Of the 16 images, five don’t count. The one with the Gorn is an obvious joke, but for four other, Kirk wasn’t acting of his own free will. He was being physically controlled by God like aliens, mind controlled or straight up sexually assaulted.
This is what one of Edmond Dantes alter egos did in the Count of Monte Cristo. “Lord Wilmore” was an eccentric Englishman who understood French perfectly well, but refused to speak it:
… Lord Wilmore appeared….His first remark on entering was, “You know, sir, I do not speak French?”
“I know you do not like to converse in our language,” replied the envoy.
“But you may use it,” replied Lord Wilmore; “I understand it.”
Re: transparency about bankrolling, i believe you since you say so. I’ve seen many of his videos and never heard him say so. I guess I just missed the ones where he did, or perhaps he said so on social media.
As for rigor, I can’t count the number of times he uses an unspecified amount of a chemical in a reaction, referring only to “throwing a bunch in.” But again, perhaps I’ve just watched the wrong videos.
His approach seems to me to be very “by guess and by gosh.” Part of that stems from trying to follow poorly written instructions in an academic paper; applied sciences grapples with that too. And some of it may be less slapdash that it appears, with Nilered using a deliberately casual tone in his scripts so that they’re more relatable, knowing that people aren’t likely to use his videos to attempt to reproduce his results. Even taking that into account though, given the number of attempts it often takes him to get the desired result, I doubt his rigor. Props to him for showing the failures and partial successes, though. And whatever else I say about him, I do generally find him entertaining.
My problem with him is that he lacks rigor and his methodology is poor.
Also, from the amount of money he throws around buying equipment, I suspect he has wealthy parents bankrolling him.
Applied Science is a far more interesting youtube channel.
I’ve heard him introduce himself in a video, pronouncing his name as you would a hair comb.
“Aping” is kind of a pejorative way to describe what The Orville does. If they were “aping” TNG, they’d be imitating it in a very derivative manner. It’s more of an homage to TNG, but in a comedy format with original ideas and character dynamics.
The Orville’s first season is no worse than TNGs. There were some truly awful first season episodes of TNG. Code of Honor is a good example of an awful episode.
I don’t think better or worse comparisons are very meaningful. They’re both good shows. TNG has many of my favorite Trek stories and characters. I think it says a lot that it inspired so much of what The Orville does.
Nor is it a “duty” but rather is a right.
The lyrics are generally fitting to the theme of the show. The Rod Stewart performance didn’t work for me then, later or now.
This article added quite a bit to the discussion. For one, U2’s beautiful day was also considered, as was a semi-operatic song performed by Russell Watson. It’s not simply a rehash of the hate it/love arguments. I encourage you to read it.
deleted by creator
Fundamental is the term used to describe concepts like points in geometry. This seems like an analogous case, so I suggest it for your use here.
My head canon is that there’s another stage to the Gorn lifecycle that we haven’t yet seen on SNW. It might be that with full maturity, the Gorn gain significant intelligence and brute strength relative to earlier stages, but lose speed and agility.
There were 3 generations of starships named Enterprise between TOS and TNG. Surely that’s the most relevant measure of a generation for Star Trek.