Discovery and "The Orville" Comparisons

[The Habs Fan]

Some or all of that could be blamed on Paramount. Do we know for sure how much control Braga & Berman really had?

Plus Braga was only co-executive producer on VOY for 2 years.

I actually have always liked Braga and thought he got too much hate than he deserved. However, The Orville is literally a remake of that era of Star Trek with some jokes thrown in. That's why I'm finding it ironic how much times have changed (or how little they have). In fact, it's reminding me of the DS9 vs Voyager wars that happened when both shows were on. Of course, there were many, like me, who liked both shows, but there were a lot of people who loved one but hated the other (kind of like The Orville and Discovery)

 

[The Habs Fan]

i think a lot of it comes down to baggage. i think people van gloss over and forgive a lot with orville because it isnt trek and doesnt have the baggage. as funny as orville is, it certainly isnt compelling and barely serious. its just easier.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I like The Orville but it's fluff and it isn't very compelling. It's just a nice diversion. (of course, YMMV)

 

[Vger23]

Yeah the focus I'm seeing so far is Burnham's redemption, messing around with the spore drive, and watching how far Lorca will go to "win the war" with the Klingons.

If that's all you see, then you are indeed missing the show, as I said before.

Lay down your burden. Time to stop watching. It will save you the aggravation.

 

[fireproof78]

Yeah the focus I'm seeing so far is Burnham's redemption, messing around with the spore drive, and watching how far Lorca will go to "win the war" with the Klingons.

That alone is compelling, and doesn't even scratch the surface of what is going on.

 

[Vger23]

I couldn't have said it better myself. I like The Orville but it's fluff and it isn't very compelling. It's just a nice diversion. (of course, YMMV)

I too like both shows, but you're right. There's nothing compelling about ORV. I haven't watched an episode since the "World Is Hollow" remake, and I'm not missing it. I'll catch up soon, but generally I don't care too much.

I am pleased it's been renewed, though. The only downside to that is having to listen to idiots who try to pit the two shows against each other for a whole other year.

 

[fireproof78]

I am pleased it's been renewed, though. The only downside to that is having to listen to idiots who try to pit the two shows against each other for a whole other year.

You don't understand. We clearly must determine which is superior in every way. Two shows enter, one show leaves.

 

[Blamo]

Anyone trying to apply old rules to this iteration of Trek won't get much out of it.

It's kind of refreshing to have a new Trek show dropping the Berman era crew dynamic where all the main characters were conveniently all the senior officers. Not only is the captain NOT the focal point this time but there are other archetypes not part of the main cast like the CMO, helmsman, tactical, or communications officer. This is a show saying we don't need to know those people, that what we have is enough. If eye bracket lady never gets an episode about her I won't feel cheated.

I like that because I think Berman era dynamic defined too many of the characters by their posts. Like if there's an episode about Dr. Crusher it's likely going to be about her profession rather than her own character. If it's about Torres it's likely about fixing things (or being an angry Klingon). DS9 was sort of an outlier where the characters were not as defined by their posts. I struggle to think of a Dax centric episode that's strictly focused on her role as science officer.

Problem with a lot of 90's Trek is that more than a few of the characters weren't really characters. They were they to fill seats and they didn't put much thought into them as breathing characters. Which is why a lot of the guest crewmembers had more of a personality than the main crew. DS9 was really the only one not to have that problem.

I mean, I like TNG, but looking at that first season again I'd be shocked if any of the characters had a more than a few lines to their biography. Geordie certainly didn't.

 

[eschaton]

I don't think Brannon Braga was one of the best Trek writers by any means (I'd give that title to Peter Allen Fields) but I feel like people pile too much negativity on him for things which were really Rick Berman's fault when it came to Voyager and Enterprise.

Honestly, as much as Orville feels like Berman-era Trek at times, it somehow feels like it without having the stultifying influence of Rick Berman.

 

[Tesophius]

Problem with a lot of 90's Trek is that more than a few of the characters weren't really characters. They were they to fill seats and they didn't put much thought into them as breathing characters. Which is why a lot of the guest crewmembers had more of a personality than the main crew. DS9 was really the only one not to have that problem.

I mean, I like TNG, but looking at that first season again I'd be shocked if any of the characters had a more than a few lines to their biography. Geordie certainly didn't.

Because the stories were good enough that you didn't have to resort to character A dislikes character B because of XYZ. STD is largely rooted in these filler character nuances and very weak stories.

 

[Tesophius]

I rated last ORV 6/10, enjoyable, great main plot, but a weak secondary plotline

 

[fireproof78]

Because the stories were good enough that you didn't have to resort to character A dislikes character B because of XYZ. STD is largely rooted in these filler character nuances and very weak stories.

I'd rather have the character conflict.

 

[eschaton]

Because the stories were good benough that you didn't have to resort to character A dislikes character B because of XYZ. STD is largely rooted in these filler character nuances and very weak stories.

Let's be serious here - the stories weren't always good in 90s Trek. And since DS9 was the only one which allowed for character growth (okay, ENT too near the end of its run) it meant that the writers' room had to continually come up with original ideas (different kinds of anomalies, monsters of the week, and planets of hats) to make an entertaining hour of television. As Trek developed a backlog of hundreds of episodes, this became harder and harder to do. If they allowed the characters to grow (not constantly bicker, but grow) new stories would have flowed out of the dynamics of the individual characters, rather than have to be pulled out of the ether.

 

[Mudd]

Yep - human conflict and human behavior in general is much of what I missed in Roddenberry's Revised Vision, and why I have no nostagia for the Trek sequel shows - TNG and onward.

This is why McFarlane's show reminds me so favorably of the way TOS worked - and TOS worked, without having anyone presold on the "Star Trek" brand. So does The Orville, which is why it barreled past overwhelmingly negative reviewer response when viewers actually saw it.

 

[Tesophius]

Let's be serious here - the stories weren't always good in 90s Trek. And since DS9 was the only one which allowed for character growth (okay, ENT too near the end of its run) it meant that the writer's room had to continually come up with original ideas (different kinds of anomalies, monsters of the week, and planet of hats) to make an entertaining hour of television. As Trek developed a backlog of hundreds of episodes, this became harder and harder to do. If they allowed the characters to grow (not constantly bicker, but grow) new stories would have flowed out of the dynamics of the individual characters, rather than have to be pulled out of the ether.

That's what I loved the most about StarTrek of the 90s, is that the writers were challenged to come up with original stories. With STD I feel like I'm watching one bad episode, like we're about 15 minutes in into a below average episode.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Because the stories were good enough that you didn't have to resort to character A dislikes character B because of XYZ. STD is largely rooted in these filler character nuances and very weak stories.

I not so humbly disagree,

I mean I respect you have your opinion on Discovery but when I watch it, I'm not getting that at all. I do see a mix of strong story telling and strong characters.

 

[Tesophius]

I not so humbly disagree,

I mean I respect you have your opinion on Discovery but when I watch it, I'm not getting that at all. I do see a mix of strong story telling and strong characters.

Klingon war - very weak
Michael is Spock lite - very weak
Spore drive - average
Time reset episode had a fun story, but it was also pretty weak, just well executed

 

[Mudd]

Yeah, there's really nothing much in Discovery to turn non-fans into fans.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Klingon war - very weak
Michael is Spock lite - very weak
Spore drive - average
Time reset episode had a fun story, but it was also pretty weak, just well executed

I don't think Michael is like spock at all,

spore drive is imaginative and very compelling, especially the way it's changing one of our chief characters

time reset, yeah well executed is well executed, well executed is not "weak" It was a solid revenge story wrapped up in a heist story.

I do agree on the war but it seems they are really setting up the pins.

 

[fireproof78]

Yeah, there's really nothing much in Discovery to turn non-fans into fans.

Aside from characters-nope, nothing...

 

[The Habs Fan]

Yeah, there's really nothing much in Discovery to turn non-fans into fans.

I completely disagree as I know 8 different people, all of whom have never watched Star Trek before, who love Star Trek Discovery. None of them watch The Orville. IMO, The Orville appeals to the nostalgic Trek fans and the Macfarlane fans, whereas Star Trek Discovery appeals to the modern cable/streaming TV fans (as well as Trek fans who are fine with change).