Discovery and "The Orville" Comparisons

[Vger23]

While I liked (and otherwise agreed with) your post, it's wrong to say the TNG characters had no flaws:

Picard: Awkward around children, doesn't like his brother, has trouble with intimacy, suffers post-traumatic stress from assimilation by the Borg

Worf: Lacks a sense of humor, unable to relax, an absolute terrible father. Also in the early seasons his role in episodes was often to be the one who said the wrong thing that was disagreed with in the ready room.

Data: Lacks emotions (duh!) and thus misses out on many social cues.

Geordi: Absolutely horrible with women, and a little creepy.

Riker: Lost his ambition and comfortable coasting for the remainder of his Starfleet career.

Wesley: Where do I begin?

It's harder with the women, because they were not fleshed out as characters fully until the last few seasons, but they were up until them repeatedly shown as being too weak to defend themselves.

Those are character "quirks"...not flaws.

The Enterprise crew, with the exception of Worf and short-lived Tasha, were essentially homogenous paragons of humanity. And Worf was regularly a dismissed punching bag with regard to trying to bring diversity to the opinions of the rest of the senior staff.

 

[XCV330]

I haven't watched the Orville and I honestly have no interest in doing so. Some of the people involved in Orville got paychecks from the Trek franchise in previous times, at least once or twice.

To me at least, it seems a kick in the teeth to the original franchise to try to offer a competing product to Trek just when it is back on TV trying to survive. If people want to watch it, fine, but Fox doesn't have a perfect record of sporting its sf shows. It won't bother me when it fails. They'll give McFarlane another spinoff cartoon deal, perhaps.

 

[mos6507]

Those are character "quirks"...not flaws.
The Enterprise crew, with the exception of Worf and short-lived Tasha, were essentially homogenous paragons of humanity. And Worf was regularly a dismissed punching bag with regard to trying to bring diversity to the opinions of the rest of the senior staff.

What kind of flaw would you like to see?

I mean, there's two ways to write protagonists. Either they're role models or they're everyman/everywoman. You know, Superman vs. Batman. Role models vs. identification.

TNG went the aspirational route. The problem is that during early TNG the characters were bland. They lacked individuality. But you don't need severe character flaws to be unique, hence they inserted "quirks". Then things started to work better.

 

[Vger23]

I guess by perfect, I mean relating to their skill sets as officers. They generally don't err in that department.

@Vger23 Ok, yea I agree that the look and feel and all those things that you said is heavily inspired by 90's Trek(or 87-2005 Trek). I'm more so referring to the many comments about TNG exclusively, like "It's just a TNG rip off" or something to that effect.

One person's "rip off" is another's "well-done homage." Haha...!

I'd argue it IS essentially a rip-off/homage...but since it's a purposeful and self-aware rip-off/homage, and it's fairly well done...that doesn't bother me.

But I definitely don't watch it for its originality or ground-breaking approach. I just happen to like it...and that's all that really matters!

 

[Prax]

I haven't watched the Orville and I honestly have no interest in doing so. Some of the people involved in Orville got paychecks from the Trek franchise in previous times, at least once or twice.

To me at least, it seems a kick in the teeth to the original franchise to try to offer a competing product to Trek just when it is back on TV trying to survive. If people want to watch it, fine, but Fox doesn't have a perfect record of sporting its sf shows. It won't bother me when it fails. They'll give McFarlane another spinoff cartoon deal, perhaps.

Like Patrick Stewart and Scott Bakula? A lot of Trek actors have worked with Macfarlane before, including on Star Trek spoofs. I really like these actors (as people) and don't feel they're doing anything underhanded. And behind the scenes, Robbie McNeal and Jonathan Frakes, direct many different TV shows. They'll probably be asked(or have been) to direct episodes of discovery as well. Brannon Braga is credited as a director on IMDB. I'm not sure if that's a mistake or not, but he has done plenty for Star Trek. His friend J. Menosky is an EP on Discovery(which I was happy to see in the opening credits)

I think getting the support of these people is credit to Macfarlane, and his show.

 

[Vger23]

What kind of flaw would you like to see?

I mean, there's two ways to write protagonists. Either they're role models or they're everyman/everywoman. You know, Superman vs. Batman. Role models vs. identification.

TNG went the aspirational route. The problem is that during early TNG the characters were bland. They lacked individuality. But you don't need severe character flaws to be unique, hence they inserted "quirks". Then things started to work better.

They don't need to be severely flawed. But Picard (for example) is literally an avatar of 24th Century Federation virtue. Riker is his unwavering disciple (as are most of the crew, quite honestly).

I'm talking about Kirk being someone who secretly struggles with inner demons like self-doubt and insecurity about making huge decisions. Or McCoy being a curmudgeon who is always challenging Kirk and Spock on the status quo and even being insubordinate to Spock. Spock being torn between two worlds and struggling with his identity. Sisko needing to do morally ambiguous things to defend the Federation from a relentless invader. Elements like that that added true dimension to those characters and made them relatable to a human audience. That way...when those characters DID make the right moral/ethical choices...it wasn't always a given. And the journey / revelation meant something (Kirk saving the Gorn Captain or not killing the Earp, etc) and was dramatic. When Picard or Riker made the "right decision" it meant nothing...because it was never in doubt to begin with.

That's why TNG's characters catch flack for being boring and one-dimensionally perfect.

 

[seigezunt]

I haven't watched the Orville and I honestly have no interest in doing so. Some of the people involved in Orville got paychecks from the Trek franchise in previous times, at least once or twice.

To me at least, it seems a kick in the teeth to the original franchise to try to offer a competing product to Trek just when it is back on TV trying to survive. If people want to watch it, fine, but Fox doesn't have a perfect record of sporting its sf shows. It won't bother me when it fails. They'll give McFarlane another spinoff cartoon deal, perhaps.

I came here to basically say this. Thanks for saving me the typing!

 

[eschaton]

I guess by perfect, I mean relating to their skill sets as officers. They generally don't err in that department.

I understand what you're saying, but writing characters who make bad decisions is easier than writing characters who make good decisions. I mean, every bad horror movie is based upon the protagonists/victims making a series of poor choices (splitting up, for example, or not deciding to lock themselves in a secure area and wait it out). It's easy to write characters who are less smart and competent than you are, but it's very, very hard to write your better, because they have to be able to figure out problems that would stymie even you.

Also, as a science fiction show, the conflict really should mostly come from without, not within. I mean, it can be taken too far (hence the "insane admiral" trope to introduce conflict into the setting was used over and over again) but character conflict can be done on any show whether it's sci-fi or not, so it's better to try to have the central conflict of the episode involve a sci-fi premise.

 

[Vger23]

I understand what you're saying, but writing characters who make bad decisions is easier than writing characters who make good decisions. I mean, every bad horror movie is based upon the protagonists/victims making a series of poor choices (splitting up, for example, or not deciding to lock themselves in a secure area and wait it out). It's easy to write characters who are less smart and competent than you are, but it's very, very hard to write your better, because they have to be able to figure out problems that would stymie even you.

Also, as a science fiction show, the conflict really should mostly come from without, not within. I mean, it can be taken too far (hence the "insane admiral" trope to introduce conflict into the setting was used over and over again) but character conflict can be done on any show whether it's sci-fi or not, so it's better to try to have the central conflict of the episode involve a sci-fi premise.

I disagree to a fair extent.

The trick isn't writing characters who make good decisions.

The trick is creating characters who have real, relatable, human flaws and weaknesses and having stories and drama that put them under pressure to the point where the audience isn't entirely sure of what the outcome / decisions are going to be...

That way...when the character does make the "right choice" in a pressure situation...there's drama and pay-off for the viewer and the experience is that much more enjoyable.

You never, in any situation, ever question if Picard or Riker are going to make the virtuous morale choice. It was woven into the very fabric of their characters. So, the "moral dilemmas" that the show was virtually based upon fell flat, because the end results were nearly always foregone conclusions.

Entertainment and storytelling are pretty much the same regardless of the genre. You can have all the fascinating sci-fi elements in the world...but if the characters aren't interesting and you can't get engaged in that journey they are going on...those stories will be generally unrelatable to the audiences (with excptions of course).

 

[shapeshifter]

The Orville Drinking Game: Be the first to correctly call out exactly which Trek moment is being referenced to make everyone else take a shot.

The Orville is hella good fun but I would not trade it for Discovery.

 

[eschaton]

I disagree to a fair extent.

The trick isn't writing characters who make good decisions.

The trick is creating characters who have real, relatable, human flaws and weaknesses and having stories and drama that put them under pressure to the point where the audience isn't entirely sure of what the outcome / decisions are going to be...

That way...when the character does make the "right choice" in a pressure situation...there's drama and pay-off for the viewer and the experience is that much more enjoyable.

You never, in any situation, ever question if Picard or Riker are going to make the virtuous morale choice. It was woven into the very fabric of their characters. So, the "moral dilemmas" that the show was virtually based upon fell flat, because the end results were nearly always foregone conclusions.

Entertainment and storytelling are pretty much the same regardless of the genre. You can have all the fascinating sci-fi elements in the world...but if the characters aren't interesting and you can't get engaged in that journey they are going on...those stories will be generally unrelatable to the audiences (with excptions of course).

I dunno. I tend to think the best of Trek deals with this by creating hard decisions, but I'm not sure if those decisions are hard because of "flaws" per se. Looking at some of the best episodes of Trek:

The City on the Edge of Forever - Kirk is torn between love and saving the world as we know it. Is Kirk's love a flaw? No one but Spock would say so. He's just put in an impossible situation.

In The Pale Moonlight - Sisko is torn between his ethics and what he needs to do to save the Federation and the Alpha Quadrant. Were his ethics the "flaw" since they held him back?

The Visitor - Jake Sisko is consumed his whole life by grief for his father, giving up everything in order to see him returned to normal life. One could argue that he made the "wrong" decision from the POV of his own timeline (Benjamin certainly thought so) but his love for his father was not a flaw.

The Inner Light - I have a hard time figuring out what the central conflict is in this episode. Maybe it's Picard trying to reconcile what he remembers with his identity as Kamin? Regardless, it's a beautiful episode, and you can't point to any particular choice Picard made as the protagonist. Indeed, he was more or less just along for the ride.

 

[Mudd]

The Orville is hella good fun but I would not trade it for Discovery.

In a hot second.

 

[Vger23]

I dunno. I tend to think the best of Trek deals with this by creating hard decisions, but I'm not sure if those decisions are hard because of "flaws" per se. Looking at some of the best episodes of Trek:

The City on the Edge of Forever - Kirk is torn between love and saving the world as we know it. Is Kirk's love a flaw? No one but Spock would say so. He's just put in an impossible situation.

In The Pale Moonlight - Sisko is torn between his ethics and what he needs to do to save the Federation and the Alpha Quadrant. Were his ethics the "flaw" since they held him back?

The Visitor - Jake Sisko is consumed his whole life by grief for his father, giving up everything in order to see him returned to normal life. One could argue that he made the "wrong" decision from the POV of his own timeline (Benjamin certainly thought so) but his love for his father was not a flaw.

The Inner Light - I have a hard time figuring out what the central conflict is in this episode. Maybe it's Picard trying to reconcile what he remembers with his identity as Kamin? Regardless, it's a beautiful episode, and you can't point to any particular choice Picard made as the protagonist. Indeed, he was more or less just along for the ride.

We're talking past each other.

My point is that you believe Kirk and Sisko (for example) may implement any number of decisions or choices because of who they are. They have relatable human weaknesses.

I never felt that way once about Picard or Riker. Looking back now, it makes TNG feel more like an after school "do the right thing" series than a serious adult television drama.

 

[Borgminister]

I haven't watched the Orville and I honestly have no interest in doing so. Some of the people involved in Orville got paychecks from the Trek franchise in previous times, at least once or twice.

To me at least, it seems a kick in the teeth to the original franchise to try to offer a competing product to Trek just when it is back on TV trying to survive. If people want to watch it, fine, but Fox doesn't have a perfect record of sporting its sf shows. It won't bother me when it fails. They'll give McFarlane another spinoff cartoon deal, perhaps.

The way I look at it, neither competes with the other. In fact, I dare say Star Trek fans in general are tuning in to both. I'm hopeful both will live long and prosper.

 

[Gonzo]

The way I look at it, neither competes with the other. In fact, I dare say Star Trek fans in general are tuning in to both. I'm hopeful both will live long and prosper.

I watched the 4th episode earlier today, it was great with a realistic situation and a believable resolution.

No prime directive rubbish.

I will be watching both as I like the cut of Lorcas jib.

I myself am looking forward to finally seeing the toilet on board the ship, when it is shown I will make it my avatar on this site forever more.

Must admit I always suspected that Picards had his toilet built into his seat in his ready room, pretty sure he has been filmed with a look on his face that I can only describe as "strained".

 

[eschaton]

Must admit I always suspected that Picards had his toilet built into his seat in his ready room, pretty sure he has been filmed with a look on his face that I can only describe as "strained".

I've heard you can now see on the high-res remastered TNG that some doors are marked "head."

 

[Gonzo]

I've heard you can now see on the high-res remastered TNG that some doors are marked "head."

I would also like to add that I will be changing my profile name to "Head".

That is all.

 

[BillJ]

To me at least, it seems a kick in the teeth to the original franchise to try to offer a competing product to Trek just when it is back on TV trying to survive.

There is more than an hour in any given week. There is plenty of room for people who want to experience both to experience them.

I will be watching both as I like the cut of Lorcas jib.

Lorca and Saru is what is keeping me in the Discovery game right now. I just don't care about the rest.

 

[Gonzo]

Lorca and Saru is what is keeping me in the Discovery game right now. I just don't care about the rest.

Its always like this when a new show appears, it takes time for the actors/actresses to get a grip on their characters and what the Director wants from them.

I felt Saru was a bit too whiny in the first two episodes for my liking, that's no fault of the actor more to do with the script, he was much better in the 3rd and recovered well.

Tilly is alright in small doses and it seems Burnham may be bonding with the Security Commander in the next episode.

Its early days still.

 

[Tribble puncher]

The other thing they could have done is have Burnham driven/haunted by the betrayal and the death of her friend and captain whom we never meet until the flashbacks, and develop her there exclusively. Now even if they do develop her retroactively, it will never erase her cheap death. This is a problem with a lot of writing these days. They are too quick to shock with a payoff that they didn't earn. The story and the viewers suffer for it

In this day and age of insta I want it now, no one appreciates the slow torch anymore. The only fantasy/scifi show that seems to have gotten away with long term buildups in recent years is Game of Thrones, and even that is catching a lot of flak because the payoff's so far have been a big letdown according to many (I happen to agree).