Let's get a comfy Orville thread going.
>>109763362in my head-cannon The Orville is an average federation vessel. All the classical star trek series star 1st rate flagship vessels. It's nice to see the universe from 2nd or 3rd rate class ship and it's crew
>>109764073STD shills are truly pathetic.>>109764006Based
>>109763362I'm noticing some things the longer I watch this show. Seth has a subtler sense of humor than I ever gave him credit for. He's given us two "advanced" cultures that are the aftermaths of two separate flavors of apocalypse.Bortus and the Moclan people are the culture and the civilization that grew in the aftermath of an incel uprising. Isaac and the Kaylon are almost certainly the result of a robot apocalypse. Seth dropped both of these into his crew without beating everyone over the head with the joke. I wonder if he ever plans on using them as commentary on the "savagery" civilization grows out of.
>>109764993>implying that moclans aren't only there because seth thinks gay klingons are funnyyikes
>>109764372Quark was on a garbage scow.>>>/wsg/2677600http://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1549857123092.webm
>>109763362By Midnight's Edge logic, the Orville is even less canon than STD though, right? At least STD is 75% Trek. The Orville, by necessity, has to be a lot more distinct to avoid legal issues.
>>109764961I posted the only Orville related webms I had. What did you contribute?
>>109765281It has 100% more heart.
>>109764372That was the original pitch. Orville was originally pitched, to CBS or Paramount or somebody, as an official Trek show that focuses on a not-so-cool Fed ship that doesn't have a heroic genius captain and near superhuman officers, but rather just regular jackoffs. Trek rights holders weren't interested, so they filed the serial numbers off of it and made it anyway.
>>109765487Fair enough, but trying to use Midnigh's Edge's latest video to legitimise The Orville over STD is pretty retarded.
>>109764961Shills don't call it STD, you dumbass.>>>/wsg/2673375.http://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1549739632888.webm
>>109765758>http://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1549739632888.webmIf you have to pander this hard then you've already lost who you're trying to pander to.
>>109765281>The Orville, by necessity, has to be a lot more distinct to avoid legal issuesYou'd think so but Orville is like 95% Trek.
>>109765913Oh my god what the fuckI have no idea how to even react to thisThis is just sad
>>109765192>gayIt's not an "alternative lifestyle" when there's no alternative. Moclans view females of their species as inferior and consider it almost a heresy not to convert them to males.
>>109763362Why isn't this show available outside America?
>>109766047Maybe in spirit. But you can't change the fact that the Orville has quantum drives and Moclans, while STD still has warp drives and Klingons.
>>109763362So based on the thread title I guess you guys heard the news about how all Star Trek since 2009 isn't actually canon
>>109765642They should have taken it. It genuinely is 100% more in-line with Trek's spirit than the "gritty," morally grey garbage they're doing in STD.
>>109765913This is titled "Cannibalism in STD.webm", tell me I am a shill. This is how to not shill. It is a "Tilly is fat" joke.>>>/wsg/2674756http://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1549775399445.webm
>>109766262Comes as no shock. Abrams kills everything he touches. The man has no imagination and no respect for sci-fi.
>>109766262 What? How is it not canon. The Picard series is explicitly said to be taking place after the Prime Timeline scenes in ST 09
>>109765487IT'S BEEN A LONG ROAD
>>109768320Exactly. The Prime Timeline doesn't mean what you think it means. It's a lie that's been fed to us by Bad Robot. What they call the Prime Timeline is a universe that is legally required to be 25% different from canon Star Trek (up until 2005). It's a universe where Romulus is destroyed and Spock gets thrown back in time, and versions of the Trek events we know from the canon timeline may or may not have taken place. BUT it is not the canon timeline, and is legally required not to be.Thus, the Picard series IS taking place in Bad Robot's "Prime Timeline", but it is not the canon timeline that we all know and love.Basically, just watch the Orville.
>>109765913> krustywhatthehellwasthat.gifHoly shit that's the most cringe inducing thing I've seen all day.
>>109768731I really don't understand this argument at all. What does 25% different even mean. Star Trek Enterprise is at the very least 25% different from The Original Series, but they both exist within the same canon universe. If you want to criticize STD, feel free, it's not a very good show. But trying to delegitimize its place in canon in this way is just stupid. You shouldn't accept everything Midnight's Edge says as the gospel truth.
>>109769378It means any element they try to include from canon Star Trek has to be 25% different. That's why the Enterprise is 3x larger than the original Enterprise from TOS, and has different styling. That's why the TOS uniforms have to look different and can't just be the traditional uniforms. That's why Spock has to have a beard, Sarek has to have an adopted daughter nobody knew about who he loved more than Spock, etc.
>>109765758>Shills don't call it STD, you dumbass.They didn't used to, but they are learning. You're still making some extremely obvious mistakes giving you away that we can all see from a mile away.
>>109769565What's different about Pike, or Number One? Some of the stuff you listed is more likely down to visual updates, because it's not 1968 anymore. Even Sarek having an adopted daughter; that doesn't really change the character of Sarek.
>>109769378he's talking about all the legal fuckery surrounding copyrights and licensing that defines current star trek.
>>109769637There are individual elements which they are able to license from canon Star Trek from CBS to give the show the appearance of being canonical. They already did this for an Enterprise schematic on a screen in an S2 episode. They will continue to do this to make the series 'appear' to fall in line with canon, when really it's a series of legal individual licenses to make it seem as if the whole enterprise is canonical.Which is why The Orville is genius. Same Trek feel, but none of the baggage and no rights issues.
Was there not an episode last week?
>>109769889None of this is very convincing to me though. Isn't that more or less the deal they worked out for the movies? Which is why the Original Series movies could use character from the show, but the show couldn't use characters from the movie? Yet the movies are still canon to the show, and vice versa.
>>109770144Persistently pretending to be an ignorant retard with no ability to comprehend nuanced ideas is starting to resemble shill tactics. Educate yourself or stop posting.
>>109770144The issue is that the TV rights lie with CBS, while the movie rights lie with Paramount. Bad Robot wants their "reboot" and "prime" universes to be mistaken for the real canon Star Trek, which can only be made if CBS and Paramount were to re-merge and take on different creatives.
>>109770051Nope, both Gotham and Orville took a break last week.
>>109770287Pretty sure it's either a CBS shill or someone who's just willfully ignorant because YouTubers rustle his jimmies.
>>109770312Any particular reason? Was there an event, or something else going on?
>>109770144>be presented with documented, objective fact>I AM TO BE REMAINING THE UNCONVINCEDfor the love of shit man
>>109770295But Paramount has always owned the film rights. Why would the new Trek films be non-canon, while the old ones are?>>109770287I'm sorry I disagree with you.
>>109770427I offered a counter-example to explain why I'm yet to be convinced.
>>109770475No, you're a dumb piece of shit, as your "counter example" was from before the CBS/paramount split.
>>109770446CBS and Paramount used to be part of the same company, Viacom. They split after Enterprise finished. That's why the rights are all over the shop now, they were split between the two companies. It's also why its so difficult for the JJTrek reboot to get off the ground with spinoffs/merchandising/etc. JJ wanted the 09 reboot to signal a whole new start to the franchise with TV shows, video games, etc all taking place in his universe, but because of rights issues, this was made extremely difficult.
>>109770547Thank you for being reasonable. This is a good explanation, and I didn't know about the CBS / Paramount split. I still don't completely buy the idea that this invalidates STD (and the Picard show, etc) from canon, since CBS is involved in their production, so the writers / showrunner of STD obviously has their blessing.>>109770545No need to get so mad friend.
>>109763362No Alara, no watch
>>109770673Not him, but I agree with you. The whole rights issue thing has just come up because a YouTuber called Midnight's Edge (who always makes claims from 'sources' and is 'always right' until he's not and has to course correct and damage control) made a video talking about all this. I think he's got elements of truth to it, I've heard from people working in transmedia that the rights issues have definitely fucked up video games/merchandising/spinoff opportunities. As to not making STD 'canon' that's way harder to say. I think we just have to take it at face value, like it or not. At least it seems like the showrunners are consciously trying to make it more like Star Trek than the mess that was S1 (which was due to pretty chaotic behind-the-scenes with changing showrunners and demands from the studio).
>>109770673The point you are doggedly determined to keep from entering your thick skull is CBS does not have the entirety of the rights to star trek. Neither does paramount. So neither entity can make a true star trek. Both have to deviate, heavily, from canon, unless they want to pay the other heavy licensing fees or get sued. Because the rights to the canon are split between two completely separate corporate entities.Thus, the orville. It navigates the legal bullshit to present something closer to trek than is possible for either CBS or paramount.
>>109770845>a youtuber said [fact] so [fact] is wrongthe absolute state of you
>>109770931And of course there's just complete retards like this, so, you know, that doesn't help.The Orville is getting pretty comfy in Season 2, even without Alara. Discovery got better in Eps 2 and 4 and makes me think it could get to Voyager level if it tried. Just enjoy what you want to enjoy, I'd say my dude, and don't wrap yourself into knots trying to figure out ways to discount things you don't like from being canon.
>>109770984>like both the orville and STDGet the fuck off this website, and never come back.
>>109770868As >>109770845 said, if the rights are as jumbled as you suggest, I'm going to defer to the writers of the show, who are operating as if they ARE writing within canon, even if legally they technically aren't. There are some Trek books that I consider canon, because they don't contradict anything from the shows, because they were written as if they were canon.By your logic, Orville is even less legitimate as a Trek show, because it legally has to be 0% Trek (or at least low enough to avoid litigation,) whereas at least std is 75% Trek.
>>109770984its more or less, nothing more than a clean explanation for the current state of star trek. For the movies, for the series, everything. There is no good reason to fight against it so fiercely.
>>109771068>i'll just listen to people who's literal job is to promote the shows they work on
>>109766196It is in europe.we got Fox life here broadcasting it
>>109771176Well yeah. I'd sooner listen to them over a Youtube e-celeb capitalizing on online furore over STD.
>>109771242so you're back to >>109770931that's great dude
Orville and Trekfags should be together, not torn apart.
>>109771307I didn't write that other post bruh. And it's not that I disbelieve every Youtuber, but you were suggesting the STD writers would say anything to make the show canon. I'm saying Midnight's Edge will say anything to delegitimize STD, because that's just what most people want to hear right now. By your logic, both are equally unreliable.
>>109771365We are the same people. It's STD that's off to the side doing its own thing.
>>109771382>i didn't write that other post... okay now it seems like you have some sort of legitimate cognitive disorder and I'm starting to feel bad for thinking you're just a run of the mill moron. The ferocity which you're rejecting absolute objective fact suddenly makes sense, and this is obviously entirely fruitless.But.I am saying, you, are dismissing absolute objective fact because someone from youtube repeated it.
>Orville is the new Star Trek show!lol. Just because STD is shit doesn't mean that we should elevate painfully-average trash any further than the lowest common denominator rubbish that it is.Seth MacFarlane is an unfunny hack who literally just 100% copies original series Star Trek, and has you faggots clapping like circus seals.
>>109771484I could post a screenshot of the single (You), but that inevitably draws accusations of photoshopping, so I won't bother. The rights issues may be fact, but as far as I'm concerned, nothing that's been said in this thread, or by Midnight's Edge, necessarily disqualifies STD from being canon. Disney now owns the rights to Star Wars, but a great deal of people don't consider their films to be canon.
>>109771597>literally just 100% copies original series Star TrekSo in other words, he made more Star Trek.
>>109771610Hello, my now obviously autistic compatriot. I am not saying you posted >>109770931. I am saying that it is representative of your position.
>>109771622I'm afraid since Fox owns none of the rights to Star Trek, the Orville is 0% Trek. Sorry.
>>109771622>babby's first postare you clinically retarded?
>>109771677Still infinity more watchable than the abomination that cbs dumped out.
>>109771662You understand how I could have come to that conclusion though, based on the syntax of this >>109771307 sentence. 'So you're back to...'As I said, I'm not convinced any of this matters to STD's canonicity. I don't consider the Star Wars sequel trilogy to be canon, even though Disney owns the rights to Star Wars.
>>109771597THIS. Literally just making copies of OS episodes and levering in atheism for reddit to eat it up.Can't wait until he remakes sliders and puts himself in it with more penis jokes.
>>109771744>Still infinity more watchable>solid shit makes a better meal than liquid shit
>>109771752>You understand how I could have come to that conclusion thoughYes, you obviously have a cognitive disorder.
>>109771778Well no shit. Liquid shit makes for a drink, not a meal.
>>109771796Have you got anything to say about the rest of my post?
>>109771778its more like methadone vs an opioid antagonist as way to cope with the absolute absence of heroin (actual star trek)
>>109771833Obviously not. Facts have been stated. You rejected them. We're finished.
>thread is 4 hours old>78 replies from 23 IP's.>no one's talking about the Orville. All discussion surrounds Star Trek.The Orville is dead right? Is that why there are Fox shills telling people to go out and buy the DVD's?
>>109771882Do you consider the Star Wars sequels canon?
>>109771889>The Orville is dead right?Don't look at the ratings.
>>109771907>PLEASE ACKNOWEDLGE MY NON-SEQUITUR...?
>>109771948I'm demonstrating a point. Rights issues rarely come into play when people are discussing canon. Since you won't acknowledge the non-sequitur, I'm going to assume you agree with me in some capacity, unless you'd like to take the refute said point.
>>109772048Friend, this isn't an argument. Nothing you can say will change the objective fact of the legal rights to star trek.
>>109765281Somebody explain the 25%/75% thing please.
>>109772141If George Lucas came out with his own off-brand Star Wars story, I'm willing to bet people would consider it canon, or at least more-so than the Disney sequels. Same deal with Trek. Who owns the rights doesn't matter to me all that much as far as canon is concerned.
>>109772153franchise rights are split between two separate corporate entities therefore neither can make something that is entirely star trek.
>>109771889The Orville is the Cleveland show in space, and MacFarlane is a fairground huckster, selling you tickets to stare at his latest abortion in a jar wrapped in a star trek blanket.
>>109772227Friend, I'm not even reading your posts. You're trying to argue objective facts out of existence.
>>109766113This. Is that even fucking real?
>>109764372I wanted to write a show about an aging excelsior class vessel doing milk runs in occupied Cardassian Union space. Basically a post-war reconstruction series but from the rank and files' perspective instead of theater operators.
>>109772269Very mature, and supremely argued! I've acknowledged the rights issues, but as I've said, for a lot of people, they have no bearing on what is and isn't canon. If you're so desperate to get the last reply, post yet another 'non-argument,' and I'll stop wasting my time with you.
>>109770051All new episodes were off for a week for OTA broadcast TV because of the Super Bowl + State of the Union. It's pretty common to make that a re-runs week.
>>109772424>very maturFriend, again, this isn't an argument. I stated facts. You're not going to be able to say anything that suddenly renders them no longer facts. You can quibble and non-sequitur until your blue in the face and the facts will still remain.Because of the viacom split, the rights to star trek are split, thus, true star trek cannot exist.
>>109772253>The Orville is the Cleveland show in space
>>109765913Jesus Christ that was literally cringe inducing.
>>109772495I'm afraid your facts have no bearing on what I, and many others, consider canon.
>>109772809>i guess your facts have no bearing on my non-sequiturya don't say
>>109773132As far as I'm concerned, it's the same issue. Holding the rights does not make you the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't canon.
>>109763362And might I add fuck Star Trek Discovery.
>>109773274You're really desperate to get me to engage you on that non-sequitur. Which is kinda silly considering it's a case where an entity with 100% of the rights to a property is saying what is and isn't canon to that property, and you are saying you disagree with the bearer of the rights.
Why is there no episode this week?
>>109773369That's right. Myself, and large portions of the Star Wars fanbase, do not consider the new movies to be canon, despite Disney owning Star Wars. I could care less about corporate politics.
>>109773409so fox could push >>109772091
Do they call it Star Trek 'disco' because it's full of faggots? I think STD suits it better in that case.
>>109773427So you disagree with fact. At least you're consistent.
>>109773474If you're happy to let big corporations decide what's canon and what isn't, instead of actual creators, that's fine.
>>109773510Again, it doesn't matter how you feel about a fact. It remains a fact.
>>109765758saying there are that many trek shows seems like a knock on star trek, especially when they refer to spin-offsstar trek has no spin-off shows
>>109773510>Implying consumers have any say at allNot him, but unless you own the rights, they can completely make something canon, even if it's retconing the entire history of Star Trek and making a nearly 70 year old show irrelevant. You're only option is to partake or move on.
>>109770295cbs and paramount have the same ownership so what are you trying to say
>>109773625the same partial ownership.
>>109773409Superbowl/State of the Union. Orville wasn't the only show taking a break.
>>109773539Okay then.>>109773602I disagree. If they did retcon the 70 years of Star Trek, I don't think we should have to accept it just because a corporation owns the rights.
>>109773721>he continues to disagree with factWhat happened in your life that made you think all you needed to do to win any argument was keep on pressing an issue?
>>109773721You don't have to. You are free to use your time elsewhere. Not watching is entirely up to you. They also feel that they can alienate some of the hard core trekkie for new viewers. If they bleed enough money they admit they were wrong, get rid of the JJ Abrams trash, and bring back the prime timeline.
>>109773748I'm not disagreeing with fact, I've acknowledged there are probably a lot of rights issues. What I disagree with is the idea that rights holders have any real authority in determining canon. If corporations put out subpar pieces of fiction, or fiction that contradicts pre-established canon, I think fans are well within their rights to deny the new 'canon.'
>>109773862>What I disagree with is the idea that rights holders have any real authority in determining canon.They have absolute authority. it is also irrelevant to the state of star trek. As the problem with star trek is no one actually has the right to say what is and isn't canon since the split.
>>109773937We're arguing in circles, and will continue to do so for quite some time I'm guessing. I think we just fundamentally disagree on the definition of canon, and how much influence fans vs. corporations should hold with regard to these issues.
>>109774004I've told you a number of times, we aren't having an argument at all. I am stating facts and you're quibbling and non-sequitur'ing because you don't like the facts. There are no points in contention because there is nothing to be contended. I am stating facts, you are expressing your wholly irrelevant opinions.
>>109774130You're stating facts yes, what's in contention is how relevant these facts are with regard to canon.
>>109774287the only way that is in contention is if you have some capacity to convince others of what you believe is and is not canon. Which, fact being, you don't. All you have is your opinion of what is and isn't canon, against what factually is and isn't canon according to the only authority on the matter.Which, again, is not relevant to star trek, because no one actually has the rights to say what is and isn't canon, because no one has full rights. Thus the state of star trek since the cbs/viacom split.
>>109765913>thanks to neeeeeeeeeeeeeerds, we are all neeeeeeeeeeerds.holy mother of fucks, who thought this shit was good, It's like a bad bad snl skit.
>>109774461The same assholes that thought STD was a good idea.
>>109774404I chose the Star Wars example because there's a large contingent of fans who already don't consider the new movies to be canon; no convincing on my part is necessary.As for Star Trek, if no one does have the rights to say what is and isn't canon, I guess I have no choice but to defer to my own judgement. In which case, STD is canon.
>>109774461CBS is the old people network. Has been for decades. STD was the desperate attempt of out of touch old men to appeal to them kids, as all the old people are dying.
>>109774528>I chose my non-sequitur because of argumentum ad populum fantastic.
>>109774578Not that guy, but i'd say argumentum ad populum works just as well in this instance. viewers matter here.
>>109774619>a logical fallacy works here because there's a lot of themthis thread is going places, boy lemme tell ya what
>>109774578Yeah, since my whole argument is that corporations should't have the final word regarding what is and isn't canon: the creators and the fans have more authority in this regard, in my opinion, since corporations obviously don't care about the fiction; only the profits generated thereof.
>>109774670Your argument is you don't like facts, so they shouldn't be facts.
>>109774658You don't realise that there are many common non fallcious examples of ad populum, and in this instance, he's perfectly correct. There is evidence of a large proportion of fans doing just that. He is not appealing without evidence.Moron.
>>109774706Not quite, I just don't think that fans and creators should have to swallow whatever shit the corporations try to shovel into out mouths.
>>109774768>lots of people have an opinion of something>thus this changes the fact of something>this isn't fallacious
>>109774864>facts can't changeAre you some sort of retard?
Why don't you two just both get on discord, and argue in circles about nothing there?
>>109774881facts are changed by facts. Opinions are not facts.
>>109774922>public opinion can't change facts
>>109774885I can see I'm not quite getting through to you, so I guess we'll leave it there. Goodbye friend.
>>109774972Public opinion literally and fundamentally cannot change fact.You have clearly allowed the current state of the mainstream internet to completely rot your brain.
>>109775000I'm not your overworked single mom. Neither are facts. Constantly pressing the issue won't cause me to just give up and say okay, because it's easier than telling you what's right.
>>109763362I love this show, it's the only show I look forward to all week. The haters can fuck off. This is more trek than whatever the fuck they are passing as trek these days.
>>109775017>X is the most popular show >public opinion changes
I've been catching up on season 2. Maybe it's just because I'm older and notice shit more but I don't remember so much of Star Trek being "culture/religion is the root of all strife".
It's a pretty sad indictment on the world that people think The Orville is like Star Trek.
>>109775098that is an a example of facts being changed by facts, my dimwitted friend.
>>109775000>so I guess we'll leave it there.It's a shame you didn't mean this.
>>109775137>I don't remember so much of Star Trek being "culture/religion is the root of all strife".Don't the actually say that religion ending was apart of humanity coming together for world peace. Disease, War, Money, Religion, all gone for achieving peace.
>>109775278I'm not the other guy you're arguing with dummy.
>>109775243Sure, but wtf do people have? There is NO more trek anon. Let people enjoy the retarded trek baby that Seth McFaggot created. It's not that bad, let them have their fun.
>>109775258>public opinion is a factwew lad
>>109775311I'm not a part of your retarded argument. You guys are all fucking retarded.
>>109775388>You guys are all fucking retarded.I agree.
>>109775367a statement on what public opinion is, is a fact. If the facts (the opinions of the public) change, that fact changes.We both know you're just pretending to be dumb, and posting incorrect things that take more explanation to correct than to express.
>>109775353Since the episodes I've seen have been shitty remakes of actual Star Trek episodes, the fact that people like The Orville tells me they haven't actually watched Star Trek. So...they could just watch Star Trek instead.
>>109775430Well, at least there has been some form of consensus in this thread.We're all fucking retarded.
>>109775493speak for yourself, nigger.
>>109775465>If the facts (the opinions of the public) changeSo public opinion is a fact? You're literally arguing under a delusion, here. You say opinions can't change facts, which is 100% wrong, even at its very core."I want to eat duck" is a fact that is subject to change as opinion (my personal whims) change.
>>109775564>look at me, I'm pretending I can't read, u mad!!...
>>109775487But anon, we've seen trek dozens of time. I know I've personally watched every episode of TOS and TNG at least 4 times, not counting a couple run throughs of Voyage and DS9. And countless times the movies.People want something new, you can't blame them for that. And STD is so fucking horrible, that many people don't feel it's trek. And I can't say I blame them, it is pretty awful.
>>109775647did you really think I was going to continue arguing with someone who clearly understands what he is saying is wrong?
>>109775698>did you really think I was going to continue arguing with someone who clearly understands what he is saying is wrong?That's exactly what you've been doing for hours.
>>109775644How is episodes of Star Trek we've already seen, interspersed with dialog from Family Guy, something new? I understand that there's a problem here, but The Orville is only a solution if you're suffering from a combination of retrograde amnesia and bad taste.
>>109775698>la la la you're wrong, i'm right la la laThis is really pathetic, son
>>109772527lol but it is tho
>>109775644>>109775745On the other hand, the other posters in this thread demonstrate that maybe The Orville actually is primarily watched by frontal lobotomy patients.
>>109775724>>>109775698>>did you really think I was going to continue arguing with someone who clearly understands what he is saying is wrong?>That's exactly what you've been doing for hours.So that's your game. Some petty little bit of spite. That's adorable.also why do this shit.
>>109775745Maybe you are right, but it fills my niche. Maybe I'm a pleb, maybe I never understood Trek. But you know what, I don't really give a fuck, because I like The Orville characters a lot. So whether it's trek or not, I still enjoy it. So I have bad taste in your opinion, but I've been told this my entire life, but I'm a happy guy enjoying what I like and standing by it. No fucks given. sorry.
>>109775804Nigger, aside from calling you guys retards, I haven't participated in your argument. Hell, I don't even know which side either of you are arguing for anymore since all either have you have done is just go "not uh, my facts are real, and yours aren't" for the past 50 posts.
>>109775874Sorry about that guy. He really went off the deep end in backpedalling after he said that public opinion is a fact.
>>109775874Then I'll break it down for "you."Fact: Only the people with the rights to a property can say what is and is not canonFact: People don't like this.Fact: People not liking something doesn't change facts.
>>109775959I'm new to this discussion, and I don't understand what you are trying to say.
>>109775935pretending to be retarded doesn't make people mad.
>>109775959Yeah, I don't give a shit. You're a retard. The guy you're arguing with is a retard, and I'm a retard for even still having this thread open instead of just shooting myself in the head.
>>109775997pointing out their inconsistencies seems to.
>>109776003Then why respond?
>>109775959death of the author you dumb nigger."canon" doesn't fucking exist. It's literally a community construct you fucking moron
>>109776037see >>109775997.Just because people disengage from further discussion after you've proven your interest is twisting words around in order to befuddle or stump the opposition, especially in such a way that requires understanding of exactly what you're doing, doesn't mean you have made people mad. It means you have exposed yourself as an idiot.
>>109775959>Fact: Only the people with the rights to a property can say what is and is not canonWhat the other guy was saying is that people shouldn't accept whatever rights holders say.
>>109776074Death of the author is a pre-copyright concept. It is also more to do with how a reader can feel however he wants about a work, and those feelings are just as valid as the author's intent. But they don't change the author's intent nor does the author's intent change their feelings, if they don't want.
>>109776094All these words just to cry at me. I'm getting almost perturbed, now. Either bring an argument to the table, with no petty name-calling, or just admit you fucked up.
>>109776146>lmao i pretend to be retarded umadI don't know what I was expecting.
>>109776143Authorial intent isn't set in stone. Death of the Author is not an opinion. It's a necessity for any interpretation to take place.
Orville is comfy. This thread could be comfy if it weren't for a few strange ones that want to project their "taste" onto everyone else as if it was objective. Nobody gives a shit if you don't like this show. Enough do. The characters are more watchable than STD trash.
>>109776143>Death of the author is a pre-copyright concept.>this legal paper says you aren't allowed to personally interpret fictionkek, please tell me you're for reals
>>109776171What? he never said anything like that. He admitted that HE was annoyed, if anything.You are losing credibility.
>>109776182Authorial intent is always set in stone. The author changing their mind later doesn't change the original intent. The rest of your post is gibberish.
>>109776257This is nonsensical.You do not KNOW what Dickens intended to portray in any character of Bleak House.Yet you can read and understand it and interpret it.
>>109776349The only way that would be nonsensical is if, somehow, dickens himself was unaware of his intentions. Fact is, he had intentions. Whether they are known or not does not change this fact.Your argument, right now, is if no one knows a tree falls in the woods, then it didn't.
>>109776441What i'm saying is that death of the author is a necessity because you don't know what Dickens intended. You read it and interpret it personally, or via a certain lens. Your interpretation is likely vastly different from Dickens' but it is not invalid as a result.
>>109776441>if no one knows a tree falls in the woods, then it didn't.if nobody ever knows or can know about the tree, then for all intents and purposes, it didn't. Perception is 100% of reality.
>>109776525You don't need to know what dickens intended to interpret a work. Your argument is internally contradictory.
>>109776552Post-modernism is a rationalization for the fact reality is larger than a human mind can grasp. "If I can't know it, then it doesn't exist," etc.
>>109770984>Discovery got better in Eps 2 and 4 and makes me think it could get to Voyager level if it tried.That's low praise if I ever see one. I mean even Enterprise was better show than Voyager.
>>109776575Then death of the author is a necessity, and you admit this. If you cannot ever know the author's intention, yet can still interpret the work, you must concede this.>>109776617This isn't post-modernism. This is enlightenment values, and appeals to higher powers are logically fallacious.
>>109771889>thread is now 7 hours old>200 replies from only 38 IP's.>people are talking about literally anything other than The Orville. It's getting cancelled right?
>>109776675Well, it was clearly your intention to get me arguing in circles over literally nothing. So congratulations.Fact is, your argument is gibberish. No one asserted that a book is impossible to read without pure knowledge of the authorial intent. Thus death of the author, by your own arguments, is redundant.
>>109776675>perception is reality isn't post-modernismwew lad
There is a madman in this thread right now who's been here arguing with people for over four hours.
>>109776731>>109772091wasn't an episode this week, breh.
Yearning. Passion. Search. Who will feed the coals of joy in the stove of emotion?My fingers ache to penetrate the hearth. Love is the fishhook that hooks the fish.
>>109776743>Well, it was clearly your intentionYou are being paranoid. But your >nobody asserted the very apex literal interpretation of my argument!Shenanigans are not welcome, to be quite honest. I'm cutting you off now, because that showes you are unable to argue in good faith.>>109776777Is Descartes Postmodernism now?
>>109776812He must really be so bumstung that someone criticised the orville that he's putting that philosophy degree to good use.
>>109776857>its bad faith to not treat my strawman arguments as your ownIts funny how off the deep end you went in desperate attempt to prove your opinions are facts.
>>109776917>some guy said i'm arguing in bad faith>I better cry strawman>and then call him mad and desperatelooks like that other anon was right.
>>109776857>vastly misunderstand someone's argument>argue for hours>the misunderstanding is identified... BY THEM>BAD FAITH BAD FAITH SHENANIGANS YOU'RE DONE
>>109777186>he's still at it
>>109773858I suspect that Abrams is conducting some of the most insidious corporate espionage the world has ever seen, and I think he's doing it on Disney's behalf.I think his continuity is purposefully divisive. It is meant to devalue the Trek brand to a point where Disney can snatch it up. I think all the legal maneuvering is in hopes of crippling CBS's endeavors to such a degree where they're willing to sell their rights to Disney as well. I believe that Disney is attempting to establish a monopoly that can't be regulated: one on sci-fi/fantasy. Unfortunately, Disney is also a soulless corporate machine and Abrams is a visionless hack who can't do truly good sci-fi even when he wants to. All he's ever proven he's capable of is producing vastly inferior copies.
>>109771762>Can't wait until he remakes sliders>implying anyone will remake that after the state of the last 2 seasons
>>109777891>disney is trying to monopolize teh ficshuns!!Something similar to this already happened in the 80s and 90s. The result was anime became incredibly popular, because it wasn't part the american monoculture.
>>109766143That's what I have to give Seth credit for. He did the gay thing without having to go there (because they're aliens), but I never noticed the incel connection (if intentional). Personally I just thought he wanted faggots on the show without rustling anyone's jimmies.
>>109765913Oh look, it's dying of AIDS guy acting like a massive faggot