Which is better, The Orville or Lower Decks?

[shapeshifter]

I watched it on cable and am now waiting to watch it on HULU. Just because it has taken so long doesn't mean I quit wanting to watch the show.

As for the OP question, Star Trek is better, but I may be a tad bias.

 

[Watersluis]

I quite like The Orville more, and I wish it had not abandoned it's formula of a straight comedy-drama.
It seems that most of the comedy has now been abandoned and it has become simply a superior version of The Next Generation, which also shows to me why spiritual successors are typically superior to sequels bound by canon.

Even so, the initial identity of the title of combining T.N.G.-esque plots, but mixing it with absurdist humor was very welcome.

Lower Decks does not bring the same, sometimes thought provoking issues that The Orville brings. I particularly enjoyed the “Planet Reddit” episode, but I found All About a Girl and in particular the treatment of Moclans to be trying to be deep, but ultimately falling apart once one lend even the slightest consideration to the fact that they are not “male” but “hermaphrodite”, despite what the script so often says.

 

[Mudd]

The Orville, no contest. LD is cute, if you're a dyed-in-the-wool trekkie.

 

[Sci]

but I found All About a Girl and in particular the treatment of Moclans to be trying to be deep, but ultimately falling apart once one lend even the slightest consideration to the fact that they are not “male” but “hermaphrodite”, despite what the script so often says.

It's almost like gender is a social construct.

 

[Watersluis]

It's almost like gender is a social construct.

Perhaps it is, but medical procedures are not.
The title deliberately avoids explaining what exactly the “sex change” would be, and what exactly would make these rare “female” Moclans different from the “male” ones because it can't. Evidently these “male” Moclans can reproduce with one another and lay eggs, and it's deliberately not ever explained how exactly these “female” Moclans tie into the Moclan reproductive system and if they can at all reproduce with the male ones in some capacity or not, and what the difference in their genitals would be. Evidently male Moclans do not simply have a “scrotum and a penis” because they must have something that deposits eggs and something that forms them.

It thus tries to be deep by suggesting that it there are two perspectives: from the human perspective, they are normal “healthy females”, but from the Moclan perspective they are simply a birth defect that is to be correct just as humans correct various birth defects, but it is never explained how these genitals would look for Finn to decide that Topa was a “healthy female Moclan”. — No matter how I think of it, it does not make sense.

 

[Michael]

Perhaps it is, but medical procedures are not.
The title deliberately avoids explaining what exactly the “sex change” would be, and what exactly would make these rare “female” Moclans different from the “male” ones because it can't. Evidently these “male” Moclans can reproduce with one another and lay eggs, and it's deliberately not ever explained how exactly these “female” Moclans tie into the Moclan reproductive system and if they can at all reproduce with the male ones in some capacity or not, and what the difference in their genitals would be. Evidently male Moclans do not simply have a “scrotum and a penis” because they must have something that deposits eggs and something that forms them.

It thus tries to be deep by suggesting that it there are two perspectives: from the human perspective, they are normal “healthy females”, but from the Moclan perspective they are simply a birth defect that is to be correct just as humans correct various birth defects, but it is never explained how these genitals would look for Finn to decide that Topa was a “healthy female Moclan”. — No matter how I think of it, it does not make sense.

I haven't watched that episode in a while, but I feel like you're missing the point of what it's all about if you focus on what the Moclan's genitals and reproductive system actually look like so much. The point was that a society shouldn't force individuals to undergo “corrective” medical procedures to bring them in line with what is perceived as the norm.

BUT: Let's not derail this thread to be about that one Orville episode. We're in the Lower Decks forum and the topic at hand is whether you prefer one show or the other. So let's just stick to that.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I think both series do a good job at being what they want to be and are arguably still getting better at it.

The Orville's focus on relationship drama isn't really my thing though. It feels like every episode someone's out on an awkward date and nothing can ever work out, and I don't think it'll ever grow past this because I think it's what the writers want the series to be. Maybe it's what the audience wants it to be as well, people seem happy enough with it! But I enjoy Lower Decks more.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Both.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

It seems that most of the comedy has now been abandoned and it has become simply a superior version of The Next Generation, which also shows to me why spiritual successors are typically superior to sequels bound by canon.

Do you really think The Orville is better than TNG?

 

[Watersluis]

Do you really think The Orville is better than TNG?

By far, especially in the latter's earlier seasons and the nonexistence of transporter technology is quite welcome.

 

[Sci]

Do you really think The Orville is better than TNG?

As much as The Orville emulates Star Trek: The Next Generation in tone and aesthetics, I'm actually not convinced you can reasonably compare them, because they are still products of the eras in which they were made. TNG is very much a product of the conventions of late 1980s/early 1990s action-adventure shows: Highly episodic, limited characterization, highly plot-driven, very little metatextual commentary. The Orville by contrast still reflects modern television conventions: there's more serialization; character relationships are more complicated and characterization more nuanced; and the show itself engages in a lot of overt and subtextual metatextual commentary (regularly using clips of old movies to comment upon its own episodes, for instance).

And of course, The Orville is a comedy-drama whereas TNG is primarily a drama.

Personally, I think TNG is better at fulfilling its creative vision than The Orville is at fulfilling its creative vision. And I think The Orville as a narrative doesn't understand the ways in which its own subtext contradicts its stated text. But that's about as far as I'm comfortable going in terms of saying whether one or the other is "better."

 

[JoseNoodles]

Futurama

 

[JoaquinSlowly]

‪‪I enjoy Lower Decks more than The Orville, though ‪‪I do enjoy both.

But they’re not my favorite comedic show’s take on Star Trek. That’s Paul Feig’s shortlived Yahoo! Screen show, Other Space (which also happened to star Eugene Cordero and Neil Casey of Lower Decks).

And while it’s not a show, Galaxy Quest is still the best comedic Star Trek riff, without a doubt.

 

[Watersluis]

As much as The Orville emulates Star Trek: The Next Generation in tone and aesthetics, I'm actually not convinced you can reasonably compare them, because they are still products of the eras in which they were made. TNG is very much a product of the conventions of late 1980s/early 1990s action-adventure shows: Highly episodic, limited characterization, highly plot-driven, very little metatextual commentary. The Orville by contrast still reflects modern television conventions: there's more serialization; character relationships are more complicated and characterization more nuanced; and the show itself engages in a lot of overt and subtextual metatextual commentary (regularly using clips of old movies to comment upon its own episodes, for instance).

I do not understand this. It does not matter to me what æra they are made in, but simply what I enjoy watching more.
If that æra was more episodic, then I simply enjoy modern television more on average.

It is obviously to be expected that a modern product is generally superior to an older one.

 

[Michael]

It is obviously to be expected that a modern product is generally superior to an older one.

Yeah, that's why people don't enjoy looking at centuries old art, listening to music from decades past and watching old “classic” movies, because they are inferior to the newer stuff. Man, this gotta be the weirdest take I read all week.

 

[Watersluis]

Yeah, that's why people don't enjoy looking at centuries old art, listening to music from decades past and watching old “classic” movies, because they are inferior to the newer stuff. Man, this gotta be the weirdest take I read all week.

You will find that in general, people by and large consume far more modern art, music, and films than they do the old ones.

Especially when one considers that “old” is often a timespan that spans centuries, an “new” one that only spans a decade.

 

[JoseNoodles]

This is why the Virtual Boy was far more beloved than the Game Boy. You can't tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Michael]

You will find that in general, people by and large consume far more modern art, music, and films than they do the old ones.

Especially when one considers that “old” is often a timespan that spans centuries, an “new” one that only spans a decade.

Call me when we start measuring our personal enjoyment or the “superiority” of a piece of art or entertainment by how many other people consume that piece of art or entertainment.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

You will find that in general, people by and large consume far more modern art, music, and films than they do the old ones.

Especially when one considers that “old” is often a timespan that spans centuries, an “new” one that only spans a decade.

How many of those people would say that the best movie of all time came out in the last ten years though? Or the best album? Best TV show?

 

[Michael]

“New is always better” is my oldest rule, which makes it the best.