• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Discovery and "The Orville" Comparisons

"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.

Yeah. Upon deeper thought I'm going to say that all of the plots that required the sci-fi to work are middling to truly awful (like Threshold). If people have counterexamples I'm all ears.
 
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.

It's one of the reasons I'm happy we have both. I like the differing styles and like that I can get what I want from either or.

We had that in Firefly, such a shame really.
 
. TSR's version of Amazing was my favorite back then, and it didn't take itself too seriously.. . . while Aboriginal SF rocked while it lasted.

Hah! I made my first professional sales to that incarnation of AMAZING, edited by George Scithers, who, yeah, only bought my humorous stories! And I sold two stories (both comedies) to ABORIGINAL SF as well, back when I was just starting out.

Ah, youth! :)
 
Some or all of that could be blamed on Paramount. Do we know for sure how much control Braga & Berman really had?

Plus Braga was only co-executive producer on VOY for 2 years.

We can blame Paramount for a lot of things, but execution will always come down to Berman and Braga. Archer isn't written like a doofus in the early seasons because of Paramount, it's because of B&B's awful judgement. I'm sure if Paramount allowed Braga to do the original ideas did Enterprise we would still have had the issues that plagued the first two seasons. I don't hate them like a lot of the fanbase did. Braga had genuinely great work under his belt during the TNG days and Berman was a better producer than a writer. I always keep that in mind. But it's no coincidence that ENT got better when they stepped back and had new writers contribute.

Plus I think Braga's input was much better when he was paired with someone that brought the best out of him. When he worked with Piiller, Moore, or Menosky, there's some genuinely great stuff. When paired up with Berman... not so much.
 
Probably not. Or else publishers wouldn't pass on them to the degree that they do.

To be fair, I can't speak for other editors or publishers. We all have our individual tastes and quirks, even at the same companies. I have occasionally passed a submission on to another editor because "this seems more like your kind of thing" and vice versa.

Not every submission fits every editor. But, yes, the "concept over character" school of SF--or STAR TREK--doesn't push my buttons.

And this where I brag about a book I edited, ALL THOSE EXPLOSIONS WERE SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT by James Alan Gardner, making B&N's List of the Best SF & Fantasy Books of November, which I just found out about yesterday.

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/blog/sci-fi-fantasy/best-science-fiction-fantasy-books-november-2017/

(Which has nothing to do with THE ORVILLE, I know, but can't resist sharing.)
 
Last edited:
Plus I think Braga's input was much better when he was paired with someone that brought the best out of him. When he worked with Piiller, Moore, or Menosky, there's some genuinely great stuff. When paired up with Berman... not so much.
I don't care for Mr. Braga, but even I will concede the point above. Brannon Braga could probably always be counted on to come up with a 'high concept/wacky idea' - and when paired with a partner that understood how to write a good story; said partner helped work an actual story around that idea that was okay to very well done at times. But Branon Braga on his own (or paired with someone equally 'burned out') usually = :barf:
 
Love Braga and Berman, always have... no joke. They are responsible for the Trek I love the very most. I think they are highly underrated and get a lot of shit, but in the end, they defined an era, simple as that.
 
I think Braga gets a bum rap sometimes. My impression was always that some fans never forgave him for admitting that (gasp!) he wasn't a big fan of TOS at first . . ...
 
I think Braga gets a bum rap sometimes. My impression was always that some fans never forgave him for admitting that (gasp!) he wasn't a big fan of TOS at first . . ...

Just looking at his shows (e.g., discounting the stuff he wrote with Moore, since people tend to presume Moore wrote all the good stuff) he managed to pen Cause and Effect, Birthright, Part 1, and Parallels, which shows he's capable of top-quality Trek.
 
Just looking at his shows (e.g., discounting the stuff he wrote with Moore, since people tend to presume Moore wrote all the good stuff) he managed to pen Cause and Effect, Birthright, Part 1, and Parallels, which shows he's capable of top-quality Trek.

Which were all under showrunner Piller, to be fair. It's when Braga became showrunner himself that his work wasn't living up to his pre-showrunnning years.
 
Which were all under showrunner Piller, to be fair. It's when Braga became showrunner himself that his work wasn't living up to his pre-showrunnning years.

Agreed that Braga didn't really shine as a showrunner. Though it's hard to judge how this really affected his writing, because to the best of my knowledge he only directly wrote seven Voyager episodes without someone else being involved, and at the very least Berman took co-writing credit on every Enterprise episode he touched.
 
It may well be "fluffy", but the characters feel far more fleshed out than their Discovery counterparts.
Really? You're not referring to all the Orv characters, are you? You think John Lamarr and that goofball who sits next to him (actually, the're both goofballs) are more fleshed out as characters than Lorca, Burnham, Saru, and Tilly? I'd be willing to bet that you know more about the latter in terms of background, likes and dislikes, personal history, etc, than you know about the former.
 
I know I've gotten a lot more mileage out of TOS, the first couple of seasons of TNG and TMP than I have out of the rest of Trek combined.

I've probably seen "Spock's Brain", "Code of Honor" and The Motion Picture more than "The Best of Both Worlds", "The Inner Light" and "In the Pale Moonlight". :rofl:

I'm very curious, what is it that makes the first two seasons of TNG work better for you than the remaining seasons, and is there anything from that Michael Piller era that works for you on any level?
 
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.
Same here. I am truly baffled by this. Not sure what kind of character development is expected, but if I miss an episode of Discovery then I feel like I missed something important, character wise.
 
Orville's Isaac looks and sounds kinda like Automated Unit 3947

GS0rzCq.jpg
 
Same here. I am truly baffled by this. Not sure what kind of character development is expected, but if I miss an episode of Discovery then I feel like I missed something important, character wise.

I know people hate these comparisons, but it's like...what...character development like in the other Treks? Aside from the TOS movies and a little in DS9, generally no character development in the franchise is static.
 
Last edited:
I know people hate these comparisons, but it's like...what...character development like in the other Treks? Aside from the TOS movies and a little in DS9, generally no character development in the franchise is static.
Every series devotes a few episodes almost entirely to one character. I think the fans of Discovery hate the comparisons with Orville because they hate being reminded that Discovery can do so much better and are confronted with the evidence of that with new episodes of Orville every week. Hopefully the writers over at CBS learned something
 
Every series devotes a few episodes almost entirely to one character. I think the fans of Discovery hate the comparisons with Orville because they hate being reminded that Discovery can do so much better and are confronted with the evidence of that with new episodes of Orville every week. Hopefully the writers over at CBS learned something
That's not my reasoning at all.
 
Here is some character development from TNG's first season

TNG - Hide & Q, 11001001 (Riker)
TNG - Datalore (Data)
TNG - Hear of Glory (Worf, Geordie in the beginning of the episode)
TNG - Justice (Wesley & Beverely)
TNG - When The Bough Breaks (Wesley)
TNG - We'll Always Have Paris (Picard)
TNG - Code of Honour (Tasha)
TNG - Haven (Deanna and Lwaxana Troi)
TNG - The Arsenal Of Freedom (Geordie, Beverly & Picard)

They devote to each character see?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top