Discovery and "The Orville" Comparisons

there is always a buyer for most type of stories, that doesn't mean they should be accepted by every franchise, every franchise does something different. I'm not a big reader of fiction but aren't there novels where the most sciencey of sci-fi exists?

 

Except when \you just decide to go 'High Concept Science Fiction' (which was often Brannon Braga's trademark) with no real character or story behind it - you get crap like VOY - "Threshold" Overall the original Star Trek (1966-1969) proved you could do both consistently with good writers (they used a number of literary science fiction writers for many of their scripts) that combine a good character or 'morals' story with an actual good science fiction 'hook' as well.

 

Probably not. Or else publishers wouldn't pass on them to the degree that they do.

 

IOW, the entire publication history of Analog under Campbell.

 

I confess I was never much of an ANALOG guy. I grew up on Wells and Wyndham and Matheson and Sturgeon and Leiber and Bradbury and Lovecraft, and yes, Edgar Rice Burroughs. (I'm more WEIRD TALES than ASTOUNDING at heart.)

And, yes, there are probably some readers (and writers) who prefer SF stories that stress ideas and engineering over characters and emotion, and there are venues that cater to them. But I wouldn't say that's what all SF readers are looking for, let alone all Trekkies.

It's perhaps worth noting that when Roddenberry went searching for SF writers to work on his new TV show back in the sixties, he rounded up up folks like Harlan Ellison, Norman Spinrad, Theodore Sturgeon, Richard Matheson, and Robert Bloch . . . none of whom were exactly known for their old-fashioned, Campbellian SF.

(He also tried to talk Bradbury into contributing a script, but without success.)

 

I await your deconstruction of Discovery to prove that it isn't fluff. In fact the underlying science of Discovery with the spore drive is far more ludicrous than the technobabble of a quantum drive on The Orville.

Superficially speaking, both shows are fluff in the sense that Orville is slavishly devoted to recreating the TNG aesthetic and Discovery is try-harding itself into being seen as contemporary and "high budget". I could go down the line but at least The Orville lacks the oozing pretentiousness of Discovery.

 

Whether or not a bit of sciency fiction technology is ludicrous or not is very objective and I tend to agree with you, I wasn't quite hooked on the spore drive, but I don't think the tech involved is entirely what Habs was talking about.

I think a comedy show about a silly crew of people who's hijinks border on inept while their accomplishments border on heroic is kind of a fluffy show. Science fiction or not.

 

It may well be "fluffy", but the characters feel far more fleshed out than their Discovery counterparts.

 

The sci-fi concept in that episode is just window dressing. The center of the show thematically is the character interaction between Kirk, Khan, and McGivers.

As an aside, while the original plot included suspended animation, the original idea was the augments would be frozen ancient Greeks which had magic powers (it was originally written for a different show).

Even if you are wedded to that part of the concept, it could be as easily told in a fantasy setting, or a magical realist setting where it was the only thing that was off. Similarly, The Visitor could have been told as a ghost story. Tapestry was pretty nakedly just It's A Wonderful Life with sci-fi trappings.

There are great Trek episodes - like Cause and Effect, Devil in the Dark, and Yesterday's Enterprise - which could only be told in a sci-fi setting. But the episodes where the sci-fi concept is the core of the plot do tend to miss more than they hit.

 

Groundhog Day.

 

The characters in Orville are pretty stale archetypes, easy snap ins for a comedy show, there isn't much to flesh out. What we're getting out of Discovery is a slow drip of character over a somewhat elongated story. I'd hardly say the characters in Orville being more fleshed out is a praise and Discovery's being less is a criticism. It'd be like criticizing the Daredevil character for not being more fleshed out by episode 7, when the point was to flesh him out over 13 episodes.

Discovery's fleshing out is going to be more complicated and will take more episodes. Orville's characters are simply, simpler.

 

Came out after that episode, but point taken.

 

Oh please - ANY of the above could be told in a Fantasy or High Fantasy (zero technology involved) setting as well. Hell, you might even be able to adapt 'Devil in the Dark' to a historical setting involving the meeting of two cultures - one which has lived deep in caves for generations, etc.

 

In fact there is a hilarious Supernatural episode with this same concept. Angels and demons and what not.

 

As a kid in the 1980's I tried to like Analog when I had money to buy sci fi magazines, but it was just too stuffy. TSR's version of Amazing was my favorite back then, and it didn't take itself too seriously. F&SF was a mixed bag but it had good editors. Asimov's was consistently good. OMNI varied, while Aboriginal SF rocked while it lasted ( its editor wrote the nicest rejection letter a 13 year writer ever received). Of all of them though, only Analog was hard sf. Even if had few subscribers.

But Analog soldiers on, even if only bimonthly and with fewer readers than a rural zipcode. I bought a copy a few years ago. It was good, and it was still amazingly following the formula, but it's a very limited fanbase

 

Point taken. But I do think for viewers it would be hard for Devil in The Dark to be taken seriously as a concept without one side being "monstrous." The whole point of the episode is that one group of "people" are so alien they can't even be understood as intelligent life.

Now I'm trying to think if there is any good episode of Trek which couldn't be told as fantasy, magical realism, or just a completely mundane story. Maybe The Measure of a Man?

 

After seven episodes, the drip... drip... drip... should begin to add up to something, anything. And, so far, the Discovery folks feel no more like fleshed out characters than they did after episode one (and three in the case of some characters).

 

"The Measure of a Man" could easily be told in a modern or historical context, about how we see minorities that live in our society.

 

This is where you and I will fundamentally disagree.

I think they've started to unwrap enough of the characters to setup the next episode, and the next, and the next. What we've gotten out of Stamets, Burnham, Lorca, Saru and Tilly has been great in my opinion. Just enough to make me wanna watch the next, and see a little more unwrapped. My kinda show. I like the slow drip.

 

I think the difference is due to intent, not ineptitude on the part of Discovery. As an example, The Orville would give Captain Mercer development as a person to entertain us for an hour and hopefully deepen our empathy for him. Discovery might give Captain Lorca some character development, but it also wants to have us invested in the mystery of why he does something. IMHO this is actually a much harder thing to pull off, because it means you don't need to only characterize consistently and have realistic interactions, you also need to dole out just enough about a character to keep the audience interested, without frustrating them with mystery or boring them.