Star Trek 4 made mention of Leningrad.
The Orville is Overrated Nostalgic Trek Fans
- Thread starter Styleset
- Start date
A
Amaris
Guest
Yep! A season 2 TNG episode had a JAG say she'd rule that Data was a toaster, and that's an episode I consider one of the best of the whole series. If they only made TV shows that tried to think far enough ahead in terms of what would be modern culture for them, it would be quite lost on many of us, and the show would fail. Sure, it would appear more "authentic," but what's the point when no one is watching?
The Orville is a pleasantly entertaining diversion, nostalgically evoking TNG and getting in a good laugh every once in a while. Hard to see how it's anything to get excited about or actively invested in, but it's a decent enough way to kill an hour.
Star Trek: Discovery, while hardly perfect, is exciting and involving in ways I'm not sure Orville even tries to be.
Star Trek: Discovery, while hardly perfect, is exciting and involving in ways I'm not sure Orville even tries to be.
Did it throw you out of the show when Discovery used modern music in "Magic..."?
DSC's problem IMHO is their ambition. They want to be part of the avant-garde of serialized storytelling, they want to be mentioned in lists of the best TV series of all times. And they are not there, at least for now.
The Orville on the other hand seems not to be that ambitious, it looks to me that they just want to create an enjoyable show and are very successfull at doing that.
The Orville on the other hand seems not to be that ambitious, it looks to me that they just want to create an enjoyable show and are very successfull at doing that.
Yeah STD wants to be prestige TV, and it's hard not to laugh at their pretensions. They lack the capabilities, and Trek has never shown any hint of such adaptability as a format.
So do I.
Gonna respectfully disagree with OP. I was very critical of The Orville when it was announced. "Ugh. A Star Trek parody from the guy who brings us trash like Family Guy and American Dad? Pass." Note that I think McFarlane is talented, and I would have been genuinely excited if he'd been doing a serious Trek, as he had pitched about the time that ENT ended.
On the other hand, I was super excited for STD, once they fixed the design of the ship, following that poorly received initial footage.
So on the night that Orville premieres I hear from someone on Facebook "It doesn't totally suck". Decide that I can be open-minded and give it a whirl. It's not amazing, but I like it. Pretty much the only jokes in that episode are the ones from the commercial. Second episode is better than the first, third is better than the second, fourth isn't bad. Then Charlize Theron comes on in an episode that really blew me away. After that they have tense episodes like the Krill infiltration, an interesting one where people live and die by social media reputation. A heartfelt one with Claire and Isaac and her kids. A funny one with Rob Lowe, and an interesting one with 2D space. To top it off, it ends with "Mad Idolatry", a fascinating look at interference and the harmful effects of false religion.
STD on the other hand, we open it up on Sunday night, and watch the first episode. "Okay," I tell myself, "they're a little shaky, but it's only the first episode. It'll get better in the second. It didn't. And by the fourth it was apparent that they were circumventing logic and writing other characters to look stupid, just so they could prop up one character. Couldn't finish the season.
Funny how expectations get subverted.
On the other hand, I was super excited for STD, once they fixed the design of the ship, following that poorly received initial footage.
So on the night that Orville premieres I hear from someone on Facebook "It doesn't totally suck". Decide that I can be open-minded and give it a whirl. It's not amazing, but I like it. Pretty much the only jokes in that episode are the ones from the commercial. Second episode is better than the first, third is better than the second, fourth isn't bad. Then Charlize Theron comes on in an episode that really blew me away. After that they have tense episodes like the Krill infiltration, an interesting one where people live and die by social media reputation. A heartfelt one with Claire and Isaac and her kids. A funny one with Rob Lowe, and an interesting one with 2D space. To top it off, it ends with "Mad Idolatry", a fascinating look at interference and the harmful effects of false religion.
STD on the other hand, we open it up on Sunday night, and watch the first episode. "Okay," I tell myself, "they're a little shaky, but it's only the first episode. It'll get better in the second. It didn't. And by the fourth it was apparent that they were circumventing logic and writing other characters to look stupid, just so they could prop up one character. Couldn't finish the season.
Funny how expectations get subverted.
My responses were something like that. I was looking forward to The Orville, but thought it was a spoof that didn't look brilliant in the trailers. By the end of the first hour it was clear that the show was something very different from the way it had been sold, and I was pretty quickly hooked. I think it took about four episodes before I was completely and totally a fan.
I'd been pretty boosterish about STD until about a month or two before it premiered and bits of footage and images were released. By the end of two hours I thought it was pretty dire, and it only got worse. Seven episodes in, I was disgusted with how bad it was, and shitcanned it.
And like the good Trekkie in all of us (me included), you will give it a second (tenth) chance to impress you.
And like the good Trekkie in all of us (me included), you will give it a second (tenth) chance to impress you.
I watched the last episode of the season later because I was curious about the Enterprise. I didn't expect the show to have improved, based on what was written online about it, and in fact it had gotten much worse.
I'll catch the premiere some time this weekend, to see what Pike is like. I'm not planning to make the thing routine viewing again.
I'm in the same boat. It will have to be remarkably better to catch my interest long term.
Personally, I'd rather they try for it, than not.
A
Amaris
Guest
This. I love The Orville, but I want DSC to succeed. I want them to shoot for their very best.
I hope the 2nd season changes this to have a more broad approach, but I somehow doubt it. Trek has always been an ensemble show, and putting the focus on one character at the expense of others on the crew doesn't feel right.
Now, now, you know how this works. When Orville makes contemporary references or has the characters watching modern day TV shows or movies or listening to modern music it's lazy and unimaginative and doesn't work at creating a credible future. But when Star Trek does the same it's an engaging and authentic representation of Our Future. After all, people complain about the Orville crew watching Seinfeld but have the guy in the Calypso Short Trek watch Betty Boop and it's the best damn sci-fi of all time.
Because as you know, Star Trek can do no wrong. It's the fans who screw up.
Star Trek hasn't portrayed a "credible future" since sometime in the early 1970s - or whenever it was I hit puberty; sometime around then.
Despite the best intentions and efforts of many talented people who have worked on it, Trek has become soporific, a kind of narcotic bedtime story for folks who don't want to see the future in the present. It's rather as if there were a big fan community holding up mid-1960s episodes of Gunsmoke as some kind of bold vision for law enforcement.
Despite the best intentions and efforts of many talented people who have worked on it, Trek has become soporific, a kind of narcotic bedtime story for folks who don't want to see the future in the present. It's rather as if there were a big fan community holding up mid-1960s episodes of Gunsmoke as some kind of bold vision for law enforcement.
@BillJ, yes for a moment it did throw me out. And you and others are not wrong: Of course each show will use references that will in time date the show. Each show's aesthetic will reflect - in some way - real world moment. Only looking back, in hindsight, will we see if it holds up still. That's inevitable. But I will say that Seth McFarlane's humor is very specific, very adolescent boyish, self-depracating. It's not situational as most humor in Star Trek is. Meaning most of the time the humor feels as if it just comes up from the situation. That's typically how humor is handled in a drama. The exceptions would be the more comedic episodes that were often seen in DS9 and even then, it just felt different. I remember Edward James Olmos talking about wanting to direct "Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down," the first (and perhaps only) comedic episode of BSG. He was very concerned that the humor stayed situational. In other words, not a stand up routine that had be strung together as a plot.
The Orville still feels like a "dramedy," and the humor feels more specific to McFarlane.
Don't get me wrong, I happily watch The Orville. I enjoy to a significant degree. Its just not as compelling to me. I think someone above said that DSC is trying to be "prestige television." I think they are correct. Some may say that it doesn't succeed. And I can understand that. But, if we are going to pay CBSAA for Star Trek (and I am willing to do so) I expect the very best production quality possible. I pay for Game of Thrones and Westworld and I love the slick, cinematic feel.
The format, feel, agenda, and balance of Star Trek is different from those shows. And as I have said above, everything was not quite as strong as I would have hoped. But all in all, I am very pleased and I am hopeful that they can continue to improve. Looking forward to Thursday!
Similar threads
