Discovery and "The Orville" Comparisons

[Zod]

There's some speculation the reason T'Kuvma is getting bodies is because they have a way to revive them.

While I normally would say, "ZOMBIES IN STAR TREK?"

I'd normally say that with xenomorphs and apparently the fact they've discovered Warhammer 40K's The Warp.

Certainly, it makes a nice SURPRISE, T'KUVMA IS ALIVE!

They do that and I'm done. I would hate the idea of that so much.

 

[fireproof78]

It's easy to be a Trek fan and like The Orville when they just lift scripts and put in a few dick jokes. How much real effort did that take?

I swear I watch different shows than everyone else.

 

[Bgt]

Orville's biggest appeal to me is that is made by a fanboy of the genre.
Seth MacFarlane's love for his show is so obvious, that you simply cannot resist it. Well at least I can't, and I am not Seth's fan.
There is a good feeling by watching this show.

On the contrary, STD looks like a forced effort of making something popular, without much substance though, they rely more on the style and it comes out quite superficial.
Dunno how much different STD would be if Fuller was the sole creative force (well he can also be really absorbed with style over sense - see Hannibal), but I believe the show would be more focused and solid.

 

[Boomstick]

The Orville is basically a nostalgia fest made by a fanboy, it can be enjoyable but it's unlikely it will do anything especially exciting. I think my problem with Orville is that the jokes are barely jokes.

 

[Mudd]

Orville's biggest appeal to me is that is made by a fanboy of the genre.
Seth MacFarlane's love for his show is so obvious, that you simply cannot resist it. Well at least I can't, and I am not Seth's fan.
There is a good feeling by watching this show.

On the contrary, STD looks like a forced effort of making something popular, without much substance though, they rely more on the style and it comes out quite superficial.

So much of this.

 

[starmike]

I like how people here who like Discovery use "DSC", and the ones jabbing it use "STD". We see you.

 

[BillJ]

I like how people here who like Discovery use "DSC", and the ones jabbing it use "STD". We see you.

I use "Discovery". What do you see in me?

 

[Campe]

I say Disco. It’s more fun that way.

 

[Mudd]

STD. Or Discovery. Not DSC.

I'm never sure how I fall into habits of reference, but there's no consistency or plan to it. I usually type TNG and DS9, but Voyager and Enterprise.

Now that I look at it, I guess I do acronyms but not abbreviations.

 

[Gonzo]

So much of this.

Adrianne Palicki in a dress doesn't hurt either, just seen episode 5, the special guest star is of course lovely but the Commander wins for me hands down.

Won't say her name in case some haven't seen it yet.

 

[ichab]

I have spent some (too much) time reading through reactions to the Discovery trailer, and I have noticed more than a few reactions that are, in essence "I am really looking forward to The Orville, I'm not all that excited about ST: Discovery."

As these thoughts are coming from people who are ostensibly Star Trek fans, I have found their reaction worth speculating about, and here's the heart of what I think is motivating them: The Orville looks and feels like TNG.

Although many of those who complain about the look and feel of the Kelvin - era films express a desire to see a return to the aesthetics of The Original Series, most of them grew up watching the Berman era Trek series - TNG, DS9, VOY. Those series had a very distinctive and repetitive look and lighting. TNG in particular had flat, almost even lighting in virtually every interior shot, a sort of bland uniform with little variation, and a particular design aesthetic (curves, soft angles, sweeping angles, pastels/creams) that wasn't varied much. DS9 made some changes (varied lighting levels, more angular designs) but most of the onboard ship shots were very close to either the "somber/serious" lighting levels or the "regular" lighting levels pioneered by TNG. Voyager maintained a similar lighting structure as DS9 and TNG, and didn't vary much on the design cues set by both series.

That look and design aesthetic is VERY familiar to a certain age bracket of Trek fans, and without fully realizing it, that the is the "real Trek" they want and when they don't get it, it bugs them.
The Orville looks like it took almost every single TNG cue and expanded on it - the lighting, the costumes, the alien makeup, everything is a homage to TNG.

ST: Discovery, on the other hand, really seems to take most of it's cues from ENT and the Kelvin era films.

So at the heart of this whole issue is that Seth has made a show that triggers the happy nostalgia button in most folks close to my age (mid -30's) and that warm fuzzy feeling is what is making them choose a spoof comedy over actual Star Trek.

That's their choice. As someone who grew up when TNG was on its first run, I have no interest in rehashing that rather bland and lifeless period of Trek history. DS9 is my favorite series and I'm glad that Discovery is taking that route.

 

[mos6507]

TOS did not have particularly interesting characters though.

TOS was more of an anthology that just happened to have recurring characters to frame them. Sure, there were character-based stories like Amok Time, but the majority of TOS stories could have functioned with an interchangeable crew. Of course, over time our sentimentality for the characters grew and it became more ensemble-like in the movies, but it was the abstract concepts introduced in those classic 79 episodes that were most important, not a soap opera arc of the characters.

I think expectations today have changed such that it's difficult for people to get into a story that is more issue rather than character focused. I think that's because we're more narcisstic / selfie oriented today. We exalt the individual. I love character arcs as much as the next person but it's not necessarily a sin to have the characters take a back seat to the plot and guest stars.

 

[fireproof78]

The Orville is basically a nostalgia fest made by a fanboy, it can be enjoyable but it's unlikely it will do anything especially exciting. I think my problem with Orville is that the jokes are barely jokes.

See, it's weird, I get very little in the way of a nostalgic feel from the Orville, save for the sets, and some of the story beats. But, the overall trajectory of the show, as well as the chemistry with the characters, has a very unique style to it.

Maybe I'm blind to the nostalgia trappings, though I pick up on it with the music from time to time, but it isn't just TNG with jokes. It feels very genuine in the effort to create a new world and explore different aspects of it.

 

[Tesophius]

TOS was more of an anthology that just happened to have recurring characters to frame them. Sure, there were character-based stories like Amok Time, but the majority of TOS stories could have functioned with an interchangeable crew. Of course, over time our sentimentality for the characters grew and it became more ensemble-like in the movies, but it was the abstract concepts introduced in those classic 79 episodes that were most important, not a soap opera arc of the characters.

I think expectations today have changed such that it's difficult for people to get into a story that is more issue rather than character focused. I think that's because we're more narcisstic / selfie oriented today. We exalt the individual. I love character arcs as much as the next person but it's not necessarily a sin to have the characters take a back seat to the plot and guest stars.

I always found the ideas to be more important than the characters. The latter are just there for us to experience the events through them. So far STD has been doing worse than the Orville.

 

[Vger23]

I always found the ideas to be more important than the characters. The latter are just there for us to experience the events through them. So far STD has been doing worse than the Orville.

180 degrees opposite for me. If I don't care about the people and their journeys, the "ideas" are meaningless.

Explains a lot, though.

 

[fireproof78]

I always found the ideas to be more important than the characters. The latter are just there for us to experience the events through them. So far STD has been doing worse than the Orville.

I'm the opposite, but this explains a whole lot regarding your point of view. For me, any fiction to be entertaining requires characters who I can identify and connect with in some way. It isn't always sympathetic feelings but at least caring about them and their goals, feeling like they are real people who are facing real dilemmas in a real world.

 

[Tesophius]

Characters are important too, but should not be the focus of the show. I actually don't mind long character arcs, as long as the real stories are episodic. For instance, the infidelity arc in the Orville doesn't bother me.

 

[BillJ]

I guess the reason I like The Orville better, is because it seems to have heart. It is fun and optimistic. The characters look like they want to be where they are.

Discovery is just dour. I can't imagine any of the characters as optimistic explorers.

The Orville seems to want to be "Star Trek", Discovery seems to want to be The Expanse or Battlestar Galactica (2004). Right now, based on the world we live in, I need something optimistic. Everyone's mileage may vary.

 

[Vger23]

Characters are important too, but should not be the focus of the show. I actually don't mind long character arcs, as long as the real stories are episodic. For instance, the infidelity arc in the Orville doesn't bother me.

But that's simply because you like Orville and dislike DSC. Not because magically that arc is ok but others aren't. It's a bias. Nothing wrong with that...we are all human...but let's call it like it is.

 

[Tesophius]

But that's simply because you like Orville and dislike DSC. Not because magically that arc is ok but others aren't. It's a bias. Nothing wrong with that...we are all human...but let's call it like it is.

I think it's because the infidelity arc, ultimately, has no bearing on the issue/story of the week. The episode could exist without it. It's like Picard's archaeology hobby, it's a great trait that made me connect with him, helped me see him as a true explorer, of both the post and the present, but it didn't dominate the show. It only enriched it. Or Spocks' emotional issues.

In STD these background issues dominate the show, it's what it's all about, with some random Klingon war going on in the background. I just think it's lazy writing, because all these conflicts have been explored in the thousands of years of our literary tradition on this planet, while a "planet of the week" requires original ideas.