Better series lead. Ed Mercer from "Orville" vs Burnham from "Discovery?"

[Phoenix219]

Lamar was fine. He's an immature wise-ass just like his mate Gordon. If they hadn't made Lamar the way he was we wouldn't have had the best punch-line in Season 1.

The two of them need to be the adolescent goofballs that they are, always getting into mischief.

The problem is that they RETCONNED the character to be a genius who only play-acts to fit in. That just makes no sense. If he really had such great abilities he wouldn't care as much about social acceptance. I just don't buy it. I don't know if Seth got blowback for the character (i.e. people twittering that he's "problematic") but it sure seems like it. I'm all for Seth taking a risk on giving him more responsibility, but not based on some magical test-scores he had at the academy but more of an attempt to get him to rise to the occasion, sort of the equivalent of the Alex Cora technique of giving underdogs a chance. Even then, there, I'd prefer him paired up with Gordon.

If you suddenly have Lamar walking around all calm and collected like Tuvok or Avery Brooks it's not going to be true to character and frankly it will be BORING.

I am wondering if there was a change in plans, because it seems like the pairings were changed after conception - Isaac and Newton (the engineer) are a pun / combo just waiting to happen, but as someone earlier pointed out, Isaac/Gordon is a funny combo, leaving LaMarr on his own a bit. Even if it wasn't planned, I like the parody-parallel with him getting promoted to chief engineer right before Season 2. Even his name seems to be a play on Geordi LaForge/Levar Burton in some ways, but that could just be my own brain drawing connections. If LaMarr keeps some of his personality intact while still working out genius level engineering solutions, it could be great stuff.

 

[fireproof78]

If LaMarr keeps some of his personality intact while still working out genius level engineering solutions, it could be great stuff.

It worked for John Crichton.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

LaForge/Levar [...] LaMarr

Why not?

 

[BillJ]

If I was watching Disco for light adventure I would agree with your opinion, man.

That was what Star Trek always was, why the need for it to change what it is? There's just far better options for both meaningful sci-fi and modern drama out there.

 

[Mudd]

I was watching STD in hopes that it would be reasonably intelligent and entertaining in something other than an adolescent or fannish way.

It is not.

The idea that it's drama or science fiction of any quality is...well, pathetic.

 

[BillJ]

Please no Westworld spoilers here. Thanks!

Spoiler: Westworld

Westworld is a sci-fi series on HBO.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Spoiler: Westworld

Westworld is a sci-fi series on HBO.

 

[Owain Taggart]

One of the biggest problems with The Orville is something some critics wrote about before the show debuted. The show doesn't know what it wants to be. At some points, it appears to be a parody because of the broad pie-in-the-face jokes, at other points, it appears to want to be a TNG style space opera, at other times a "serious" drama.

Actually, I think that's exactly what makes it work so well. It subverts expectations. When you think you know what's going to happen, it changes direction. As a result, it has a bit of everything and a lot of variety. In short, it's doing its own thing and is not beholden to any preconceived notions.

 

[fireproof78]

That was what Star Trek always was, why the need for it to change what it is? There's just far better options for both meaningful sci-fi and modern drama out there.

Star Trek was always a mix of things, including adventure, drama, tension, war, battles, and the like. Some have deeper meaning and others are not. I think Greg Cox once stated that Star Trek has a big enough tent for a wide variety of story telling.

Star Trek storytelling has changed before, and will do so again. Individual preference as to which one they enjoy will also vary, otherwise we would have only one Star Trek show that everyone enjoys.

 

[JD]

One of the biggest problems with The Orville is something some critics wrote about before the show debuted. The show doesn't know what it wants to be. At some points, it appears to be a parody because of the broad pie-in-the-face jokes, at other points, it appears to want to be a TNG style space opera, at other times a "serious" drama

.
That just means it has comedic elements, a parody is a very specific type of comedy, which The Orville.

The show doesn't do any of these things with enough consistency or quality to comfortably fit into any of the categories. GalaxyQuest was a great parody because it understood the trekverse and it's fans thoroughly. Using that knowledge, they crafted insiteful observations, exaggerations, and jokes on the subject.

The fact that The Orville does not have these things means it is not a parody.

I call Orville a parody because, with jokes about Compton and the Seinfeld on the view screen episode, that is the closest description I can come up with for the show. But, truth is, the writing would have to get a lot sharper for the show to qualify as a proper parody.

It is the presence of jokes like these that means it's not a parody, we never saw that kind of stuff in Star Trek.

If Seth wants to keep calling it a "dramedy", he needs to ramp up the drama, sharpen the jokes, and stop always going for the cheap laugh.

I think there have been enough dramatic moments for it to qualify as a dramedy.

Well, that's, like, your opinion.

.....
And that's, like, my opinion.

Here, let me help you with that.

 

[gblews]

Well, that's, like, your opinion.

I think it's pretty self-evident that every line is intended to have value—entertainment value at the very least.

Yes, in the form a laugh at the expense of the city of Compton's negative public image. I don't know why you keep trying to dance around this very obvious fact.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yes, in the form a laugh at the expense of the city of Compton's negative public image. I don't know why you keep trying to dance around this very obvious fact.

My not buying into your characterization of the line as having been made just "to get a cheap laugh" does not constitute me dancing around anything, especially the idea that the line might have been made at the expense of the city of Compton's negative public image, something with which in fact I completely agree with. It's your conflation of the two ideas (made for a cheap laugh vs made at the expense of Compton's negative public image) that I have a problem with.

There's nothing wrong with social commentary on the subject of race relations in a show that's presented to us as Star Trek-esque. That holds even if, if not especially if, that social commentary is made more directly than by a metaphor involving one half-black, half-white alien vs one half-white, half-black alien from the planet Cheron. If one's gonna get quite specific in the commentary, there are of course going to be winners and losers. When people behave in a shitty way, that's the nature of things: you point at someone and say they're behaving in a shitty way, or even if you just imply it, and consequently you're casting them in a negative light.

Obviously, the intention is not to hold onto an audience who'd get offended enough by the Compton line to tune out. That's still perfectly compatible with the idea that MacFarlane opined* that the line would have net value. You're just painting that as going for "a cheap laugh," and I'm not buying. Time to move on.

* - eta: I really don't know, but I'd assume the pros and cons of it were batted around with others during the scripting phase. But I didn't even need to use the word "opined"; I could have just said "thought" instead. It's just that you can never know what's in a person's head, unless they share it with others.

 

[BillJ]

Obviously, the intention is not to hold onto an audience who'd get offended enough by the Compton line to tune out.

God knows that the Compton line was incredibly tame by MacFarlane's standards.

 

[LJones41]

That was what Star Trek always was, why the need for it to change what it is? There's just far better options for both meaningful sci-fi and modern drama out there.

What on earth are you talking about? Are you another one of those fans who cannot deal with change in a franchise or any other form of entertainment? As for there being other options that are far better . . . that may be your opinion, but it's not mine.

Star Trek storytelling has changed before, and will do so again. Individual preference as to which one they enjoy will also vary, otherwise we would have only one Star Trek show that everyone enjoys.

I doubt that everyone would enjoy only one kind of Star Trek series. There is bound to be people who would demand more variety.

 

[Mudd]

Are you another one of those fans who cannot deal with change in a franchise or any other form of entertainment?

Maybe he's just someone who likes decent writing. MacFarlane's show has quite a bit of it; STD's storytelling is clumsier and more amateurish than most of CBS's dull, by-the-numbers NCIS/CSI procedural junk.

Yeah, there's plenty of good science fiction on TV these days. STD really doesn't even qualify, much less make the cut.

 

[BillJ]

Are you another one of those fans who cannot deal with change in a franchise or any other form of entertainment? As for there being other options that are far better . . . that may be your opinion, but it's not mine.

I think change is inevitable, at the same time you can move too far away from what makes something special. For me, Star Trek's optimism and sense of adventure made it special. Something that has been lacking in Discovery... so far.

When you move away from that core, you are forced to compare it with other modern dramas. Things like Westworld, The Handmaid's Tale, The Expanse, and against those it comes up utterly lacking. CBS or the writers, or both wanted to do "serious" Star Trek but without the things that now make serious shows good. There's no optimism or sense of adventure, there's also no "what the fuck?" that is so well done by other shows.

All from my point-of-view.

 

[Mudd]

In some ways STD reminds me of Stargate: Universe - there was an example of producers who wanted to do something more mature, more "quality" than previous installments of that franchise but sadly did not have any idea how to write up to those aspirations.

 

[BillJ]

In some ways STD reminds me of Stargate: Universe - there was an example of producers who wanted to do something more mature, more "quality" than previous installments of that franchise but sadly did not have any idea how to write up to those aspirations.

It is funny, when I saw the Klingon boob, I actually laughed.

 

[gblews]

My not buying into your characterization of the line as having been made just "to get a cheap laugh" does not constitute me dancing around anything, especially the idea that the line might have been made at the expense of the city of Compton's negative public image, something with which in fact I completely agree with. It's your conflation of the two ideas (made for a cheap laugh vs made at the expense of Compton's negative public image) that I have a problem with.

The line was in the show to get a laugh, can we at least agree on that? The line was "cheap" because it went for the obvious joke about Compton, based on the cities' most well known (stereotypical) image. It wasn't clever, and didn't require much thought (at least I hope it didn't). Ergo; the line was written for a "cheap laugh at the expense of the city of Compton's negative image".

There's nothing wrony you disagree. g with social commentary on the subject of race relations in a show that's presented to us as Star Trek-esque. That holds even if, if not especially if, that social commentary is made more directly than by a metaphor involving one half-black, half-white alien vs one half-white, half-black alien from the planet Cheron. If one's gonna get quite specific in the commentary, there are of course going to be winners and losers. When people behave in a shitty way, that's the nature of things: you point at someone and say they're behaving in a shitty way, or even if you just imply it, and consequently you're casting them in a negative light.

This is what I meant by "dancing around".

If this is supposed to explain your theory that the Compton line was "social commentary", then what was the point of the commentary? The Trek episode to which you refer above had a definite point. What point do you think the Compton line attempting to make?

Obviously, the intention is not to hold onto an audience who'd get offended enough by the Compton line to tune out. That's still perfectly compatible with the idea that MacFarlane opined* that the line would have net value. You're just painting that as going for "a cheap laugh," and I'm not buying. Time to move on.

Dude, come on.

* - eta: I really don't know, but I'd assume the pros and cons of it were batted around with others during the scripting phase.

Now, this is an interesting question. I wonder if there was any push back on this line from any of the other writers on staff. I also wonder if there are any black or minority writers of any kind on this show's staff (for season 1).

I've said from the firs episodes of the Orville that the show is much better off when Seth does not write. He does seem to be a good idea guy, but his actual writing is a drag on the show's credibility. But the problem with that is, Seth's fans want jokes, so what to do?

 

[BillJ]

But the problem with that is, Seth's fans want jokes, so what to do?

I guess I'd consider myself a fan, and all I want is an entertaining show.