Beastro wrote:(I haven't watched it yet, but given the thread talk I've read all over it's more Trek than Discovery will ever be).
So, I keep seeing this line of argument, and it bugs me
every single time. They are both "Trek", but they are both very different facets of Trek.
DISCO is very much the military science fiction aspect of Trek. It deals with a spaceborne paramilitary organization primarily, which gets into wierd shenanigans and conflicts of culture that the heroes must find ways to resolve. If that sounds like...well, Star Trek in a nutshell...to you, well, there's a very good reason for that. Yes, the people making the show went for a darker, grittier setup with it (with varying levels of success) - this is an overt response to current geopolitical trends. Again, that's consistent with prior Treks.
Orville on the other hand is the optimistic utopian aspect of Trek. It still centers around the spaceborne paramilitary organization, but emphasizes the conflicts of culture and ability to overcome those differences productively. If DISCO is the Yin, the aggressive masculine aspect, I'd say Orville is the Yang, the gentle feminine aspect, of the military space opera genre. Due to the things that Orville wants to emphasize, it's lighter, brighter, and softer than DISCO. This is also an overt response to current geopolitical trends, but in the opposite way - instead of the message being the more aggressive, "We must fight and keep fighting", Orville instead says, "You know what? We're just going to keep cooperating. Nyah." And then someone gets suckered into sex with aliens.
I personally find the "DISCO isn't really Star Trek" commentary to be disingenuous, because what
usually is meant by it is, "I like Orville more than DISCO." The opinion is valid, and fine, the problem is that it's being delivered in an intellectually dishonest way. If you like one more than the other, you know what? It's OK to say that explicitly. There's no need for No True Scotsman fallacies.