Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by Jedi_Master, May 18, 2017.
I think, honestly, they should have had CONTEXT IS FOR KINGS as the first episode then had this as a mid-season pair of shows.
Basically just throwing out a mystery of, "She's a mutineer", "She killed the Warlord of the Klingons", and so on.
Then we see how.
That's kind of a false analogy. If I say how much Mass Effect reminds me of Star Trek, that's telling me how much it has elements of something I like.
But if you insist:
"The Orville is a funny, light, enjoyable piece of science fiction entertainment which has likable characters as well as interesting if not always well-written sci-fi satire. The characters have great chemistry, especially the two leads, and Seth MacFarlane actually manages to project the authority a starship captain should possess when he's not trying (and failing) to bond with his crew. Adrianne Palicki is amazing as always and it's kind of a shame she's not the star even if I've just talked up Seth. The weakest part of the show is, ironically, the scripts as better writers would improve on the fact this is an excellent cast with good special effects. People have said Galaxy Quest or Family Guy but the closer comparison is Buffy: The Vampire Slayer. The idea is meant to be this is a serious world with incredibly irreverent characters. Also, they keep the damn lights on in the ship."
I agree with your first point, but not your second. I cannot understand even bringing Babylon 5 into the argument, because even its staunchest fans agree it was almost entirely unwatchable until the back end of Season 1. G'Kar was a one-note smug snake still by the end of the third episode. Really Londo was the only one starting to take form, and that was because the third episode was entirely set aside as character development for him.
My biggets criticism of the Orville is the juvenile humor often falls flat.
My biggest praise of the Orville is I like all the characters, they play off one another, and both Seth as well as Adrianne are extremely strong actors with great chemistry.
I think the show is a solid 8 and would be a 9 or 10 if they just had someone go over the scripts and dial some of the dumb back as well as remove the execrable infidelity element.
It's not Firefly but it's I put it over Enterprise and maybe Voyager.
Neither show is everything I wanted it to be, but I think Orville has found a niche for itself in a way that Discovery thus far has not. That Orville is dated is its strength; it stands out, just as Discovery would have a decade ago.
Orville comes across as a blend of TOS and TNG with more jokes. The weakness is that a lot of the jokes don't work (especially in the pilot), and the specific episodes are derivative. On the other hand, they are exploring interesting ideas, even if not breaking new ground. But the cast was introduced well even in the first ep, and I would love to be on that ship with them.
Discovery is modern television, and thus directly competing with most of what's being made today. It could be good; we're just getting to know the characters, I'm sure they'll work to redeem Burnham, and several of the others have potential. But after three eps we don't know them or most of the relationships between them very well at all yet. Have we even seen Lorca talk to Saru? (I would be much more satisfied with what's been established thus far if "Context" had been the first part of a two-part pilot.)
I'm happy with the change from episodic to arc-based shows, in general. But it's nice to see something break from the trends, just for variety.
That's the only game there is.
It is only in the context of "past Trek" that this show had any chance at all of getting on the air or of having a significant part of the audience cut it the slack that it needs, week after week.
If that's your opinion of Orville then that's all fair. Except for the snarky line at the end that is a clear comparison to the stupid criticism of Discovery's lighting. You through that in there to be a dick. My review would be:
"The Orville is a thoroughly unfunny and bland piece of science fiction that aims to retread tired ground and overused tropes to comic affect, but fails miserably. It is neither a successful comedy or compelling science fiction. The show seems to be nothing more than an ego project for Seth McFarlane, and a lifeless attempt at what he self-proclaimed as a new genre. It is completely and totally impotent."
Irrelevant to the ultimate quality show that resulted. We could say the same for Better Call Saul, which is churning out some of the best television of the past 20 years.
That is a big assumption. I'm not cutting it slack. I genuinely enjoy, as both its own show, and as a continuance of the Trek franchise. I thought "to me" was the only game? You seem to be speaking for an awful lot of people.
Frankly, Orville is living off the Trek connections and homages. Without them, I'm not sure how it would survive. Almost every comment I read is comparing it to past Trek (positively of course), and saying how "true to trek" it is.
Take all the Trek homages away, visually and otherwise, and would anyone care?
You've got it all backwards, and its so amusing.
I'm not sure that Star Trek is well formulated any more for people who really like science fiction as such; particularly not readers.
No, it's a complaint about Generations not Discovery.
Or maybe you were talking about Pike's bridge.
Or maybe Sisko's Defiant?
Or maybe Harriman's Enterprise B?
Or maybe the D's battle bridge?
Or the Enterprise refit?
Or maybe you meant the NX-01?
or even the Voyager bridge?
I know you certainly didn't mean the JJ Abrams Enterprise, which everyone says Discovery looks just like!
Oh, come now. We're talking about Star Trek fans here. We'll argue about everything, no matter if it's actually something that needs discussion.
The things you point out are simply not, in my opinion, things that a general viewer would ever need to explain. The show does give us answers. Why did Burnham break into the lab? Lorca calls her out as someone who does what she believes right even if authority tells her not to do so; given how she adheres to Starfleet principles, is it any wonder that she pursues the truth? Why would they use a breath-sensing lock? Because it's a realistic piece of technology we're already looking at today, and because it seems like a easy way to admit certain persons? Why would Burham suddenly commit mutiny? The show spends a lot of time explaining precisely that. She's trying to avert a war.
We can agree to disagree, but my experience is that the casual viewer is not likely to see these things as gaps; we see them as such in part because we demand detail beyond the scope of the small screen, and because we bring with us a lot of baggage as Trek fans. No matter how perfect the show, the forums are still going to light up with fans trying to fill in "gaps" in the storytelling.
But can they actually redeem her?
Acting issues aside, the first three episodes did a pretty good job as cementing her as a thoroughly unlikable character. And not even unlikable in a good way like Jayne or Bester.
People dont' just "like" something arbitrarily. They may have difficulty understanding why they like it, but there's always a reason.
More specifically, why can't some arcs be OK and not others? Details matter.
For instance, there are going to be people who feel that the infidelity arc is just too petty. They appreciate the focus on the sprawling intergalactic conflict in DSC and how it relates to current politics. Macro vs. micro.
You know I literally mean lighting, right?
As in the bridge isn't brightly lit on Discovery vs. Orville.
I feel like this is a more personal issue for you than it should be.
But yes, LIGHT and OPEN SPACES.
Dark and dreary.
It's like a submarine on the Discovery.
Also, there's no reason I can't enjoy both. This whole thing was embarrassing when it was Kirk or Picard but I think most people still enjoyed it as a funny conversation point. Here, it's like it's opposing football teams when they're both in the same city you live in.
I watch Orville for funny laughs and an optimistic story.
I watch Discovery for Klingons and seeing the Federation under siege.
It's like saying I can't enjoy The Tick and Batman both.
As a fan of both shows to varying degrees, I must ask where did he "self-proclaim" the show as a "new(!)" genre??
Separate names with a comma.