-
Welcome to the Community Forums at HiveWire 3D! Please note that the user name you choose for our forum will be displayed to the public. Our store was closed as January 4, 2021. You can find HiveWire 3D and Lisa's Botanicals products, as well as many of our Contributing Artists, at Renderosity. This thread lists where many are now selling their products. Renderosity is generously putting products which were purchased at HiveWire 3D and are now sold at their store into customer accounts by gifting them. This is not an overnight process so please be patient, if you have already emailed them about this. If you have NOT emailed them, please see the 2nd post in this thread for instructions on what you need to do
What Is Your Favorite TV Show?
- Thread starter Lyne
- Start date
eclark1894
Visionary
McFarlane is a ST fan, so he's not making fun of the show. It is a legitimate sci-fi show. It just happens to be mostly comedic. I say mostly because for me it's "millenials" in space. One recent episode was about what would happen if you went to a world where your actions were voted on, like Like or unlike. Something one of the crewmembers did on an away mission went "viral" and he ended up with the most "unlikes" in that planet's history which was a crime.
And the punishment was a lobotomy.
Of course ... the original Star Trek was sooo many years ago, and I was (despite my current number of decades) rather young. So it's entirely possible that the characters on Star Trek weren't all that developed either.
Nah. They were all rather endearing ... and just became increasingly so as they aged. Even Kirk was endearing in the beginning. It was only as I aged myself that I became annoyed with how he was written. Seriously ... stereotype much? Sailor with a girl in every port?!? I'm sure if there were a female version of Yaphit, Kirk would have hit on it.
Of course ... the original Star Trek was sooo many years ago, and I was (despite my current number of decades) rather young. So it's entirely possible that the characters on Star Trek weren't all that developed either.
Nah. They were all rather endearing ... and just became increasingly so as they aged. Even Kirk was endearing in the beginning. It was only as I aged myself that I became annoyed with how he was written. Seriously ... stereotype much? Sailor with a girl in every port?!? I'm sure if there were a female version of Yaphit, Kirk would have hit on it.
eclark1894
Visionary
Well, there were, sort of. The Orion slave girls.
D
Deleted member 325
Guest
Re. Orville-
I am a bit disappointing, but I was expecting something much more comedic (not quite Family Guy in space, but definitely something along the lines of Galaxy Quest). That being said, I do not think it's a bad show. It has some solid VFX for what it is, and some of the stories have been fairly interesting. Overall though, I do find the 1 main running gag overdone and annoying. I find the characters all fall short of potential, and fairly under-developed. To me, it's not a bad time-killer if you have nothing else to do, or are between other shows. I do not find it something I would go out of my way for.
As too Character Development, this is always tricky on shows. Some shows nail it quickly, others linger for seasons and still grasp at stars. The original Star Trek, the characters were a bit shallow, and intentionally so - but focused on a couple of key aspects to make them unique and endearing to the audience. Firefly nailed it - just the interplay between the characters and their personalities is established right there in Episode 1, and from there it is about slowly delving into those characters and learning more about who they really are (or aren't as the case may be). I still regret having not given the show a chance in first run. Babylon 5, it was a mix - Some of the characters and their progression were epic from seasons 1-4 (G'kar and Londo I really loved watching them change slowly) while others started flat and were replaced often with other 2-dimensional people (sadly some that should have been main characters). I really enjoyed Star Trek The Next Generation and felt that most of the characters got good development over time, though slow in some cases, where-as I hated Voyager and no matter how many times I am forced to watch it only 2 characters ever really appeal to me at all and they are still two shallow overall. Right now, with Orville, it is just that none of the characters really hold my attention. Maybe they will develop some of them, only time will tell.
R.e A-list actors in Sci-Fi
If you have never seen it, I recommend finding Saturn 3. It is a lovely sci-fi thriller from 1980 featuring Kirk Douglas and Farah Fawcett. I feel it has always gotten poor reviews and unjustified low ratings. Another good one, where the sci-fi is more of a backdrop rather than the focus, is Outland, Starring Sean Connery.
I am a bit disappointing, but I was expecting something much more comedic (not quite Family Guy in space, but definitely something along the lines of Galaxy Quest). That being said, I do not think it's a bad show. It has some solid VFX for what it is, and some of the stories have been fairly interesting. Overall though, I do find the 1 main running gag overdone and annoying. I find the characters all fall short of potential, and fairly under-developed. To me, it's not a bad time-killer if you have nothing else to do, or are between other shows. I do not find it something I would go out of my way for.
As too Character Development, this is always tricky on shows. Some shows nail it quickly, others linger for seasons and still grasp at stars. The original Star Trek, the characters were a bit shallow, and intentionally so - but focused on a couple of key aspects to make them unique and endearing to the audience. Firefly nailed it - just the interplay between the characters and their personalities is established right there in Episode 1, and from there it is about slowly delving into those characters and learning more about who they really are (or aren't as the case may be). I still regret having not given the show a chance in first run. Babylon 5, it was a mix - Some of the characters and their progression were epic from seasons 1-4 (G'kar and Londo I really loved watching them change slowly) while others started flat and were replaced often with other 2-dimensional people (sadly some that should have been main characters). I really enjoyed Star Trek The Next Generation and felt that most of the characters got good development over time, though slow in some cases, where-as I hated Voyager and no matter how many times I am forced to watch it only 2 characters ever really appeal to me at all and they are still two shallow overall. Right now, with Orville, it is just that none of the characters really hold my attention. Maybe they will develop some of them, only time will tell.
R.e A-list actors in Sci-Fi
If you have never seen it, I recommend finding Saturn 3. It is a lovely sci-fi thriller from 1980 featuring Kirk Douglas and Farah Fawcett. I feel it has always gotten poor reviews and unjustified low ratings. Another good one, where the sci-fi is more of a backdrop rather than the focus, is Outland, Starring Sean Connery.
eclark1894
Visionary
"Firefly nailed it"? I guess it's hard not to when you use every overused stereotyped trope in the book. I'm sorry, I'm the one person in America who never got what everyone sees in Firefly.
eclark1894
Visionary
Joss lost me when he ran out of steam on Buffy.
I agree Firefly nailed it with the characters and their interactions. Even if some of them were a bit overboard. But that kind of made them even more endearing to me.
Firefly is the series I compare all other Science Fiction series to. Even if it had been long gone by the time I encountered it. After all, there was a whole decade and a half where I didn't watch tv.
Then I discovered online streaming ... and series like Firefly, all the Star Gates, Deep Space 9, Enterprise, Voyager, Xena, and so on. Although, I still haven't seen the final seasons of Next Gen and Quantum Leap. The Borg were in the process of attacking Earth when I rather suddenly went cold turkey from tv.
Firefly is the series I compare all other Science Fiction series to. Even if it had been long gone by the time I encountered it. After all, there was a whole decade and a half where I didn't watch tv.
Then I discovered online streaming ... and series like Firefly, all the Star Gates, Deep Space 9, Enterprise, Voyager, Xena, and so on. Although, I still haven't seen the final seasons of Next Gen and Quantum Leap. The Borg were in the process of attacking Earth when I rather suddenly went cold turkey from tv.
I don't "get" Firefly, either. I wanted to like it. My friends are crazy for it.
Some of the characters (and their interactions) were fun. The show had some good moments. But ...like you said, "every overused stereotyped trope in the book". I have to agree.
I didn't watch Firefly regularly, but did like the episodes I did see.
My all time favorite sci-fi TV show was Babylon 5, with Deep Space 9 and the oriignal Stargate tied for second place. Stargate Atlantis was good too, but not as good as the original.
My all time favorite sci-fi TV show was Babylon 5, with Deep Space 9 and the oriignal Stargate tied for second place. Stargate Atlantis was good too, but not as good as the original.
I did like the tech on Firefly. Mix of old and new, futuristic but recognizable.
I liked B5, too. I was busy raising young children, though...so I didn’t get to see it as often as I’d hoped. I think Londo was my favourite character.
eclark1894
Visionary
I was a big fan of Babylon 5 and DS 9 myself. Stargate rapidly became rather stupid for me. It was pretty much the same show every week.
I quite like the new Trek as well. It was a bit jarring at first, because it’s so different, but I take it for what it is and I’ve enjoyed it.
My only complaint is about the main character. I had high hopes for her; maybe too high, admittedly. It seemed almost every other episode involved her making a stupidly (illogical) impulsive choice that screwed things up for everyone else, then her feeling guilt or shame for her past, then having an emotive scene where she pleads for something or someone...then fixing things. This isn’t to say I dislike the character... I just feel like she should somehow be more complex or nuanced than this, given her past. It feels like there’s more intriguing character development with the Klingons, and with the Captain. Michael just seems to keep repeating the same kinds of mistakes. She’s going to have to move forward or Series 2 could get boring.
eclark1894
Visionary
I've seen clips of the show on Youtube. When is this show set in the timeline?
Ten years before TOS.
But it’s so radically different and a lot of tech makes no sense before TOS that I just choose to believe all other Treks don’t exist in ST: Discovery.
eclark1894
Visionary
The holograph communications make no real sense at all to me, but even after Voyager when holodecks were actually being used they didn't use holograms for communications.
quietrob
Extraordinary
Actually when Barkley contacted the Enterprise, the Voyager crew used holograms for communications. One time it resulted in the ferengi stealing the hologram and reprogramming for profitable scheme that of course was ultimately unprofitable. Another time a holo novel written by the doctor (They could give the doctor emotions but not data?) was sent and read by doctor holograms doing menial chores. If it was ten years before TOS, they shouldn't have this technology yet. Continuity counts.
And I loved Voyager by the way. Borg Queens rule!
And I loved Voyager by the way. Borg Queens rule!
I'm not sure it's supposed to be actually, literally, strict timeline, 10 years before TOS as we know it -- like Kirk as we remember him will appear in a decade. There's just too much that's different in this series that can't really be retconned. The new design of the Klingons and their ships, Discovery's "spore drive", holograms, universal translators built in to the communicators, etc. etc.
So now I wonder if they meant it's in a period "as if it was" or "is in a time period similar to" 10 years before TOS, when the Klingons and Federation were at war?
Anyway... when I watched it I let go of everything from Star Trek: The Previous Iterations and watched it on its own merits. That was okay and worked for me.
So now I wonder if they meant it's in a period "as if it was" or "is in a time period similar to" 10 years before TOS, when the Klingons and Federation were at war?
Anyway... when I watched it I let go of everything from Star Trek: The Previous Iterations and watched it on its own merits. That was okay and worked for me.