Which is better, The Orville or Lower Decks?

[Watersluis]

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.

>I first make an argūmentum ad populum based on what is consumed by people.
>when it turns against me, argūmenta ad populum are bad.

It was you, not I, who initially brought this up.

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?

I believe many would, but again, you're comparing decades of production to a single decade. A randomly selected film from all films eve made would obviously not be likely to fall into the last decade.

Ask people what their favorite film is, and partition the answers in decades, and I can assure you that the plurality decade will be the most recent one, which is only to be expected as filmmaking technoloy advances, and directors are ever mode enabled to most accurately realize their vision. — John Cameron had to wait both to make Avatar and Terminator 2 for special effects to advance to a level to realize his vision.

 

[Michael]

>I first make an argūmentum ad populum based on what is consumed by people.
>when it turns against me, argūmenta ad populum are bad.

It was you, not I, who initially brought this up.

Then you misunderstood my argument. I wasn't trying to argue that more people enjoy old art over new art; in fact I might even agree that generally there is always a greater number of people enjoying newer stuff. But the fact alone that there are people enjoying old art/entertainment undermines your concept of it “obviously” being “superior”. I still haven't seen any argument from you that could even begin to substantiate this outlandish idea, and I don't think that you could come up with any.

 

[Sci]

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.

On the other hand, the passage of time can lead to a situation where the conventions of storytelling change so much that an older work may have trouble connecting with an audience. The conventions of ancient Greek drama make reading, say, Antigone or The Oresteia a challenge for modern audiences. The passage of time can also allow newer works to build more upon the works that came before them. Obviously these ancient stories still have purchase in our contemporary culture, but I would be lying if I said I didn't have an easier time connecting to, and seeing the depth and complexity of, say, Angels in America or M. Butterfly.

 

[Michael]

On the other hand, the passage of time can lead to a situation where the conventions of storytelling change so much that an older work may have trouble connecting with an audience. The conventions of ancient Greek drama make reading, say, Antigone or The Oresteia a challenge for modern audiences. The passage of time can also allow newer works to build more upon the works that came before them. Obviously these ancient stories still have purchase in our contemporary culture, but I would be lying if I said I didn't have an easier time connecting to, and seeing the depth and complexity of, say, Angels in America or M. Butterfly.

I don't disagree with any of that, but I have a hard time deriving from that a generalized statement like “new stuff is obviously more superior than old stuff”. Superior in what way? We're talking about what TV shows we like more here; which will always be a personal preference. How exactly does that jibe with the notion of superiority?

 

[Sci]

I don't disagree with any of that, but I have a hard time deriving from that a generalized statement like “new stuff is obviously more superior than old stuff”. Superior in what way? We're talking about what TV shows we like more here; which will always be a personal preference. How exactly does that jibe with the notion of superiority?

Oh yeah, totally agree. That's why I said I'm not comfortable comparing even shows separated by only ~30 years like TNG and ORV. Let alone comparing, say, books or plays from the 20th Century C.E. to those from the 5th Century BCE.

 

[Watersluis]

Then you misunderstood my argument. I wasn't trying to argue that more people enjoy old art over new art; in fact I might even agree that generally there is always a greater number of people enjoying newer stuff. But the fact alone that there are people enjoying old art/entertainment undermines your concept of it “obviously” being “superior”. I still haven't seen any argument from you that could even begin to substantiate this outlandish idea, and I don't think that you could come up with any.

I said “It is obviously to be expected that a modern product is generally superior to an older one.” [emphasis mine]. — Your claim is that this this is false because a nonzero number of persons exist that still enjoy some older products?

This is an argument a dimension below: “The Dutch are not generally taller than the Canadian, for I knew some Canadians who were very tall.”.

Obviously some older works that are quite remarkable exist, as indicated by the word “generally”, but their frequency goes down and down the further one goes back in time.

 

[Michael]

Your claim is that this this is false because a nonzero number of persons exist that still enjoy some older products?

No, my claim is your assertion is ridiculous on its face.

Fact is, you still haven't delivered even an inkling of an argument of why being newer should result in art/entertainment generally being superior in terms of personal enjoyment. Different ≠ better. More complex ≠ better. What argument could there be that something made closer to our time should mean it's generally more enjoyable to something made decades ago, when people enjoy stuff for a myriad of personal reasons and preferences?

This is an argument a dimension below: “The Dutch are not generally taller than the Canadian, for I knew some Canadians who were very tall.”.

The problem with that analogy is that the general height of a people is actually a measurable value, whereas the amount of enjoyment someone derives from a piece of art or entertainment can not be gauged.

Obviously some older works that are quite remarkable exist, as indicated by the word “generally”, but their frequency goes down and down the further one goes back in time.

Another completely baseless idea.

 

[Watersluis]

No, my claim is your assertion is ridiculous on its face.

You did not just make a claim; you gave it with an argument. And I would love to see how your arguments results into your claim.

Because from where I'm standing, your argument seems to be that the mere existence of some people who enjoy some old artworks disproves the idea that newer ones are generally superior. — If that not be your argument, then state what your argument was.

Fact is, you still haven't delivered even an inkling of an argument of why being newer should result in art/entertainment generally being superior in terms of personal enjoyment. Different ≠ better. More complex ≠ better. What argument could there be that something made closer to our time should mean it's generally more enjoyable to something made decades ago, when people enjoy stuff for a myriad of personal reasons and preferences?

I have very much given an argument for that in that modern directors have strictly superior technology at their disposal and can continue to use all the old technology should they choose so. They have a strictly more powerful arsenal to realize their vision, and the same goes for other forms of art.

The problem with that analogy is that the general height of a people is actually a measurable value, whereas the amount of enjoyment someone derives from a piece of art or entertainment can not be gauged.

Indeed, and had you initially said that quality is subjective as your argument, you would have found no disagreement in me. But that was not your original argument, your argument, unless you care to correct me, seemed to be based on that a number of persons exist that enjoy some old art works.

 

[Michael]

^ Well, the way I see it is that you made the initial claim that “it is obviously to be expected that a modern product is generally superior to an older one”, so the burden of proof is on you to support your claim, it's not really my job to disprove your statement. That's not how logical arguments work. And so far this here seems to be the first post where you make an attempt at rationalizing your claim:

… modern directors have strictly superior technology at their disposal and can continue to use all the old technology should they choose so. They have a strictly more powerful arsenal to realize their vision, and the same goes for other forms of art.

That's all well and good, but why would any of that necessarily lead to the end product being superior in terms of entertainment value? We seem to agree that enjoyment is an undeniably subjective assessment. Everyone will find individual aspects in a piece of art/entertainment to derive enjoyment from. So why would more advanced technology and a more realized artistic vision “obviously” result in a “generally superior” enjoyment of that piece?

I still don't see how you could make that claim, to be honest. Obviously this can be true for you personally, and I wouldn't even try to take that from you. But as a generalized statement about all art and people's reception of such it just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[JoseNoodles]

It's ironic to be making the claim that new art is somehow superior to old art in regards to Star Trek, a franchise that dates back to 1966. By that logic, we shouldn't even be here discussing it.

 

[thribs]

They’re both good but I’ll give it to Orville. Mainly because it’s longer.

 

[fireproof78]

It's ironic to be making the claim that new art is somehow superior to old art in regards to Star Trek, a franchise that dates back to 1966. By that logic, we shouldn't even be here discussing it.

Indeed. It should be disregarded as irrelevant.

 

[tomalak301]

Lower Decks is fresher in my mind than The Orville is. I like both shows, even though I think I might give the nod slightly to Orville.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Lower Decks by far. Orville is fun and nostalgic. But too much of McFarlane's puerile sense of humor gets in to be consistently entertaining. Lower Decks writers have a much better sense about what is good about Star Trek and more character driven humor rather than Family Guy style bodily function humor. Orville also tries to have moral takeaways with some of its stories but they come off as more simplistic and hamfisted than the TNG source material.

 

[Vger23]

I don't particularly care about either of them...but I find the characters in The Orville to be more engaging (by a long shot) and the straight-up easter egg/callbacks in LD to be magical.

So, I don't really favor one over the other.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

It's ironic to be making the claim that new art is somehow superior to old art in regards to Star Trek, a franchise that dates back to 1966. By that logic, we shouldn't even be here discussing it.

Also by that logic, any given weeks episode should be superior to the episode shown in any given week before.

Nonsense in other words.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Chuck Sonnenberg (SF Debris) and I don't always agree. However, I feel like he's pretty much iterated every single one of my thoughts on the Orville's shortcomings. They're not the flaws you'd think would be the one to complain about like the fact that it's too crass or "Family Guy in Space" (its not). Its the fact that is a mixture that theoretically could work, like peanut butter and jelly, but the portions are just not right in the show.

Probably because the people involved do not want the same things from it.

Fox wanted Family Guy in Space and a comedy that they could ride on Seth's past successes.

Seth wants to do straight up Star Trek so that season 2 kept getting less and less funny and more dramatic.

I just wanted Galaxy Quest or The Office in Space. A slice of life comedy.

No one is quite getting what they want.

As for Lower Decks? It's unironically one of the things I love most in Star Trek.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I will say I don't share some folks aversion to Mercer as the Captain and Seth MacFarlane choosing to put himself in the captain's chair for his vanity project. I think he's actually one of the show's stronger actors and perfectly suited for the Steve Guttenberg "Straight Man" role that does work in the show. If he was allowed to just be the Steve Carell of the Office in Space, I think the show would have managed to keep the majority of my interest throughout.

Really, I only think that Mercer has two flaws as a character:

1. The Kelly/Mercer story just does not land at at all. I don't WANT Kelly and Mercer together and it makes both characters look worse that they keep trying to put them together. Its also absolutely central to a huge number of plotlines and does not go anywhere.

2. I don't buy Seth MacFarlane in heroic action scenes and drama. I think he's much-much better at dealing with the quirky oddball misfits and their issues. Part of why I prefer the comedy elements is that I think it's much more in Seth's wheelhouse.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Yeah, I like Mercer just fine. I also like Kelly just fine. But I absolutely hate the Kelly/Mercer story and I would've dropped the series after season two due to it if it hadn't gone and dropped itself for a few years.

But my frustrations have faded enough over time for me to want to give the show another chance, even though I know they're just going to go right back to it again.

 

[Sci]

Yeah, I like Mercer just fine. I also like Kelly just fine. But I absolutely hate the Kelly/Mercer story and I would've dropped the series after season two due to it if it hadn't gone and dropped itself for a few years.

But my frustrations have faded enough over time for me to want to give the show another chance, even though I know they're just going to go right back to it again.

Yeah, I mean, I just watched the season two finale yesterday, and the entire premise is built around their relationship.

Spoiler: ORV S2

In the penultimate episode, Kelly encounters her past self from the night after her and Ed's first date; Past!Kelly is supposed to get a memory wipe before she's sent back, but the memory wipe fails. Having learned of the pain she and Ed went through, Past!Kelly ghosts Past!Ed -- and this sets up a chain of events in which Ed does not become commanding officer of the USS Orville, causing Claire not to become CMO, preventing her and her kids from forging a relationship with Issac -- causing him to never defect from his people, allowing the Kaylon to lay waste to Earth, Moclus, and half the known galaxy. The original timeline is restored when Kelly is able to "re"-unite the Orville crew and they figure out how to travel back in time, yet again, to the morning after Kelly's and Ed's first date to successfully wipe Past!Past!Kelly's memory.

So, literally the Kelly/Ed relationship is the fulcrum around which the entire Orville universe revolves...!