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

[DarKush]

I agree everyone has the right to take a more cynical way at looking at criticism but I am just saying I wouldn't do it at least not to a individual and also not in a adversary kind of way. IMO I think it's emotionally more healthy to try and open with trust. I know when I get cynical about things it's never a good feeling. As for race being part of everyday thoughts I agree that stuff effects people but why would we assume people don't think about this stuff or anaylize their thoughts and feelings? Everyone has the same complex emotional reactions anyone else has and if they feel they aren't racist I am sure they have reasons they feel that way.

Jason

I don't think pointing out how racism might infect how one views Burnham or other characters of color is in fact cynical, for some it could be an acknowledgement of an uncomfortable, distressing social reality, and exhibits an honesty and bravery to come forth and voice that knowing that it will likely invite backlash and/or outright dismissal of your point of view. Or deflection or the now time-honored reversal. "Why I'm not racist, you're the real racist for mentioning race," or something along those lines. Or another old one is to make the person of color feel 'crazy' for even suggesting that racism occurs. It goes right back to Drapetomania. (It's like, how dare you don't see the world the way I see it! Like your experiences aren't as valid, ergo you are not as valid).

I can only speak for myself, not anyone else on this board in terms of how I experience things and interpret media. Which leads to my second disagreement with the points you've made here. While I do agree with you that everyone is complex and has complex reactions, but they are not the same reactions because we live sometimes drastically different lives (often due to race) so that shapes how we might view things. Where something might be perfectly fine and seemingly unbiased to one person, while it is biased, or appearing biased to another, and then you have two people at logger heads, a gulf shaped by history but also maintained by ongoing social realities. Personally I do think there is a tendency to outright deny and reject any charges or concerns of bias or biased reactions which is tied to a larger denial of the larger social realities, of which even small things like the depiction of black characters on two sci-fi shows, or other characters of color on other shows, reflects.

I don't disagree that people have reasons for feeling they aren't racist, that's fine. Though I have no desire to declare people who even say insensitive or racist suspecting things are, or to argue that, because it gets nowhere That's not for me to do, it's a waste of time. That's their issue, not mine; I'm not here to save anyone's souls or look inside anyone's heart. However, I'm not going to go pretend that racist thinking isn't present in fandom. And sometimes that thinking peeks out or is uncovered, and even then said person won't think it's racist, and others will back them up, so it just goes on and on. (On this board I like discussing the geeky things I enjoy yet I am not immune or oblivious to the racism or suspected racism that can be present in those things, and I do think we can and should have a place to discuss those things).

If you don't like Burnham or any other black character (or character of color) in a movie or TV show that does not mean that racism is the motivation behind that, IMO. I'm black and I don't like every black character, or character of color, in everything I see. Though when it comes specifically to black characters some my disappointment is based on how those characters might be depicted, especially when its stereotypical. That being said, if a person (let me be clear, not talking about you here, just more in general based on my experiences with fandom at times) has a problem with Burnham per se (or other black characters/characters of color), and then they really can't articulate why, doesn't acknowledge and/or respect the views of people who do like the character, and then get super huffy about when the term racist is brought up (if not even directed at them) and then start deflecting, I don't know where to go with that. It still doesn't mean that a person's views come from a biased perspective necessarily, but still, I don't know where to go with that in terms of this discussion.

I personally think racism is more complex and insidious than the media depiction of people in white hooded robes or skinheads. That is racism, but extreme racism. As I was getting at earlier, I think racism affects our thoughts and actions in far more banal ways (and by 'our' I just don't mean whites but people of color as well; at least when it comes to America, we are shaped a lot by a shared media/pop culture in many ways, and racism has been part of mass entertainment essentially since the beginning, i.e. the minstrel shows, and remains part of mass entertainment today. It has become more refined, it is not as trenchant as it was before, but it is still there. Even Discovery is not immune from it. I was reading an season review that came out months ago that had some issues with Burnham's depiction. If I can find it, I'll include it).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/why-star-trek-discovery-needs-223558255.html

 

[DarKush]

That's an interesting point. I'm not sure who else I would cast as Burnham. Though on the Orville side, I don't think Adrianne Palicki is necessarily replaceable either.

I do think Palicki would be tough to replace, due to the unique relationship she has with Mercer and also the will-they-won't they thing that is ongoing between them, but I do think she could be replaced, and they bring in another potential love interest, someone to butt heads with Mercer, or something. That being said, it would change the show, and I'm not sure in a good way. Grayson is the more no-nonsense character that helps keep Mercer in line while also helping him build up his confidence. Arguably she's more competent than him and should be commanding her own vessel already. I could see it going into a Riker situation where Riker just hung around too long on the Enterprise (D and E). That being said, I like Palicki and Grayson and wouldn't want to see them go, at least not yet.

 

[DarKush]

Actually I think you could replace both of them pretty easy but both shows would also change because of it. "Orville" less so because that show is built more around it's concept than it's individual characters IMO. Only issue is would McFarlande also leave with Mercer. That would be the bigger hit.

Jason

I agree with you that replacing Mercer or Burnham fundamentally alters both shows. And with McFarlane being the creative mind behind Orville, if he also left those duties, to me they might as well cancel the show. Where I disagree is that I don't think Orville is defined so much by the concept but by that group of idiosyncratic characters and how they well they work together, or not on the Orville. I can't say at present I'm interested seeing another show about another ship and crew in the Planetary Union.

Though with Star Trek already proving it can move on from series to series and follow different crews, I do think Discovery could move on from Burnham and survive, perhaps more easily than Mercer leaving Orville, since McFarlane has such a pivotal role in creating the show. Which is strange because while the Mercer character doesn't come across as that important on the surface, due to McFarlane's involvement behind-the-scenes, McFarlane leaving the show would definitely change it. Though if McFarlane promoted Mercer to admiral or something and still remained creative control while just stepping back from being on there every week I think that might work to keep the show going. With Discovery being built around Burnham, her loss would be very big for the show, however since it is Trek, I think it might survive as an ensemble show. Though Trek has never removed/replaced a titular series lead (i.e. captain) during the course of a series.

It's strange how the more consequential main character in Burnham might be able to leave Discovery and the show still survive due to the nature of Trek, whereas the new Orville rests a lot on McFarlane and his behind-the-scenes involvement.

 

[Jayson1]

I don't think pointing out how racism might infect how one views Burnham or other characters of color is in fact cynical, for some it could be an acknowledgement of an uncomfortable, distressing social reality, and exhibits an honesty and bravery to come forth and voice that knowing that it will likely invite backlash and/or outright dismissal of your point of view. Or deflection or the now time-honored reversal. "Why I'm not racist, you're the real racist for mentioning race," or something along those lines. Or another old one is to make the person of color feel 'crazy' for even suggesting that racism occurs. It goes right back to Drapetomania. (It's like, how dare you don't see the world the way I see it! Like your experiences aren't as valid, ergo you are not as valid).

I can only speak for myself, not anyone else on this board in terms of how I experience things and interpret media. Which leads to my second disagreement with the points you've made here. While I do agree with you that everyone is complex and has complex reactions, but they are not the same reactions because we live sometimes drastically different lives (often due to race) so that shapes how we might view things. Where something might be perfectly fine and seemingly unbiased to one person, while it is biased, or appearing biased to another, and then you have two people at logger heads, a gulf shaped by history but also maintained by ongoing social realities. Personally I do think there is a tendency to outright deny and reject any charges or concerns of bias or biased reactions which is tied to a larger denial of the larger social realities, of which even small things like the depiction of black characters on two sci-fi shows, or other characters of color on other shows, reflects.

I don't disagree that people have reasons for feeling they aren't racist, that's fine. Though I have no desire to declare people who even say insensitive or racist suspecting things are, or to argue that, because it gets nowhere That's not for me to do, it's a waste of time. That's their issue, not mine; I'm not here to save anyone's souls or look inside anyone's heart. However, I'm not going to go pretend that racist thinking isn't present in fandom. And sometimes that thinking peeks out or is uncovered, and even then said person won't think it's racist, and others will back them up, so it just goes on and on. (On this board I like discussing the geeky things I enjoy yet I am not immune or oblivious to the racism or suspected racism that can be present in those things, and I do think we can and should have a place to discuss those things).

If you don't like Burnham or any other black character (or character of color) in a movie or TV show that does not mean that racism is the motivation behind that, IMO. I'm black and I don't like every black character, or character of color, in everything I see. Though when it comes specifically to black characters some my disappointment is based on how those characters might be depicted, especially when its stereotypical. That being said, if a person (let me be clear, not talking about you here, just more in general based on my experiences with fandom at times) has a problem with Burnham per se (or other black characters/characters of color), and then they really can't articulate why, doesn't acknowledge and/or respect the views of people who do like the character, and then get super huffy about when the term racist is brought up (if not even directed at them) and then start deflecting, I don't know where to go with that. It still doesn't mean that a person's views come from a biased perspective necessarily, but still, I don't know where to go with that in terms of this discussion.

I personally think racism is more complex and insidious than the media depiction of people in white hooded robes or skinheads. That is racism, but extreme racism. As I was getting at earlier, I think racism affects our thoughts and actions in far more banal ways (and by 'our' I just don't mean whites but people of color as well; at least when it comes to America, we are shaped a lot by a shared media/pop culture in many ways, and racism has been part of mass entertainment essentially since the beginning, i.e. the minstrel shows, and remains part of mass entertainment today. It has become more refined, it is not as trenchant as it was before, but it is still there. Even Discovery is not immune from it. I was reading an season review that came out months ago that had some issues with Burnham's depiction. If I can find it, I'll include it).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/why-star-trek-discovery-needs-223558255.html

I agree with that. To me it's more of a issue when dealing with individuals. It's one thing when you talking about the issue as a whole and part of society in general. It's only more tricky when you talking to a person, a person you don't even know and say their views are racist or imply it is racist that it starts to become a problem to people. People like to think they understand themselves pretty well which IMO I find to be a little incomplete because I personally don't fully understand myself but I do think people do know themselves at least better than strangers do.

This is why I find civility to be such a import thing when talking about stuff like this. People don't want to feel like someone is talking down to them or worst judging them. People want to be treated with respect. Of course it's harder I feel in this day and age because of the internet because people now also feel everything is a conspiracy to take them down. A feeling I think that exists on both the right and left. Nobody trusts anyone enough to listen because they think the other the person is just lying to them. Which to me is something I try to fight against but not always to success of course. Everyone is going to have a gut feeling about stuff or first impression but those things aren't always accurate.

Jason

 

[Jayson1]

I agree with you that replacing Mercer or Burnham fundamentally alters both shows. And with McFarlane being the creative mind behind Orville, if he also left those duties, to me they might as well cancel the show. Where I disagree is that I don't think Orville is defined so much by the concept but by that group of idiosyncratic characters and how they well they work together, or not on the Orville. I can't say at present I'm interested seeing another show about another ship and crew in the Planetary Union.

Though with Star Trek already proving it can move on from series to series and follow different crews, I do think Discovery could move on from Burnham and survive, perhaps more easily than Mercer leaving Orville, since McFarlane has such a pivotal role in creating the show. Which is strange because while the Mercer character doesn't come across as that important on the surface, due to McFarlane's involvement behind-the-scenes, McFarlane leaving the show would definitely change it. Though if McFarlane promoted Mercer to admiral or something and still remained creative control while just stepping back from being on there every week I think that might work to keep the show going. With Discovery being built around Burnham, her loss would be very big for the show, however since it is Trek, I think it might survive as an ensemble show. Though Trek has never removed/replaced a titular series lead (i.e. captain) during the course of a series.

It's strange how the more consequential main character in Burnham might be able to leave Discovery and the show still survive due to the nature of Trek, whereas the new Orville rests a lot on McFarlane and his behind-the-scenes involvement.

What I mean about concept with "Orville" is the part of the show being a nostogic love letter to TNG and 90's sci-fi. I feel you can still keep the nostigia angle with a complete new set of characters. I do wonder though about replacing McFarlane/Mercer is how much of the appeal of that character also due to the fact he is a fellow Trek Fan. He is getting to do something I think any of us want to do and that is get to play Captain every week. I think part of the fun is that the show isn't just nostigia created by people who might not even personally share it but also kind of like the most expensive fan films ever made. You basically rooting for the guy for making that dream come true.

Jason

 

[DarKush]

I agree with that. To me it's more of a issue when dealing with individuals. It's one thing when you talking about the issue as a whole and part of society in general. It's only more tricky when you talking to a person, a person you don't even know and say their views are racist or imply it is racist that it starts to become a problem to people. People like to think they understand themselves pretty well which IMO I find to be a little incomplete because I personally don't fully understand myself but I do think people do know themselves at least better than strangers do.

This is why I find civility to be such a import thing when talking about stuff like this. People don't want to feel like someone is talking down to them or worst judging them. People want to be treated with respect. Of course it's harder I feel in this day and age because of the internet because people now also feel everything is a conspiracy to take them down. A feeling I think that exists on both the right and left. Nobody trusts anyone enough to listen because they think the other the person is just lying to them. Which to me is something I try to fight against but not always to success of course. Everyone is going to have a gut feeling about stuff or first impression but those things aren't always accurate.

Jason

I think you hit the nail on the head when it comes to respect. I'm going to assume here that everyone wants respect or to be at least accorded respect, if not the given the benefit of the doubt. And I also agree with you that the internet does intensify some negativity out there, though I do think it takes discernment to figure what views are based on rational/actual events and what is more subjective, ahistorical, or really has no basis in fact. I don't think it's conspiratorial to believe that some people hold anti-black views which does seep into their views of genre works based on not only on the history of the country but even a cursory view of a billion You Tube comment sections for example.

Trust is something that will be hard to achieve on the internet due to its anonymous nature. Though trust is something hard to achieve even among people you know well. So for me, in absence of trust I look at the merits of the argument, and are those backed up by an facts, or other examples that strengthen those arguments? I do value gut feelings and first impressions, though sometimes those do require further inquiry and study to confirm or dispel that gut feeling. Sometimes things are not as they seem, yet other times they are.

I do agree with you that people believe they do know themselves pretty well, or like to think they do, and I also believe that we can never really know ourselves. Though sometimes, when I see people take such umbrage when racism is mentioned or are too vociferous in their defense but then start deflecting and trying to turn the tables, it makes me suspect they do know themselves very well, their true views all too well, and are trying to keep them hidden, or simply not called out. I'm not saying that's happening during this discussion. I'm speaking in terms of just some of my general encounters/experiences on the internet.

Perhaps there can be no empathy without trust, however I do think more empathy would be nice, and go a way towards the civility you speak of (I'm assuming). Even if we don't agree with something, just because we don't, doesn't mean it isn't true. Then again, if we look more into it, we might find out it is, or we might confirm it isn't. And if it isn't, I don't think it needs to be an occasion for chest thumping or score settling. It could instead be a learning moment ,because along the way we might have learned and come to value another perspective. Basically it's IDIC to me.

 

[DarKush]

What I mean about concept with "Orville" is the part of the show being a nostogic love letter to TNG and 90's sci-fi. I feel you can still keep the nostigia angle with a complete new set of characters. I do wonder though about replacing McFarlane/Mercer is how much of the appeal of that character also due to the fact he is a fellow Trek Fan. He is getting to do something I think any of us want to do and that is get to play Captain every week. I think part of the fun is that the show isn't just nostigia created by people who might not even personally share it but also kind of like the most expensive fan films ever made. You basically rooting for the guy for making that dream come true.

Jason

I hadn't considered it from that perspective before. I agree that the nostalgia aspect of the show, imbued by McFarlane and to a lesser extent Mercer (because I don't see Mercer-at least at the start of Season 1 being a Starfleet captain) would be hard to replicate without McFarlane. Though if they did some Orville space station show next, they might be able to take on more the feel of DS9 which might lead that spin off to having a darker tone.

For me, the fan fiction aspect is not so much a draw-which is strange since I do write Trek fan fic. I do like the allusions to TNG, and sometimes just the bright colors and the feel of Orville. Though I also want to see where the show can go to differentiate itself from Berman-era Trek. They've got a whole new galaxy to play with. I would like to see them do more galaxy building and perhaps 'correct' any things that McFarlane felt were wrong or restrictive when it came to Trek.

 

[mos6507]

I think MacFarlane is far better as a voice actor than live-action. As the series progressed it seemed like he put more and more effort into trying to play dramatic scenes straight (something he's never done before that I'm aware of) rather than winking and nudging and putting tongue in cheek. Given his history of always turning everything into a gag it worked against his attempt to sell the show as a dramedy rather than a spoof or sitcom.

That being said, if you want to compare The Orville to Discovery, I really think The Orville is a braver show by doing something that conventional wisdom would say wouldn't work, whereas Discovery feels too much like it's trying to follow the flavor of the month in being dark and GoT-like. There's nothing really groundbreaking about Discovery as that style of television has been in fashion since The Sopranos, whereas The Orville is swimming upstream by trying to re-popularize an old-fashioned manner of storytelling while injecting it with humor.

 

[Owain Taggart]

but it doesn't have that strong a cast except for Penny Johnson.

Actually, I think it has a great cast. For what it is, it's pretty amazing. Aside from Penny Johnson, while Seth McFarlane is debatable, Scott Grimes is becoming a pretty big star in his own right. Not to mention the big guest stars they've managed to get, not only as one-offs but as recurring characters. I'd say it's done pretty well for itself.

 

[Mudd]

Well, you could replace Mercer and The Orville would be about as good. If you replaced Burnham, STD could well get a lot better.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

If you kept the same cast but scrapped everything else, then developed an actual Trek series then it would get a lot better.

 

[Jayson1]

I think MacFarlane is far better as a voice actor than live-action. As the series progressed it seemed like he put more and more effort into trying to play dramatic scenes straight (something he's never done before that I'm aware of) rather than winking and nudging and putting tongue in cheek. Given his history of always turning everything into a gag it worked against his attempt to sell the show as a dramedy rather than a spoof or sitcom.

That being said, if you want to compare The Orville to Discovery, I really think The Orville is a braver show by doing something that conventional wisdom would say wouldn't work, whereas Discovery feels too much like it's trying to follow the flavor of the month in being dark and GoT-like. There's nothing really groundbreaking about Discovery as that style of television has been in fashion since The Sopranos, whereas The Orville is swimming upstream by trying to re-popularize an old-fashioned manner of storytelling while injecting it with humor.

That's kind of true. "Orville" is groundbreaking in a twisted way for not trying to be groundbreaking. Also who else other than McFarlande would try and do nostiga over TNG and 90's Sci-Fi?. Lot's of nostiga actually has a bigger net. Like "Stranger Days" is about early 80's and also 80's style genre movies. "Orville" is going for something more niche to try and win over fans. You might sometimes see it over "TOS" but even that is something that has more mainstream knowledge and most stuff about "TOS" is either about making fun of it or trying to deconstruct it like the "McCallister" ep of "Black Mirror."


Jason

 

[BillJ]

And with McFarlane being the creative mind behind Orville, if he also left those duties, to me they might as well cancel the show.

I think they would be okay if they kept David A. Goodman around to run things.

If you replaced Burnham, STD could well get a lot better.

I think the more effective strategy would be to replace the writers.

 

[DarKush]

Discovery is as much Star Trek as all the other series IMO. If the core of Trek is about exploring the human condition Discovery did that. Did it do it greatly all the time? I would say no, but it did explore it, using a storytelling setting (war, or a backdrop of war) that is familiar to many sci-fi fans and others (Star Wars can still pull billions, as did Infinity War, so the concept of war in sci-fi is not a bad way to go when it comes to trying to hook viewers). Discovery is Trek told for a 21st century audience, a Trek that comes after the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica and has shows like The Expanse, A Handmaid's Tale, Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, and The Man in the High Castle, and other darker, prestige non-genre shows as it's contemporaries (like how TOS looked to the prevailing Westerns of its time and took inspiration from that genre). Discovery is perhaps a darker, more cynical Trek for a darker time, but even if that is the case, over the course of the series Federation values were never really thrown away and were championed strongly in the end. It just took a journey to get there, and they were questioned, like how DS9 or some occasional other episodes in the other Trek series would test Federation values. Discovery also pushes forward the diversity established in the original series with some of its casting while at the same time putting up a mirror to some of the societal issues/problems that are going on right now in the country and the world. I could easily see T'Kuvma and the Discovery Klingons being stand-ins for the rising nationalism around the planet. And the Federation is the beleaguered multicultural bulwark against the proponents of racial/ethnic/religious purity and exclusion (i.e. "Remain Klingon" and T'Kuvma being a religious figure for some). To me, Discovery is exploring stuff like that. Not saying it's always doing it well.

I will give them credit for taking some risks-even if they didn't always pay off in Season 1. I feel that the Discovery crew in general is more interesting to watch than much of the Voyager crew and almost all (unfortunately) of the Enterprise crew.

 

[gblews]

The doctor and helmsman/engineer on Orville are variations on black characters we've seen before in Hollywood. Nothing against the actors. I like Penny Johnson-Jerald. Seeing her on Orville was one of the things that helped sell that show to me. I liked her a lot on DS9 and loved her on 24. I also don't think the actor playing the helmsman is bad, just underused until he had the episodes where he was about to be killed and then when he got promoted to engineer. But how many times have we seen black single-mothers on TV or films?

So true, particularly in the case of the helsman character. He is basically a racial stereotype as you point out.

That joke about Compton by the helsman, in the 3rd episode or so, shows exactly why a black actor was in the cast. At the least the character was an example of laziness by Orville writers, in going for the easy and cheap laugh based on the character's race. Not saying McFarlannd is a racist, but he did do exactly what so many others have done with black characters in comedies. It was a bit of a surprise.

That joke is also what cemented the Orville season 1 as a parody. There is no way the crew would know anything about the city of Compton unless they were history buffs, so that bit was strictly a joke meant for the show's audience, meaning it was outside of the context of the show.

I really hope Seth realizes his mistakes with this character in season 2.

 

[gblews]

But how many times have we seen black single-mothers on TV or films?

No way can I see The Orville making Johnson-Jerald's character "complicated", the way DSC made Burnham. Easier to give her a couple of kids to whom she is devoted. It's safer. As liberal as Seth's politics are, he seems to suffer from some of the same issues as so many network shows, in that there might be a fear of showing minority characters as fully rounded humans.

 

[Jayson1]

Discovery is as much Star Trek as all the other series IMO. If the core of Trek is about exploring the human condition Discovery did that. Did it do it greatly all the time? I would say no, but it did explore it, using a storytelling setting (war, or a backdrop of war) that is familiar to many sci-fi fans and others (Star Wars can still pull billions, as did Infinity War, so the concept of war in sci-fi is not a bad way to go when it comes to trying to hook viewers). Discovery is Trek told for a 21st century audience, a Trek that comes after the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica and has shows like The Expanse, A Handmaid's Tale, Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, and The Man in the High Castle, and other darker, prestige non-genre shows as it's contemporaries (like how TOS looked to the prevailing Westerns of its time and took inspiration from that genre). Discovery is perhaps a darker, more cynical Trek for a darker time, but even if that is the case, over the course of the series Federation values were never really thrown away and were championed strongly in the end. It just took a journey to get there, and they were questioned, like how DS9 or some occasional other episodes in the other Trek series would test Federation values. Discovery also pushes forward the diversity established in the original series with some of its casting while at the same time putting up a mirror to some of the societal issues/problems that are going on right now in the country and the world. I could easily see T'Kuvma and the Discovery Klingons being stand-ins for the rising nationalism around the planet. And the Federation is the beleaguered multicultural bulwark against the proponents of racial/ethnic/religious purity and exclusion (i.e. "Remain Klingon" and T'Kuvma being a religious figure for some). To me, Discovery is exploring stuff like that. Not saying it's always doing it well.

I will give them credit for taking some risks-even if they didn't always pay off in Season 1. I feel that the Discovery crew in general is more interesting to watch than much of the Voyager crew and almost all (unfortunately) of the Enterprise crew.

I agree that "Discovery" is trek. It feels like Trek but somewhat updated. I think the only issue with many fans is whether or not it's a prime universe show but God knows that debate has been talked to death.

Jason

 

[mos6507]

"Orville" is groundbreaking in a twisted way for not trying to be groundbreaking.

The word is: authentic. The Orville is what it is because MacFarlane wants it to be that way (right down to utilizing physical models against bluescreen) and he doesn't give a rat's ass whether it's in fashion or not. Discovery's early press releases were oozing with diplomacy in how they said to old fans "hey, brace yourselves but we're going to have to mess with this and that because kids these days want lens flare and pew pew". So it feels too calculated and conformist, not so much in the context of Trek, but of what's currently in vogue.

Trends are always set by those with the courage to buck them. We haven't seen season 2 yet but the injection of fun/humor sure seems to suggest it's going to ape some of The Orville, albeit not in the aesthetic sense.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

That joke about Compton by the helsman, in the 3rd episode or so, shows exactly why a black actor was in the cast.

It was S1E2 "Command Performance" written by Seth MacFarlane. Transcribed lines are (unfortunately without designation as to who's speaking) [https://www.springfieldspringfield....s.php?tv-show=the-orville-2017&episode=s01e02]:

Kaylon is comparable in that area to the Calivon themselves, which means they should be willing to talk to us as long as he's with us.
White dude can go to Compton long as the black guy says it's cool.
I have no idea what that means, but yes.​

Your comment here asserting that this line "shows exactly why a black actor was in the cast" makes literally no sense. Taking your comment literally, it requires us to assume that the joke was created first and then it was decided to make the character black in order to tell the joke. That's ridiculous. If you aren't being so specific, it would seem you would have us believe that MacFarlane decided that he wanted a diverse cast in order to have the opportunity to make certain types of jokes. That, too, is ridiculous.

Far more plausible is that MacFarlane decided to have a diverse cast for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to 1) the fact that Star Trek has always had a diverse cast and 2) the desire to appeal to a broad audience. With the decision of a diverse cast committed to in the premise, MacFarlane then decided to write for that cast in a way that he thought would be effective.

Was it effective in this case? Well, it made me look up Compton, presumably the one in California, and learn something about American history, which only increased my understanding of American culture and human nature. That works for me. Plus, one shouldn't forget that the joke in fact has two parts, first what John says about a comparison to Compton and second what (IIRC) Gordon says in reply about having no idea what that means. Being unable to relate to specific references in a subculture is part of the reality of race relations in America, and having the characters deal with sub-cultural cluelessness in a positive way is something that I find to be, well, positive.

YMMV.

 

[DarKush]

So true, particularly in the case of the helsman character. He is basically a racial stereotype as you point out.

That joke about Compton by the helsman, in the 3rd episode or so, shows exactly why a black actor was in the cast. At the least the character was an example of laziness by Orville writers, in going for the easy and cheap laugh based on the character's race. Not saying McFarlannd is a racist, but he did do exactly what so many others have done with black characters in comedies. It was a bit of a surprise.

That joke is also what cemented the Orville season 1 as a parody. There is no way the crew would know anything about the city of Compton unless they were history buffs, so that bit was strictly a joke meant for the show's audience, meaning it was outside of the context of the show.

I really hope Seth realizes his mistakes with this character in season 2.

I don't even remember the Compton joke, but you hit the nail on the head with why Lamar in particular is a problematic character. I was cringing at the episode where he insulted the alien culture and was about to be executed for it. It was unfortunate because the idea of critiquing society's growing dependence on social media was an interesting idea, but McFarlane had to undermine that by undermining the Lamar character. He's made into an immature jackass, a loud, unserious, unsympathetic character, which isn't much different than how some might consider other young black males as uncouth loud mouths and manchildren. Even within the fictional setting, why would a Planetary Union officer act in such a way to even invite that kind of reaction? (It reminded me of the TNG episode where Wesley committed a faux pas on an alien planet and was about to be executed, which reminded me that Wesley's infraction was less obnoxious or noxious, and plus Wesley was a kid who didn't know better, yet we are supposed to believe a grown-adult, a Union officer would act in such a manner and then compound it by his behavior during the media tour. Teen Wesley had more maturity than Lamar in this instance, and really, from most of what I could see comparing the characters from Season 1, and that wasn't cool to me).

It was McFarlane going for the cheap joke, but at Lamar's expense. We later see this compounded when it's revealed he's a 'genius', but up to this point he just been unmotivated, he hasn't applied himself, he hasn't taken enough responsibility, so he's essentially lazy, and almost shiftless, which once again are stereotypical portrayals. He's a slacking, fun loving, 'cool', goof off. Are there white characters in fiction, even on the Orville that are similar, yes (though we often see so many other kinds of white characters in fiction, and we have several other white characters with different personalities or depictions that it provides variety in a way we don't have when it comes to Lamar, the only identifiable black human male character. It's almost like Lamar is a kind of updated Sambo figure, yet since McFarlane has called him a 'genius' that makes it okay.

Some might shift to Penny Johnson-Jerald's character, and that runs into another issue. She represents a more refined version of the sometimes mocked exaggeration of "I'm a strong black woman and I don't need no man", perhaps some kind of variation of the strong black woman trope. McFarlane literally chooses for her to be a mother and not even have a mate. I don't think this is a bad idea on its face, however when you put this on a black female character, tied to a network with a very problematic news division that stereotypes and demonizes black people, that gives me cause for concern. Dr. Crusher was a single-mother, but that was because she was widowed. If they had did that with Jerald's character, I would be more okay with it, but it feels to me like McFarlane has made a cultural assumption or misreading here. It reminds me of Avery Brooks and how he approached the role of Sisko. He decided to do DS9 after he was convinced it would be something positive for black kids-in particular-to see a black person in the future, at at time when the media was saying black males were 'endangered'. And Brooks infused his character with a racial consciousness and the writers of DS9 worked with him. Even at the end, Brooks didn't like the idea of them killing off Sisko so he worked to get that changed. Brooks was aware of the media depiction of absentee black fathers and wanted no part of even adding to that.

When I look at McFarlane and some of his other works, he is not immune from racial humor or using stereotypes. As a liberal he probably thinks this gives him some license to do so since he 'gets it' (Bill Maher is a big offender IMO of that kind of thinking/behavior), but it also means he helps promulgate some negative, or potentially negative ideas that widen divisions and creates more misunderstandings even if that is not McFarlane's intent.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/eastern-religions/buddhism/sambo
https://ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/links/essays/vcu.htm
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/strong-black-woman-who-dont-need-no-man
https://www.alternet.org/truth-behind-strong-black-woman-stereotype
http://thenewblackmagazine.com/view.aspx?index=50
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...stereotype-mental-health-depression-self-harm