number of episodes, Star Trek: Discovery has taken on issues of . . . violent klingons . . . dimly lit spaceships . . . uh . . . save the space whales?
Verdict
In the end, the world of The Orville is a place I would want to visit. That was Gene Roddenberry's vision. A happy future. All but two of the eight main characters are very fleshed out and quite interesting, with the remaining two being reliably real and comedic at the very least. With a surprising ability to make you think, and the added bonus of serious laughs** every now and then, The Orville is an unmitigated hit.
Big Shot Critic
*let the record show that I don't actually own any false Vulcan ears
**oxymoron of the year
P.S. Want a good laugh? Look up the Rotten Tomatoes pages for both of these shows and look at the disparity between critic and audience ratings. #Gamergate is coming for you, film and television critics.
No comments:
Post a Comment