Discovery and "The Orville" Comparisons

I find the characters in Orville entertaining.
I find the characters in Discovery compelling.

It’s two very different sorts of storytelling. Entertainment is about escape and so I can then appreciate why some feel Orville is better. But, in some ways, I want to be challenged, whether that be in my own beliefs or long-held beliefs about a franchise. Disco isn’t there quite yet but I think it has more of a possibility of doing so than Orville. At the same time, I believe that Orville relies a little too much on pop culture references than it needs to (I kinda hated the crew watching Seinfeld on the bridge), while Disco takes itself a little too seriously (those Klingons... not the look, just the way they’re portrayed). That doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate both for what they are.

They are, at the end of the day, two very different things that have remarkably similar surface details.

 

I guess that when I watch Discovery, I'm wanting to watch "Star Trek", and it simply doesn't feel like that is part of its DNA. It may look like "Star Trek", but, so far, it is missing the soul of Star Trek. At least to me.

Don't get me wrong, I know a lot of work has went into this series. But, right now? It feels like The Expanse or Battlestar (2004). If I wanted something like those shows, I could simply watch those shows. Star Trek, overall, has a uniquely optimistic view of the future. It is one of its traits, something that is missing in pretty much everything else (except The Orville, funny enough) in the current landscape.

 

I respect that viewpoint. I guess since this is a different kind of Star Trek story, I’m cutting it a little slack. I think— I hope that by the end of the season, we’ll see that Trek soul you believe, perhaps fairly, is currently missing.

 

I'm really hoping so as well.

 

Hrrm. I'm definitely more an "ideas" guy than a "character" guy. I mostly read nonfiction, but when I do read fiction (almost always science fiction) I like the concepts and setting more than the characters, whose names I frequently forget as soon as I am done with a novel. I've frequently been as entertained by fictional "guides" to settings which get into history, biology, technology as I have straight ahead stories. And I think part of the reason I avoid more pure, literary fiction is a story with nothing but character development is boring to me. I'm just not that interested in people when compared to concepts.

That said, I can tell when there is bad characterization, and it's very distracting. I do not want to have a character suddenly undertake a dramatic personality shift just because it serves the plot well. The classic Trekverse example is Janeway's "split personality" depending upon who was writing a the episode of the week. Even if the core story is interesting, if the characters are shallow and inconsistent it breaks immersion, and means you will not be swept up into the story.

Thus, I think both are needed to make an entertaining story, at least for me. The ideas are what I can spend my time mulling over, but I need the characters to be plausible human beings so they can just fade into the background.

 

"Planet of the week" plotlines can be a mixed bag. The idea that they require "original thinking" is a nice sentiment, but rarely accurate. Much like Star Wars, with single biome planets, Star Trek often had the "Western planet" "Nazi Planet" "Gangster Planet" "Vietnam Planet" "Feminist Planet" etc, etc.

The idea that its "lazy writing" because its been done before is an argument that will never sit well with me because even if an idea or story has been expressed before, the characters are what can make it dynamic. "Lion King" is Hamlet in the savanna. Does that take away its impact? Star Wars, the first film, is the "Hero's Journey" without question, and yet the impact remains for 40 years.

I think in DSC's case, they are setting up a lot more of this era of Star Trek, rather than just jumping in to the adventure of the week. I kind of get the sense that as the characters are unpacked, the world will become more clear, and the optimism will start breaking through the challenges set up in the early season.

I almost get a "Daredevil" vibe more than anything else.

 

Technically and in terms of craftsmanship, The Orville is the better of the two shows.

1: Story cohesion.
“Show it don’t tell it” is a well known term for what a TV show is supposed to achieve. If you look at the two shows there’s a stark difference in terms of the quality of writing. Episodes of The Orville make sense and are true to the in-show universe. The show manages to tell a story without a lot of post-episode speculation and filling in the blanks.

Star Trek Discovery otoh? Not so much. After each episode of STD, the forums light up with fans trying to fill in gaps in the storytelling, and figure out stuff that didn’t make sense: Why did Burnham break into the lab? Why would they use a breath-sensing lock? Why would Burnham suddenly commit mutiny?

This is indicative of a poorly written show, where the audience is left wondering about this stuff, and filling in blanks that shouldn’t have been there. The set and setting and characters and their motivations are either not explained, or poorly sketched out.

2: Characters.
This is another point where STD really drops the ball. The Orville isn’t pretending to have super-deep and complex characters, but even after just 2-3 episodes I care about these characters and what happens to them. How about the characters on STD? After 3 episodes I still don’t give a toss about any of them, with perhaps Cpt. Lorca being the only bright spot or exception.

Burnham is supposed to be the main character, but she could get thrown out of an airlock in the next episode, and I honestly wouldn’t care. In fact, I doubt that even people who LIKE to watch STD (or want to like it) would be very upset if Burnham got spaced.

Now some might say that you can’t compare the characters on the two shows, so fine: Let’s compare STD with another character driven sci-fi show with complex characters: Babylon 5. B5 had bad guys you couldn’t help but cheer for like Londo. Truly tragic figures like G’Kar. Badass bad guys like Bester or Morden and badass good guys like Ivanovich or the head of security.

STD got.... Well, there’s Lorca and that’s pretty much it. None of the other characters are terribly interesting or noteworthy. It’s just a crew full of forgettable characters on a show that tries too hard to be BSG with a thin Trek veneer.


EDIT: BTW, Criticism of STD often gets handwaved away with ad hominems about Trekkies who just can’t adjust, but personally I’m pretty far from a “OMG! Gene’s vision!” Kinda Trekkie.

I loved The Expanse and don’t have anything against gritty sci-fi. I don’t like poorly written, gritty sci-fi however, and that’s mainly where my beef with STD is.

 

I am most certainly biased against Orville, but there's a good reason for that: I do not like Seth McFarlane's material (never have) and I generally don't like sci-fi spoofs.

Frankly I don't think there is much to compare here. One is meant as a light hearted comedy, the other a serious drama.

I would rather compare Orville to other comedies, and Discovery to other dramas. So the question is, how does Orville stack up against, say, Big Bang Theory, Modern Family, Veep, or Arrested Development (or even Red Dwarf if we want to get specific to sci-fi comedies); and how does Discovery compare to shows like Game of Thrones, Westworld, Orphan Black, The Expanse, or American Horror Story?

 

I guess we’ll have to wait and see, but I think anyone hoping for a bit of Trek optimism will be severely disappointed.

The show and the producers have already made it clear that this show is oh-so dark and oh-so gritty.

Heck, remember when they asked the actress who plays Burnham about computer sting Trek with The Walking Dead, and age replied that the two shows are similar in many ways(!)?

 

I find the characters in Discovery, to the extent that they even can be called characters, annoying.

Well, except Lorca - he's straight-up in his assholery, and I like that.

 

Annoying would be something. I find them painfully bland.

 

The only character I like so far on Discovery is Captain Lorca, his introduction pretty much stabilised the show all on his own, Burnham just isn't doing it for me, I like most of the cast on the Orville, they each have a specific story/plot/humour purpose.

On saying that The Orville does have the advantage in numbers of episodes shown so Discovery's characters will grow on me as more episodes are aired I am sure, I will just pretend that the first two episodes never happened.

I want them to hurry up with "The Head" episode so I can change my avatar and name to match.

 

Sounds like you haven’t seen The Orville if you call it a sci-fi-spoof or a light hearted comedy. The comedy element is a secondary one in most episodes, and the focus is on drama and trek-like sci-fi. Crew members get shot, bleed and the stakes are high. It’s a sci-fi show with a Trek soul first, and a comedy second, which is why you can’t compare it with comedies.

Its a different story as for STD, IMHO. That’s a show where it makes sense to compare it to GOT or another ambitious sci-fi show like The Expanse or Babylon 5. It comes out looking pretty poorly however.

The excuse here is often: “Whoah! We’re only three episodes in! Give the show room to grow.”

Which of course ignores that even if you only compare STD with the first three episodes of The Expanse or B5, STD still looks really poor. The first three episodes of (especially) The Expanse but also B5 are far more entertaining, way more fleshed out and overall much better written than the first three episodes of STD.

 

I think part of the problem, thus far, for Discovery, is that it seems like three different shows. The focus on the Shenzhou, the focus on the Klingons, the focus on the Discovery.

They probably should've figured out a way to focus on Discovery early on then introduce the Shenzhou and Klingon bits later on.

 

Those first two episodes did the show no favors at all.

 

Many viewers, myself included, who enjoyed the 2-part premiere, and felt that it added some very interesting set up to a show where "context is king."

Never before have we had a key cast member who was said to be involved in a major incident that became a cornerstone of their character had that incident so thoroughly explored out of the gate. We could have started with Ep.3 and been told through dialog about Burnham's actions at the Battle of The Binary Stars, but instead we saw the entire incident, in full, as a 2-part episode. A very bold move.

Traditionally, characters like this were handled the latter way; we got no glimpse of Worf and the Khitomer massacre. We never saw Picard on the Stargazer under attack by the Ferengi. We got only a 2-minute glimpse of Sisko at Wolf 359. We were mostly only told about these incidents, and how they affected the characters. But here we SAW it. We saw the context, we saw the consequences, both on Burnham and the other characters. We understand both her point of view and those of her fellow officers.

Maybe it didn't resonate with some (such as you) but if nothing else you should be able to appreciate that they tried to do a lot character exploration in that premiere, and launch a series in a new and different way. I enjoyed it.

But there've been times in cinema and on TV where the results were mixed for me, but I still applauded the attempt. I think these bold choices need to be recognized.

 

I think the writers/producers of STD has a “this isn’t your usual Trek!” compulsion or idée fixe, which usually works to their disadvantage.

Starting out with a brand new ship and crew and devoting the first episode to that, worked well on numerous ST shows, and would probably have worked well for STD too.

But “This isn’t your usual Trek!” so of course they didn’t do that. Unfortunately.

 

They didn't have the chops to pull it off. The Klingons were terrible, and the Shenzhou was a dull mess. There was nothing exciting about any of it. We even knew that Georgiou was going to bite the dust.

It was the most anti-climatic Trek premiere that I can remember.

 

In my opinion too much of the audience is using past trek as a comparison; which of course is inevitable, but viewed on its own merits, I think it stands up well.

I've seen a ton of comments saying "if it didn't have Star Trek in the title I'd enjoy it more." Which tells me a lot of people think this show is very, very good.

By contrast, take away the Trek homages, and could you say the same for Orville? Doubtful: most of the comments I see related to Orville are how it positively reminds them of TNG era Trek. They make few comments on how Orville stands on its own merits.

 

To you.