Discovery and "The Orville" Comparisons
- Thread starter Jedi_Master
- Start date
I AGREE. It's tough enough to participate on a thread that asks us to compare Discovery and the Orville. Then actually have to read some of the positives and negatives associated with each of these two shows.
I avoided Orville like the plague. I don't like comedy usually and assumed it would be too goofy for my taste and an insulting copycat to Star Trek. Then a co-worker told me to watch it. Anyway it's disappointing for me when a show that goes from being avoided like the plague to being easily better than Star Trek Discovery. It represents everything that the Discovery series is lacking. How could they let this happen? Hopefully CBS will get on their game next season.
I wasn't arguing that Scotty was a main character. I was only saying that he was at least given an episode which centered around him, which none of the other secondary characters got. Hell, I only think there was one McCoy episode (For the World is Hollow and I have Touched the Sky)
TOS had three main characters (Kirk, Spock, and McCoy) and four secondary characters (Scotty, Sulu, Checkov, and Uhura). Nurse Chapel and Yeoman Rand were semi-recurring, but not even part of the main cast, IMHO.
I feel like every character should have some focus, but not in every episode. Take last Sunday's episode as an example. The ship combat scene at the beginning was cool, but arguably put in so Lorca could do something that week. And the subplot regarding Stamets and Tilly was there to just give them an excuse to show up. Cut those out and you have room to let the Saru/Burnham/Tyler plot and the Klingon stuff shine.
Of course, Trek has always been guilty of this. DS9 commonly had useless station scenes at the beginning or the end of an episode just to make sure all the main cast appeared that week. Reportedly the reason why Andrew Robinson turned down the opportunity to be a main cast member was he thought his character worked better only used where appropriate for the story. I'm not sure if this has something to do with SAG rules or what, but a system which guaranteed main cast a certain number of minutes per season rather than appearing in every episode would be preferable.
The early portion of TOS season 1 was interesting, because before they figured out the Kirk-Spock-McCoy triumvirate, they were flailing around for ideas. Some of the early episodes are like "the adventures of Captain Kirk" while others (like say Charlie X) are legit proto-ensemble shows.
A couple weeks ago I gave Discovery a 6/10 and Orville a 5/10, now I think it's more like 4/10 and 6/10. Orville is gradually finding its footing and improving though still being a disposable faximile of much better Trek whereas Discovery seems like it's trying to do really cool things and just completely mis-executing all of them.
Rainn Wilson should have been main cast, since he's the only fun the show has ever had and been the focus of the show's only really good episode. For a show that takes itself so seriously, it needs to figure out how to plot and write compelling villains. Orville doesn't always know how to plot and write compelling villains either, but it's more okay for Orville because it takes itself less seriously.
I still think that a show that took the best of Discovery and combined it with the best of Orville would be much better than either one individually. But when Orville fails, at least you're still having some fun. When Discovery fails you want your hour back.
Rainn Wilson should have been main cast, since he's the only fun the show has ever had and been the focus of the show's only really good episode. For a show that takes itself so seriously, it needs to figure out how to plot and write compelling villains. Orville doesn't always know how to plot and write compelling villains either, but it's more okay for Orville because it takes itself less seriously.
I still think that a show that took the best of Discovery and combined it with the best of Orville would be much better than either one individually. But when Orville fails, at least you're still having some fun. When Discovery fails you want your hour back.
Because they wanted to do something different. Whether it works or not, they are trying to reach a new audience.
They are not surprised by "letting this happen." These are all conscious choices designed to work to become more contemporary in style and storytelling.
I think part of the Discovery's problem is that it's trying to establish too much too fast, which i think is a legacy problem from when fuller was in charge. It's trying to establish Burnham, re-introduce the Klingons, discuss the ethical issues of the Spore drive. There is too much going on. The strongest episodes of the series so far IMHO, are 'Lethe' and 'Magic to make the sanest man go Mad' neither of which focused on the war or the spore drive. We got a character study that sympathised Burnham and a fun ensemble piece that gave a few characters time to shine.
I think the series should have started out focused on exploration and character building. The Klingons could still have featured in the premiere but the should have been set up as recurring villains who would be a thorn in the side of the federation but not in outright war with them. For some reason this week's episode has given me the impression that the current showrunners, may not be that interested in the Klingon war and are preparing to wrap it up to move onto different storylines.
Altogether? No, it didn't. Calling the space warp the Glory Hole and blasting apart the game device were both comedy. Not the only examples, I'm sure.
The Orville has gotten pretty good pretty fast after a terrible pilot episode. The rate of improvement with Discovery is slower. But it is getting better.
I watched both for a while. I like The Orville. I disliked Discovery. The latter is not very good.
I think the guys from The Orville are doing a great job. STD however is a mess. It's evidently something other than Star Trek but it's trying desperately to prove it isn't. That's really lame. I get the impression that those working on STD have no clue about science fiction nor Star Trek nor do they even care. Orville, however, seems to be a labor of love and great care, while attempting to create something intelligent and entertaining at the same time (the hallmark of Star Trek). Well, OK, there are a couple of lame jokes here and there, but generally those don't impact the overall quality of the show. So, without any doubt, I'd say The Orville is a much better sci-fi show currently in many aspects.
More accurately, you're including whatever you want, wherever you want. Double or triple standards across every series, just as long as Discovery comes in last. Through an incredible display of mental gymnastics, you've managed to convince yourself that Discovery is the only show to regularly feature undeveloped background characters and other Treks had up to 20 "main" characters while Discovery still only has 6.
All you had to say was that Discovery's main cast bores you. No one could say you are wrong about how you feel about them. Instead you pretended you were being objectively analytical, and came up with one of the most ridiculous and laughable arguments this forum has ever seen.
Anyone who is being truly objective and honest will be able to tell you who the main characters are after watching a season, even if they hate those characters. If you asked them to expand that list, they would include people like Seska, Dukat, and Admiral Cornwell, but they still wouldn't include recurring background characters like Ayala, Morn, Robot Person, or Lady With Messed Up Eye.
You pretending DSC's "so called main characters" are overshadowed by its background characters is incredibly, transparently dishonest.
Your argument that recurring background characters in other series are dissimilar, because they technically don't appear in "every episode" like DSC's, is grasping at straws. It's also factually incorrect because DSC's haven't appeared in every episode either, and the premise that a background character must be absent some episodes is absurd to begin with.
Your argument that DSC has a "shortage" of developed characters is, again, factually incorrect, and, again, the premise is absurd. A show's success is not related to the number of main characters.
This is all true regardless of your overall opinion of any of these shows or their characters.
You mean discovery needs boner and glory hole jokes? A crew of people who get into trouble by dry humping statues, cutting off one another's legs, captain who panic runs off his bridge cause he found out his ex wife was is 1st officer?
Every show gets directives from those that are funding its production. MacFarlane can probably get away with ignoring some directives due to his relationship with FOX. But, a good show is a good show, they overcome hurdles. We expect this from every other show we invest time in, why not Star Trek?
Discovery desperately needs all of the above. I've never seen a Star Trek that takes itself so seriously, and I was around during the Berman years. Discovery makes Deep Space Nine look like The Orville. It also needs an episode where Burnham goes around drawing dicks on Borg as they regenerate.
Last edited:
Discovery takes itself too seriously but no, it needs none of what I mentioned. Needing some light hearted fair is not the same as needing boner jokes and random ineptitude.
Isn't it better if the two shows are different?
Maybe? If one wasn't boring me to tears.
My wife asked me today, "when are we going to watch Battlestar this week?"
Maybe? If one wasn't boring me to tears.
My wife asked me today, "when are we going to watch Battlestar this week?"
Well if you simply don't like the show I can't say you're wrong. I do and I wouldn't like if it was just like the Orville,
Similar threads
