It may just be me, or it may be just losing something in translation to text on a webpage... but, everyone from The Orville is coming off more arrogant than playful, as of late.
I don't like that. I think it's unnecessary. Then again, Seth McFarlane can be an a**hat a lot, so I guess that shouldn't be too surprising. Jackson's final comments, though, seem to draw a line where one doesn't need to be.
I think it might be you (or maybe the difference between American and British perspectives) as I didn't see the comments like that at all... The interviewer raised the subject of Discovery, Jackson gave a very simple, and honest answer. He sees the comments people're making on facebook, and given that almost every post about The Orville, is met with posts along the lines of "Discovery can SUCK IT!!!", I can see why he's gotten that impression about disgruntled Star Trek fans. It's not like he slated Discovery's trailer or proposed show, it was concise, and on point. Actually, a very fair observation and reply to a straight question
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
The headline says the Orville is for "disgruntled Star Trek fans"... I suppose the plan is for them to gruntle us? I... really have no idea quite what to think of that. Maybe it's good, maybe it's bad, it's probably kind of creepy.
Well, it does seem that Orville is gonna feel more like Trek than Discovery, from what we have seen so far, anyhow.
The headline says the Orville is for "disgruntled Star Trek fans"... I suppose the plan is for them to gruntle us? I... really have no idea quite what to think of that. Maybe it's good, maybe it's bad, it's probably kind of creepy.
Actually its quite harmless if you read the article. Its just a click-baitish headline. He was referring to "disgruntled" because there has not been a Star Trek for so long and the coming one will not be on US TV. No reference to it being... well... what the DIS trailers show and the creators says it wants to be.
When they have to use a character's sexuality as a selling point, I'm not inclined to get my hopes up
Avery Brooks has been referred to as the first African American Captain and Kate Mulgrew has been referred to as the first female Captain many, many times over the years throughout various news bits, interviews and documentaries. I grant you, it isn't necessary to say it because quite frankly it doesn't matter, however it's not unheard of Trek to market characters this way.
Seven and T'Pol, yeah, pretty gratuitous. One of the trailers showed Burnham in her space-knickers in what looked like Phlox's scanning chamber. So they're clearly not above using good old T&A to try and lure some viewers. Another strike against them.
Why is it a "strike against them?" Trek has always had this starting back in TOS and more often than not, for gratuitous purposes.
T&A is nothing new to Star Trek. Holding that against Discovery is a little silly.
Strike against them? For these women who feel liberated by the idea to remove the shackles of what is expected off them, something like this on screen is just as good for them as it is for the producers even though some people may find it degrading. For womens rights back then and even now it was a key moment in their movement, gone are the days women can't show more than a little ankle out in public with big heavy restricting dresses where they need to look up to these backwards values.
if it was intended as excessive or not, women showing skin to promote their cause on a regular basis has always been apart of star trek, it's the perfect platform to broadcast their message as it's still one of the most controversial space opera series to of graced the TV screens in 50 years and i doubt it's done doing so regardless if there is the expected T&A to go with the space version of the German party from 1930-40's and the usual violence.
I'm sorry i don't understand, may i ask what your thoughts are on the subject?
From what I read from Smoke in other threads it means she honestly totally agrees with your point of view so much that she shares her cookies with you. As do I (just without cookies).
The headline says the Orville is for "disgruntled Star Trek fans"... I suppose the plan is for them to gruntle us? I... really have no idea quite what to think of that. Maybe it's good, maybe it's bad, it's probably kind of creepy.
Actually its quite harmless if you read the article. Its just a click-baitish headline. He was referring to "disgruntled" because there has not been a Star Trek for so long and the coming one will not be on US TV. No reference to it being... well... what the DIS trailers show and the creators says it wants to be.
That still doesn't tell me what being gruntled means. It sounds... umm. Either really good or really bad but not something you necessarily want from a total stranger. Or maybe you do, I don't know. Most of us probably want at least a dinner or something first. A few drinks. To know the... gruntler?'s last name. I don't know exactly what gruntling involves, really, but it's probably not something most of us are willing to do on the first date.
*scratch head* ... well... I guess... lookout, a three headed monkey behind you!
The headline says the Orville is for "disgruntled Star Trek fans"... I suppose the plan is for them to gruntle us? I... really have no idea quite what to think of that. Maybe it's good, maybe it's bad, it's probably kind of creepy.
Yeah, I'm not too sure what to be 'gruntled' is. Almost sounds as depraved as a Swedish Lunchbox Then again, English is a funny language with many influences. It might once have been a frequently used expression
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
It may just be me, or it may be just losing something in translation to text on a webpage... but, everyone from The Orville is coming off more arrogant than playful, as of late.
I don't like that. I think it's unnecessary. Then again, Seth McFarlane can be an a**hat a lot, so I guess that shouldn't be too surprising. Jackson's final comments, though, seem to draw a line where one doesn't need to be.
I think it might be you (or maybe the difference between American and British perspectives) as I didn't see the comments like that at all... The interviewer raised the subject of Discovery, Jackson gave a very simple, and honest answer. He sees the comments people're making on facebook, and given that almost every post about The Orville, is met with posts along the lines of "Discovery can SUCK IT!!!", I can see why he's gotten that impression about disgruntled Star Trek fans. It's not like he slated Discovery's trailer or proposed show, it was concise, and on point. Actually, a very fair observation and reply to a straight question
Yeah, that's a fair point about British sensibilities being lost on Americans, LOL.
And, I don't think Jackson's comments on their own point to anything other than what you said. I'm more thinking of other comments from people like Brannon Braga, mixed heavily with an utter exhaustion of defending Trek to Trek fans (which inevitably comes up when discussing The Orville, it seems).
Disgruntled: Think frustrated, irritated, pissed off, angry, and so on.
I think the Orville guys read the reactions of a chunk of trek fans, and seeing how irritated some of us are with elements, like the JJ similarities, the reboot take on the whole thing, the fetish convention Klingons, etc, and are saying, "Come watch us, we know what you want to see! -nudge nudge-"
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Disgruntled: Think frustrated, irritated, pissed off, angry, and so on.
I think the Orville guys read the reactions of a chunk of trek fans, and seeing how irritated some of us are with elements, like the JJ similarities, the reboot take on the whole thing, the fetish convention Klingons, etc, and are saying, "Come watch us, we know what you want to see! -nudge nudge-"
And, my knee-jerk response to Team Orville -- especially with someone like Brannon Braga over there -- is: "F*** you for assuming you know what I want, and f*** you for not doing it when you had the chance the first time."
And, in all seriousness, the people at The Orville have no idea if Discovery will be accepted/successful or not... so, I really hope they aren't "calling their shot" before BOTH shows air. If they are doing that, then they seriously ARE arrogant, and I await their eventual/fast cancellation by FOX.
It may just be me, or it may be just losing something in translation to text on a webpage... but, everyone from The Orville is coming off more arrogant than playful, as of late.
I don't like that. I think it's unnecessary. Then again, Seth McFarlane can be an a**hat a lot, so I guess that shouldn't be too surprising. Jackson's final comments, though, seem to draw a line where one doesn't need to be.
I think it might be you (or maybe the difference between American and British perspectives) as I didn't see the comments like that at all... The interviewer raised the subject of Discovery, Jackson gave a very simple, and honest answer. He sees the comments people're making on facebook, and given that almost every post about The Orville, is met with posts along the lines of "Discovery can SUCK IT!!!", I can see why he's gotten that impression about disgruntled Star Trek fans. It's not like he slated Discovery's trailer or proposed show, it was concise, and on point. Actually, a very fair observation and reply to a straight question
Yeah, that's a fair point about British sensibilities being lost on Americans, LOL.
And, I don't think Jackson's comments on their own point to anything other than what you said. I'm more thinking of other comments from people like Brannon Braga, mixed heavily with an utter exhaustion of defending Trek to Trek fans (which inevitably comes up when discussing The Orville, it seems).
I haven't seen any of Braga's comments, but to be honest, I've never looked for them, as he's not someone I've had much time for, since the abomination which was Mission Impossible II
I do think that your initial reaction was simply one of English being two languages, depending on which side of the pond one resides
Disgruntled: Think frustrated, irritated, pissed off, angry, and so on.
I think the Orville guys read the reactions of a chunk of trek fans, and seeing how irritated some of us are with elements, like the JJ similarities, the reboot take on the whole thing, the fetish convention Klingons, etc, and are saying, "Come watch us, we know what you want to see! -nudge nudge-"
And, my knee-jerk response to Team Orville -- especially with someone like Brannon Braga over there -- is: "F*** you for assuming you know what I want, and f*** you for not doing it when you had the chance the first time."
I'm not too proud to admit that I muttered some abuses at the screen when I rad that Braga was involved in the production...
And, in all seriousness, the people at The Orville have no idea if Discovery will be accepted/successful or not... so, I really hope they aren't "calling their shot" before BOTH shows air. If they are doing that, then they seriously ARE arrogant, and I await their eventual/fast cancellation by FOX.
The thing is though, as I said before, anyone can see exactly what kind of comments being made about Discovery on The Orville's page. But I don't think that's just an instance of polarized team mentality. It's clear from the fb comments that there are folks who aren't looking forward to Discovery for various reasons, and who feel that The Orville is going to deliver a show they're going to enjoy. I can't blame The Orville's production crew for gaining confidence after seeing those comments, and feeling the amount of support they've gained pre-release, when so many people simply aren't happy with what they've been shown of Discovery, and freely posting that
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Disgruntled: Think frustrated, irritated, pissed off, angry, and so on.
I think the Orville guys read the reactions of a chunk of trek fans, and seeing how irritated some of us are with elements, like the JJ similarities, the reboot take on the whole thing, the fetish convention Klingons, etc, and are saying, "Come watch us, we know what you want to see! -nudge nudge-"
And, my knee-jerk response to Team Orville -- especially with someone like Brannon Braga over there -- is: "F*** you for assuming you know what I want, and f*** you for not doing it when you had the chance the first time."
And, in all seriousness, the people at The Orville have no idea if Discovery will be accepted/successful or not... so, I really hope they aren't "calling their shot" before BOTH shows air. If they are doing that, then they seriously ARE arrogant, and I await their eventual/fast cancellation by FOX.
Well, McFarlane dealt with FOX cancelling Family Guy a few times, but always managed to return, since the fans wanted it.
And, let's face it, it does look rather post Nemesis, which is what a bunch of fans wanted to begin with, not another prequel.
The headline says the Orville is for "disgruntled Star Trek fans"... I suppose the plan is for them to gruntle us? I... really have no idea quite what to think of that. Maybe it's good, maybe it's bad, it's probably kind of creepy.
Yeah, I'm not too sure what to be 'gruntled' is. Almost sounds as depraved as a Swedish Lunchbox Then again, English is a funny language with many influences. It might once have been a frequently used expression
And if Braga's involved with The Orville, that's sure gonna disgruntle me, because he was one of the "geniuses" behind some of the dumber decisions on VOY and ENT (including that final episode that turned all the ENT characters into a hologram for the Greater Glory of the Holy Riker). And then he tried to defend that episode. (Even Berman admitted that it was a huge misstep.)
The headline says the Orville is for "disgruntled Star Trek fans"... I suppose the plan is for them to gruntle us? I... really have no idea quite what to think of that. Maybe it's good, maybe it's bad, it's probably kind of creepy.
Yeah, I'm not too sure what to be 'gruntled' is. Almost sounds as depraved as a Swedish Lunchbox Then again, English is a funny language with many influences. It might once have been a frequently used expression
When they have to use a character's sexuality as a selling point, I'm not inclined to get my hopes up
Avery Brooks has been referred to as the first African American Captain and Kate Mulgrew has been referred to as the first female Captain many, many times over the years throughout various news bits, interviews and documentaries. I grant you, it isn't necessary to say it because quite frankly it doesn't matter, however it's not unheard of Trek to market characters this way.
Seven and T'Pol, yeah, pretty gratuitous. One of the trailers showed Burnham in her space-knickers in what looked like Phlox's scanning chamber. So they're clearly not above using good old T&A to try and lure some viewers. Another strike against them.
Why is it a "strike against them?" Trek has always had this starting back in TOS and more often than not, for gratuitous purposes.
T&A is nothing new to Star Trek. Holding that against Discovery is a little silly.
Strike against them? For these women who feel liberated by the idea to remove the shackles of what is expected off them, something like this on screen is just as good for them as it is for the producers even though some people may find it degrading. For womens rights back then and even now it was a key moment in their movement, gone are the days women can't show more than a little ankle out in public with big heavy restricting dresses where they need to look up to these backwards values.
if it was intended as excessive or not, women showing skin to promote their cause on a regular basis has always been apart of star trek, it's the perfect platform to broadcast their message as it's still one of the most controversial space opera series to of graced the TV screens in 50 years and i doubt it's done doing so regardless if there is the expected T&A to go with the space version of the German party from 1930-40's and the usual violence.
I'm sorry i don't understand, may i ask what your thoughts are on the subject?
From what I read from Smoke in other threads it means she honestly totally agrees with your point of view so much that she shares her cookies with you. As do I (just without cookies).
well i wasn't trying to be rude, but was hoping to find out where @smokebailey stood in regards to what i mentioned the other day. i wasn't sure so much because the use of cookies could also be used in a negative way. i don't wish it to come off looking silly it's just it's not the first time it happened on forums to be rude to someone else by saying "Here have a cookie" to placate against an arguement. I'm still having a bit of difficulty trying to understand these things on the internet.
But now you have mentioned it, then i will leave it at that .
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
The headline says the Orville is for "disgruntled Star Trek fans"... I suppose the plan is for them to gruntle us? I... really have no idea quite what to think of that. Maybe it's good, maybe it's bad, it's probably kind of creepy.
Yeah, I'm not too sure what to be 'gruntled' is. Almost sounds as depraved as a Swedish Lunchbox Then again, English is a funny language with many influences. It might once have been a frequently used expression
And if Braga's involved with The Orville, that's sure gonna disgruntle me, because he was one of the "geniuses" behind some of the dumber decisions on VOY and ENT (including that final episode that turned all the ENT characters into a hologram for the Greater Glory of the Holy Riker). And then he tried to defend that episode. (Even Berman admitted that it was a huge misstep.)
I think Braga simply ran out of creative energy towards the end of his Star Trek career, and didn't realize that he needed to find something else to do and find a replacement. He can't be all bad, because under his influence, Star Trek also prospered for a long time.
It's possible he recovered his creative Star Trek energies by now. It's possibly I am wrong and he just is bad and Star Trek succeeded despite him.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
The headline says the Orville is for "disgruntled Star Trek fans"... I suppose the plan is for them to gruntle us? I... really have no idea quite what to think of that. Maybe it's good, maybe it's bad, it's probably kind of creepy.
Yeah, I'm not too sure what to be 'gruntled' is. Almost sounds as depraved as a Swedish Lunchbox Then again, English is a funny language with many influences. It might once have been a frequently used expression
And if Braga's involved with The Orville, that's sure gonna disgruntle me, because he was one of the "geniuses" behind some of the dumber decisions on VOY and ENT (including that final episode that turned all the ENT characters into a hologram for the Greater Glory of the Holy Riker). And then he tried to defend that episode. (Even Berman admitted that it was a huge misstep.)
I think Braga simply ran out of creative energy towards the end of his Star Trek career, and didn't realize that he needed to find something else to do and find a replacement. He can't be all bad, because under his influence, Star Trek also prospered for a long time.
It's possible he recovered his creative Star Trek energies by now. It's possibly I am wrong and he just is bad and Star Trek succeeded despite him.
Hard to say, with Braga.
Yes, it's true he's responsible (at least in part) for some of Trek's more memorable episodes (and, not memorable like "Threshold," LOL). However, he's also responsible for being the showrunner of the last two Trek series, and was left "holding the bag" with Rick Berman as the franchise slammed to a halt.
Braga still holds his "No, seriously, please like me" panel at STLV... and, he strikes me as someone that hasn't accepted and moved on from past mistakes. His most recent version was... sad, really. I think he's a genuine fan of the franchise, and he cares about his work. I don't think, however, he's capable of executing better television as a result of learning from his mistakes (taking chances, truly caring about in-show continuity, etc)... and that's based on his body of work post-Enterprise.
well i wasn't trying to be rude, but was hoping to find out where @smokebailey stood in regards to what i mentioned the other day. i wasn't sure so much because the use of cookies could also be used in a negative way. i don't wish it to come off looking silly it's just it's not the first time it happened on forums to be rude to someone else by saying "Here have a cookie" to placate against an arguement. I'm still having a bit of difficulty trying to understand these things on the internet.
What was the problem, now? I'll ask here since I don't know how many pages to backtrack ^_^;;
Old news, predates Star Trek: Into Darkness. JJ did not like how CBS controlled the rights to Trek merchandise. He understood Trek licensing about as well as Midnight's Edge does.
Old news, predates Star Trek: Into Darkness. JJ did not like how CBS controlled the rights to Trek merchandise. He understood Trek licensing about as well as Midnight's Edge does.
This was reported on other sites as well and CBS pretty much laughed at him and said no. But this is old news and from about 4 years ago....
@redvenge thanks for looking that up. I was starting to wonder if I had hallucinated hearing about that.
I can see what Abrams was going for with it. He was trying to market Star Trek '09 as the launch of a new path forward. Having the old stuff around would only confuse the new generation of fans that Abrams wanted to bring in. It is much the same problem that Discovery is having right now. Having Discovery set so close to TOS is creating a bit of an identity crisis.
Old news, predates Star Trek: Into Darkness. JJ did not like how CBS controlled the rights to Trek merchandise. He understood Trek licensing about as well as Midnight's Edge does.
This was reported on other sites as well and CBS pretty much laughed at him and said no. But this is old news and from about 4 years ago....
And the sources on those other sites? I mean, there have been quite a few sites that quote each other on current news stories, only to find the original source was the Onion...
well i wasn't trying to be rude, but was hoping to find out where @smokebailey stood in regards to what i mentioned the other day. i wasn't sure so much because the use of cookies could also be used in a negative way. i don't wish it to come off looking silly it's just it's not the first time it happened on forums to be rude to someone else by saying "Here have a cookie" to placate against an arguement. I'm still having a bit of difficulty trying to understand these things on the internet.
What was the problem, now? I'll ask here since I don't know how many pages to backtrack ^_^;;
i do apologise, i am trying to explain myself on the issue and it seems quite poorly. it's the reply where you put up the picture with the woman the cookies and the comment in it on the top left. It's in regard to what women think of themselves from the time of TOS and what they are still fighting for today.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
And the sources on those other sites? I mean, there have been quite a few sites that quote each other on current news stories, only to find the original source was the Onion...
TheWrap is not the Onion.
It's a Hollywood gossip information site, but it's not a tabloid site. It covers "controversial" stories that EW wont touch (because then EW would lose out on exclusive interviews). I see no reason to doubt their journalistic integrity.
The story itself was widely circulated. TheWrap reached out to Bad Robot, Paramount Pictures and CBS for comment. Only CBS responded. Everything seems on the up and up. If you have a specific reason to doubt the story or TheWrap itself, feel free to share.
And the sources on those other sites? I mean, there have been quite a few sites that quote each other on current news stories, only to find the original source was the Onion...
TheWrap is not the Onion.
It's a Hollywood gossip information site, but it's not a tabloid site. It covers "controversial" stories that EW wont touch (because then EW would lose out on exclusive interviews). I see no reason to doubt their journalistic integrity.
The story itself was widely circulated. TheWrap reached out to Bad Robot, Paramount Pictures and CBS for comment. Only CBS responded. Everything seems on the up and up. If you have a specific reason to doubt the story or TheWrap itself, feel free to share.
Well, this quote from the article you posted immediately jumps out:
"The studio wanted to please Bad Robot, but it was allowing CBS to say yay or nay when it came to what was happening with the 'Star Trek' products."
Allowing? Sorry, but this comment has its basis in the utter confusion over the control of the IP. From everything I've read about the Paramount/CBS split, it's safe to say that CBS calls the shots, end of story. I think the most similar comparison to make is FOX vs. Marvel over the X-Men franchise... FOX is the ones that can make the movies (and TV), but they can't publish their own comic books, merch, and the like. Paramount owns the film rights, but CBS owns the IP.
It's lazy writing, at best. It's also a one-sided story.
Fans have used this story to paint Abrams in a bad light, as the Evil Franchise Killer... "SEE?! THAT STAR WARS GUY HATES OUR STUFF!!" It's not that simple, and it's not that childish. Had the IP not been split over two companies, things would have been very different... Abrams could've easily gotten his way, had Trek been owned 100% by either CBS or Paramount.
This was an example of Hollywood business, sensationalized into something more than it was.
And the sources on those other sites? I mean, there have been quite a few sites that quote each other on current news stories, only to find the original source was the Onion...
TheWrap is not the Onion.
It's a Hollywood gossip information site, but it's not a tabloid site. It covers "controversial" stories that EW wont touch (because then EW would lose out on exclusive interviews). I see no reason to doubt their journalistic integrity.
The story itself was widely circulated. TheWrap reached out to Bad Robot, Paramount Pictures and CBS for comment. Only CBS responded. Everything seems on the up and up. If you have a specific reason to doubt the story or TheWrap itself, feel free to share.
Well, this quote from the article you posted immediately jumps out:
"The studio wanted to please Bad Robot, but it was allowing CBS to say yay or nay when it came to what was happening with the 'Star Trek' products."
Allowing? Sorry, but this comment has its basis in the utter confusion over the control of the IP. From everything I've read about the Paramount/CBS split, it's safe to say that CBS calls the shots, end of story. I think the most similar comparison to make is FOX vs. Marvel over the X-Men franchise... FOX is the ones that can make the movies (and TV), but they can't publish their own comic books, merch, and the like. Paramount owns the film rights, but CBS owns the IP.
It's lazy writing, at best. It's also a one-sided story.
Fans have used this story to paint Abrams in a bad light, as the Evil Franchise Killer... "SEE?! THAT STAR WARS GUY HATES OUR STUFF!!" It's not that simple, and it's not that childish. Had the IP not been split over two companies, things would have been very different... Abrams could've easily gotten his way, had Trek been owned 100% by either CBS or Paramount.
This was an example of Hollywood business, sensationalized into something more than it was.
Yeha, that's what I was getting at. I'd be willing to wager that the article is less than half truth. I large part because the people who wrote it had fragmentary information.
Comments
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Well, it does seem that Orville is gonna feel more like Trek than Discovery, from what we have seen so far, anyhow.
Actually its quite harmless if you read the article. Its just a click-baitish headline. He was referring to "disgruntled" because there has not been a Star Trek for so long and the coming one will not be on US TV. No reference to it being... well... what the DIS trailers show and the creators says it wants to be.
From what I read from Smoke in other threads it means she honestly totally agrees with your point of view so much that she shares her cookies with you. As do I (just without cookies).
*scratch head* ... well... I guess... lookout, a three headed monkey behind you!
*runs away*
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Yeah, that's a fair point about British sensibilities being lost on Americans, LOL.
And, I don't think Jackson's comments on their own point to anything other than what you said. I'm more thinking of other comments from people like Brannon Braga, mixed heavily with an utter exhaustion of defending Trek to Trek fans (which inevitably comes up when discussing The Orville, it seems).
I think the Orville guys read the reactions of a chunk of trek fans, and seeing how irritated some of us are with elements, like the JJ similarities, the reboot take on the whole thing, the fetish convention Klingons, etc, and are saying, "Come watch us, we know what you want to see!
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/disgruntled
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
And, my knee-jerk response to Team Orville -- especially with someone like Brannon Braga over there -- is: "F*** you for assuming you know what I want, and f*** you for not doing it when you had the chance the first time."
And, in all seriousness, the people at The Orville have no idea if Discovery will be accepted/successful or not... so, I really hope they aren't "calling their shot" before BOTH shows air. If they are doing that, then they seriously ARE arrogant, and I await their eventual/fast cancellation by FOX.
I do think that your initial reaction was simply one of English being two languages, depending on which side of the pond one resides
I'm not too proud to admit that I muttered some abuses at the screen when I rad that Braga was involved in the production...
The thing is though, as I said before, anyone can see exactly what kind of comments being made about Discovery on The Orville's page. But I don't think that's just an instance of polarized team mentality. It's clear from the fb comments that there are folks who aren't looking forward to Discovery for various reasons, and who feel that The Orville is going to deliver a show they're going to enjoy. I can't blame The Orville's production crew for gaining confidence after seeing those comments, and feeling the amount of support they've gained pre-release, when so many people simply aren't happy with what they've been shown of Discovery, and freely posting that
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Well, McFarlane dealt with FOX cancelling Family Guy a few times, but always managed to return, since the fans wanted it.
And, let's face it, it does look rather post Nemesis, which is what a bunch of fans wanted to begin with, not another prequel.
And if Braga's involved with The Orville, that's sure gonna disgruntle me, because he was one of the "geniuses" behind some of the dumber decisions on VOY and ENT (including that final episode that turned all the ENT characters into a hologram for the Greater Glory of the Holy Riker). And then he tried to defend that episode. (Even Berman admitted that it was a huge misstep.)
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
well i wasn't trying to be rude, but was hoping to find out where @smokebailey stood in regards to what i mentioned the other day. i wasn't sure so much because the use of cookies could also be used in a negative way. i don't wish it to come off looking silly it's just it's not the first time it happened on forums to be rude to someone else by saying "Here have a cookie" to placate against an arguement. I'm still having a bit of difficulty trying to understand these things on the internet.
But now you have mentioned it, then i will leave it at that
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
It's possible he recovered his creative Star Trek energies by now. It's possibly I am wrong and he just is bad and Star Trek succeeded despite him.
Hard to say, with Braga.
Yes, it's true he's responsible (at least in part) for some of Trek's more memorable episodes (and, not memorable like "Threshold," LOL). However, he's also responsible for being the showrunner of the last two Trek series, and was left "holding the bag" with Rick Berman as the franchise slammed to a halt.
Braga still holds his "No, seriously, please like me" panel at STLV... and, he strikes me as someone that hasn't accepted and moved on from past mistakes. His most recent version was... sad, really. I think he's a genuine fan of the franchise, and he cares about his work. I don't think, however, he's capable of executing better television as a result of learning from his mistakes (taking chances, truly caring about in-show continuity, etc)... and that's based on his body of work post-Enterprise.
What was the problem, now? I'll ask here since I don't know how many pages to backtrack ^_^;;
http://www.thewrap.com/how-web-star-trek-rights-killed-jj-abrams-grand-ambitions-91766/
Old news, predates Star Trek: Into Darkness. JJ did not like how CBS controlled the rights to Trek merchandise. He understood Trek licensing about as well as Midnight's Edge does.
My character Tsin'xing
This was reported on other sites as well and CBS pretty much laughed at him and said no. But this is old news and from about 4 years ago....
original join date 2010
Member: Team Trekyards. Visit Trekyards today!
I can see what Abrams was going for with it. He was trying to market Star Trek '09 as the launch of a new path forward. Having the old stuff around would only confuse the new generation of fans that Abrams wanted to bring in. It is much the same problem that Discovery is having right now. Having Discovery set so close to TOS is creating a bit of an identity crisis.
i do apologise, i am trying to explain myself on the issue and it seems quite poorly. it's the reply where you put up the picture with the woman the cookies and the comment in it on the top left. It's in regard to what women think of themselves from the time of TOS and what they are still fighting for today.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
It's a Hollywood gossip information site, but it's not a tabloid site. It covers "controversial" stories that EW wont touch (because then EW would lose out on exclusive interviews). I see no reason to doubt their journalistic integrity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheWrap
The story itself was widely circulated. TheWrap reached out to Bad Robot, Paramount Pictures and CBS for comment. Only CBS responded. Everything seems on the up and up. If you have a specific reason to doubt the story or TheWrap itself, feel free to share.
Well, this quote from the article you posted immediately jumps out:
Allowing? Sorry, but this comment has its basis in the utter confusion over the control of the IP. From everything I've read about the Paramount/CBS split, it's safe to say that CBS calls the shots, end of story. I think the most similar comparison to make is FOX vs. Marvel over the X-Men franchise... FOX is the ones that can make the movies (and TV), but they can't publish their own comic books, merch, and the like. Paramount owns the film rights, but CBS owns the IP.
It's lazy writing, at best. It's also a one-sided story.
Fans have used this story to paint Abrams in a bad light, as the Evil Franchise Killer... "SEE?! THAT STAR WARS GUY HATES OUR STUFF!!" It's not that simple, and it's not that childish. Had the IP not been split over two companies, things would have been very different... Abrams could've easily gotten his way, had Trek been owned 100% by either CBS or Paramount.
This was an example of Hollywood business, sensationalized into something more than it was.
My character Tsin'xing