Carabimero
Senior HTF Member
I edited post #475 in anticipation of your question, but I was a bit too lateWhat exactly do you mean by “moral argument”?
I edited post #475 in anticipation of your question, but I was a bit too lateWhat exactly do you mean by “moral argument”?
Some of the best moral argument I ever heard I wasn't aware of until I watched a piece several times. Then I realized it was the moral argument that was keeping me coming back.Maybe I just don’t care about moral argument as much as you or as much as you think viewers do. All I want is to be entertained.
For years I thought THE WALKING DEAD had the best moral argument on TV. And the ratings bore my opinion out. When the moral argument went to hell in a hand basket on that show, I left. And so did a lot of others (even if they didn't know that was the reason).Ok fine but I still don’t think it has as much bearing on the number of watchers of Tv show as you say.
Do you have stats on that?
That is a big issue for me as I watch The Orville each week. What exactly is their mission? The Admiral mentions sending a science vessel to investigate the planet. So is Orville an exploration vessel? And if so, why don't they have better protocols for first contact? And just a little dialogue to bring up better options before you do an impulsive one would at least make us think they are all not just making it up as they go along each week. Case in point. If you encounter a planet that appears suddenly with an atmosphere, wouldn't you be afraid it would vanish just as rapidly? Maybe walking around outside your ship with no life support is a bad idea until you can be certain there will be air to breath the whole time you are outside.The biggest weakness of Mad Idolatry was how incredibly dumb Kelly's actions and reactions were. It's annoying to watch supposedly smart characters doing dumb and legally trangressive things to move the plot along.
I wish shows that portray a command structure would hire a military advisor in addition to a science one. Even if you make one up, it still must have some logic to it. No one would remove a member of the crew, let alone a department head, without a replacement already on site. You want at least a day to do a proper turnover. And it is not the responsibility of the ship to fill that spot unless their has been a death or serious injury. It sounds like a cool "B" story, but it makes your Planetary Union look more like the Paklids, instead of the Federation.But it does raise the question: If the chief of engineering is a Lt. Commander, why wasn't Newton ahead of Alara in the line of succession that time that the captain and first officer got kidnapped, given that's she's only a Lieutenant?
Some of the best moral argument I ever heard I wasn't aware of until I watched a piece several times. Then I realized it was the moral argument that was keeping me coming back.
I just watched this New Dimensions episode and the character development plotline with John has me confused. Kelly discovers that John is smart. Did she also discover that he knows anything about the ship's engineering and had any training for that? Just because he is smart, it doesn't mean that he can jump in and lead people in a field where he has no training."You know what? There was less crap in Bortus' colon!"
Is it me, or is Yaphit starting to become likeable?
As for the episode, it was pretty decent. The main drama was secondary to the many character developments that were happening at the same time.
They seem to be following TNG in this regard too. Geordi did the same thing after the first season. He was a Lt. jg who became a Cmdr. and head of engineering.Did she also discover that he knows anything about the ship's engineering and had any training for that? Just because he is smart, it doesn't mean that he can jump in and lead people in a field where he has no training.
They seem to be following TNG in this regard too. Geordi did the same thing after the first season. He was a Lt. jg who became a Cmdr. and head of engineering.