Tv critics can't tell a good show from a bad one.

When it comes to the biggest surprise of this television season, there's no question that 'The Orville' has been a pretty big surprise. It has managed to win over a lot of Star Trek fans, who have been waiting for a solid sci-fi series for so many years.

Even though most of us didn't expect the series to be any good, this Seth Macfarlane show has managed to deliver the goods. It not only has managed to respect the spirit of the original Star Trek shows, but it also has brought something new to the table.

Still, even though pretty much everyone has managed to like the series, professional critics have been the exception. Television critics in general have been the only ones who think that the show isn't worth your time and that it's not worth watching.

According to them, 'The Orville' doesn't work, because it's too optimistic and that it has comedic elements in it. The fact that the series also manages to be sincere and that it gives us hope is something that is just not acceptable to them.

On the other hand, when it comes to a dark, depressing and a badly thought out show like 'Star Trek: Discovery', critics have had no problems liking it. They have praised the show, even though it's pretty obvious that it isn't well made at all.

After all, the biggest reason that this official 'Star Trek' series doesn't work is because it has nothing to do with the original franchise. It manages to disrespect the vision and the values of the original Star Trek shows that people loved watching.

Instead of being a series that promotes intellectualism, curiosity and pacifism, the new Star Trek promotes stupidity, war and bellicosity. It portrays a world where there is no hope for mankind and where it doesn't have a future.

Not surprisingly, most Trekkies who gave the show a chance didn't like it at all. They couldn't stomach watching it and have been complaining how little the show has to do with the values and the idealism of the original shows.












Still, why did critics in general think that 'The Orville' wasn't a good show and that it wasn't worth watching? Why did they think that a bleak and a depressing show like 'Star Trek: Discovery' would actually be worth your time instead?

I mean, could it perhaps be because they have been bought and paid for by the entertainment industry? Perhaps they are so corrupt that they're willing to promote awful television shows simply in order to make a quick buck.

Or perhaps that's because they're trying to appear 'hip and cool' by promoting a show that looks 'dark and serious'. Perhaps they're really that out of touch with reality and how the common people think about quality entertainment.

In the end, regardless of what the truth is here, it's safe to say that they got things completely wrong here. It's safe to say that by promoting 'Star Trek: Discovery', the critics bet on the wrong horse and are being ridiculed for all the right reasons.

Sexual harassment and tribalism in America.

Over the last few weeks there have been an incredible amount of revelations about sexual harassment cases in the U.S. Ever since it became known that producer Harvey Weinstein had a long history of being a sexual abuser, things haven't been the same.

After all, it didn't take long before other big names were outed too. Celebrities like Kevin Spacey, Louis Ck, Charlie Rose, John Lasseter, Al Franken, Brett Ratner and Roy Moore among others were also revealed to be sexual abusers.

In most of these cases, being outed as a sexual harasser meant that your career came to an instant end. In most cases it didn't take more than 24 hours before the public outcry became so strong that your career was finished.

Yet, there have been two major exceptions so far in these cases. Of all the accused, Al Franken, a democratic senator from Minnesota and Roy Moore, a republican senatorial candidate from Alabama, have not paid the price for their deeds yet. 

When it comes to Al Franken (in picture), we're talking about four female victims. So far he's been accused of three counts of sexual assault (forced french kissing, butt groping) and one count of sexual harassment (following a female victim to a bathroom)

In Roy Moore's case, the public accusations are more serious. Among other things, Moore is accused of trying to have sex with a 14-year old girl, attempting to rape a 16-year old and for preying on minors on multiple occasions.

In any even remotely functional society these kind of accusations would mean that your political career would be over. In any normal society these accusations would mean that you would either resign or that you would drop out of your senate race.

However, since we're talking about politics and The United States of America, things don't work that way. The tribalism in politics is so strong that as long you're batting for the right team, it doesn't matter what you've done.

What this means in reality is that in Franken's case, democratic loyalists are convinced that Franken has done nothing wrong. They are convinced that the women who accuse him are liars and that they cannot be trusted at all.

Corporate democrats and Hillary-loyalists are taking it so far that they even claim that it might be Russia that's behind the whole thing. It's Vladimir Putin (!) who's behind these outrageous accusations against Franken.

In Roy Moore's case, it doesn't seem to matter to evangelical voters that he's accused of pedophilia and that he's a serial child molester. It doesn't matter that there are at least a dozen witnesses against him and that they all seem to be credible.

After all, 'a man of God' like him would never do things like these. There's no way that an honorable judge like Moore would do anything like that, so all the witnesses and the evidence against him has to be false and made up.

This kind of tribalism is so extreme that it isn't even limited to just Franken and Moore anymore. This kind of insane party worship also extends to former president Bill Clinton and to current president Donald Trump. 

After all, even though there are dozens of accusations against president Clinton, they don't really count. 'Mr. Lolita express' is a good man and those things with Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick and Monica Lewinsky never happened.

In the same way, it doesn't matter what Trump has been accused of doing either. Those 'grab 'em by the pussy' tapes were only locker room talk and those other 14 sexual harassment cases against him don't amount to anything either.

So in that sense, when it comes to these sexual harassment cases, things could certainly be a lot better. Things could be better, even though it's a good thing that women are finally coming forward and that in some cases they're being taken seriously.

In the end, the truth is that especially when it comes to accusations against high-profile politicians, their victims unfortunately aren't being taken seriously enough. Both tribalism and party loyalty run so rampant that no amount of evidence seems to be enough.

As a whole, that's really unfortunate, because this kind of behavior is simply unacceptable for the nation. It's unacceptable, which is why it's so important to get rid of these politicians who are guilty of sexual abuse and harassment.

In that sense, I just wish that at some point people would stop playing politics when it comes to sexual abuse. I just wish that people would stop putting party over the people and that they would do the right thing.

After all, if they did that, things could get at least a bit better for sexual abuse victims. Things would get better and it would show everyone that nobody is above the law and immune from the consequences of one's actions.

Good story is the most important part of a film.

When it comes to making a quality movie, the most important ingredient in the process is the screenplay. There's nothing more important in the production of a movie than having a good story that you can build your film on.

After all, if your story isn't good enough, no amount of money is going to save your movie. If your story sucks, it doesn't matter who is going to direct the film, or who are the actors and the actresses that are going to be in it.

So whenever I read that the biggest reason that a movie sucked wasn't because of its story, in most cases I can only roll my eyes. In most cases, the person who is talking about the film has no clue what he or she is talking about. 

To give you an example, a couple of days ago I finally had the chance to watch the film 'Wonder Woman' with my friend. We managed to watch this DC comics superhero movie after having postponed seeing it for quite some time.

When it comes to our opinion of the film, I think we both ended up liking it quite a bit. We liked almost every aspect of the movie, including the beautiful Gal Gadot, who managed to play the 'Wonder Woman' character pretty well. 

The only obvious problem with the film had to do with its story. It's pretty safe to say that in the third act of the movie, the villain - no spoilers here - made very little sense, and that the motivation for the character was weak and convoluted to say the least.

Nevertheless, when I kept reading negative reviews for the movie, it was hard to find instances where the main complaint had to do with this aspect of the film. It was hard to find complaints about the story or the villain character.

In most cases, those negative reviews had to do with all those other things instead. Almost every aspect except the story was mentioned, like for example Gal Gadot supposedly not being good enough for the role of Wonder Woman.

There were other complaints too that didn't have anything to do with the story. Things like how there weren't enough jokes, that the director was a woman, that the germans shouldn't have been the villains or that the action scenes weren't creative enough.

When it comes to these supposed problems, I'm obviously not saying that the reviewers were absolutely wrong about their views. I'm not saying that there weren't any problems with the movie and that you're not allowed to criticize it in any way.

After all, there were certain moments and scenes in the film that could have been better. Certain scenes went on for too long and perhaps those action scenes actually could have been more 'inspired' than what we saw on the screen.

At the same time, if none of those story and screenplay issues made your top five complaints list, you're not making much sense. It's really hard to take you seriously if you don't have any issues with those aspects of the film.

That's because in the end, it's still the story that counts more than anything else in movies. It's the premise, the characters and the storylines that count more than those other things when it comes to deciding whether the film has any value or not.

As a whole, even though it's true that special effects and action scenes sometimes do matter, they aren't the most important part of the film. These aspects in most cases do not decide whether watching the movie is going to be an enjoyable experience or not.

In reality, the truth is that quality films will always be more than anything about the story. The most important thing about a good movie is always going to be that the screenplay for the film works as well as possible.

In that sense, if you're not paying enough attention to storytelling in a movie, you're not getting it right. If you're not paying attention to story aspects that matter and that define the value of a film, you're not getting what movies are supposed to be about.

What to do next with my movie screenplay?

As I wrote earlier here, this is the year that I finally managed to write my first movie screenplay. I managed to write it this summer when I felt that I absolutely needed to give myself a chance to see if I had it in me as a writer.

The script, called 'Valerie and The Girl', is about a young girl who doesn't have a father in her life. The screenplay is written as a stop motion animation and it doesn't currently have any intelligible dialogue in it.

The reason that I'm bringing this up now is because a couple of days ago I finally got feedback from the script. One of my friends had managed to read it and was kind enough to give his opinion about how good or bad it had turned out to be.

Getting feedback from the script was really important to me, because in all honesty, I had almost forgotten that I had written the script this summer. I had been so busy at work that I hadn't had that much time to think or worry about it.

After all, once I had finished writing 'Valerie and The Girl' in late July, I didn't give it another look for almost three months. I didn't read it, because I didn't have to actively pay attention to the characters and the storylines anymore.

Nevertheless, when it comes to the script, he liked how the screenplay was written and how clear the storylines were. He liked how I had managed to keep the storylines as simple as possible without making them look too simple.

When it comes to the characters, he liked how I had managed to make them relatable and likable. I managed to make them likable and had given them personalities and characteristics that made them feel worth caring about.

He also liked how I had managed to make the script funny in a natural way. The comedic moments in the script worked so well, because I was able to make good reads and knew where I was supposed to lighten up the mood.

When it comes to things that didn't work, he didn't actually have any clear complaints about the script. He didn't notice any moments where it was too obvious that I could have done a better job with how the story played out.

Not surprisingly, I was pretty happy about this, because even though I did have confidence in the script, I wasn't confident about every single aspect of it. I had certain doubts about some parts of the screenplay that made me hesitate a bit.

For example, when I had read the script right before he gave me his feedback, I had some problems getting in the mood at first. The lack of intelligible dialogue in the script meant that I had to pay attention to the story and feel it right away.

Fortunately, his comments made me feel better and made me think that even if there's some things that might need some polishing, it's still a solid screenplay. I had done a good job writing it and I should be proud of myself.

So as a whole, when it comes to the next step that I'm supposed to be taking with the screenplay, I guess I'm supposed to get those in charge to read it. I should find people that could consider my script and perhaps even get it produced.

After all, if produced, 'Valerie and The Girl' would likely turn out to be a solid animated film. It would likely turn out to be a good movie that would have the ability to keep the audience entertained and would make them happy.

In the end, the only really big problem here is that I don't have that many contacts in the entertainment business. I don't have connections outside my country that would help me in getting the script get the exposure that it deserves.

As unfortunate as it is, even though we do produce and film movies in my country, we don't make movies that require stop motion technique. We don't produce animated movies that would require ten to fifteen million dollar budgets.

In that sense, we can only hope that at some point something good would happen with this project. We can only hope that at some point someone in charge would say that this story has merit, that it makes sense and that it's actually worth filming.