I wonder if that was a slam at affirmative action? I really don't know MacFarlane's political leanings.
News Seth MacFarlane’s The Orville
- Thread starter Kai "the spy"
- Start date
I wonder if that was a slam at affirmative action? I really don't know MacFarlane's political leanings.
As the show is generally been seen as referencing Star Trek I'm going to say that the later was never great for giving much in the way of of introduction or detailing to the characters are the beginning.
That was very enjoyable introductory episode, I was pleasantly surprised by it and from what I've seen most of the reactions seem positive(I've only skimmed through the thread, it's already 25 pages since I last checked in prior to the premiere) so I hope they build on that good faith in the following episodes. 
Favourite line:
"Sorry, still learning names."
-Bashir's dad
Favourite line:
"Sorry, still learning names."
-Bashir's dad
She was fast-tracked for her super-strength, by implication since the numbers of supers in the ranks were few and far between, so I gotta say that I really didn't get that vibe.
I thought she was fast-tracked because of her species had few people in the Planetary Union? I might have misheard it.
She said her people don't usually join the military.
While the show has potential, just going upon the pilot, it has a number of issues.
The Problems, as I See Them:
* The cinematography. Where are the memorable establishing shots? Scenes that "look" right? Nothing stood out, the view of the viewscreen at warp looked like a gimmick shot, there's nothing that says I'm watching this show as opposed to some other show.
*The writing. There's a little too much humor, especially during what is supposed to be dramatic scenes. See "Serenity" on how to do it right. See this on how to do it wrong. It's even more noticeable that some of the comedy out out-of-place and there's not even any scoring to help prop it up until Seth stops.
* The pacing. It's simply at times too fast. And the editing didn't help at times.
* The characters are a little too similar and not defined enough. I'm sure that'll be worked out in the next episodes.
* It doesn't seem like enough thought was put into the ship and its tech and how to talk about it. Talking about shields being "Two thirds down"? So, is that how it works? They handily go down by thirds? Try percentages, Seth. Hell, if it wasn't for the fact the Bridge has some similar Trek ideas to pay out, I wouldn't even know what some of the areas are -- I still don't know what everything is (at least TNG handily labeled stations behind Worf)
* The pilot felt like regular episode. Where is the grandeur? Where is the wow of a pilot we should get? That said, it's better than the pilots "Encounter at Farpoint" and the Voyager pilot.
* How much of this bickering couple thing are we going to get? It was old before the episode was over.
* The ship looks like that second-before-last pass the producers give before the final refined version gets approved. I think it's mostly the clam-shell three-ring quantum drive thingies.
* The uniforms look cheap and kind of 1970's cheesy.
* It seems, at least to me, actors/actresses aren't allowed to make to shape their character enough and the script instead is shaping them. Good shows and their respective good characters have actors and guest stars help shape and define their character
Things It Got Right:
* The scoring.
* Most of the interior ship design.
* The casting of Bortus.
* The action scenes (mostly).
* Can't say anything about the sound design inside of the ship.
The Problems, as I See Them:
* The cinematography. Where are the memorable establishing shots? Scenes that "look" right? Nothing stood out, the view of the viewscreen at warp looked like a gimmick shot, there's nothing that says I'm watching this show as opposed to some other show.
*The writing. There's a little too much humor, especially during what is supposed to be dramatic scenes. See "Serenity" on how to do it right. See this on how to do it wrong. It's even more noticeable that some of the comedy out out-of-place and there's not even any scoring to help prop it up until Seth stops.
* The pacing. It's simply at times too fast. And the editing didn't help at times.
* The characters are a little too similar and not defined enough. I'm sure that'll be worked out in the next episodes.
* It doesn't seem like enough thought was put into the ship and its tech and how to talk about it. Talking about shields being "Two thirds down"? So, is that how it works? They handily go down by thirds? Try percentages, Seth. Hell, if it wasn't for the fact the Bridge has some similar Trek ideas to pay out, I wouldn't even know what some of the areas are -- I still don't know what everything is (at least TNG handily labeled stations behind Worf)
* The pilot felt like regular episode. Where is the grandeur? Where is the wow of a pilot we should get? That said, it's better than the pilots "Encounter at Farpoint" and the Voyager pilot.
* How much of this bickering couple thing are we going to get? It was old before the episode was over.
* The ship looks like that second-before-last pass the producers give before the final refined version gets approved. I think it's mostly the clam-shell three-ring quantum drive thingies.
* The uniforms look cheap and kind of 1970's cheesy.
* It seems, at least to me, actors/actresses aren't allowed to make to shape their character enough and the script instead is shaping them. Good shows and their respective good characters have actors and guest stars help shape and define their character
Things It Got Right:
* The scoring.
* Most of the interior ship design.
* The casting of Bortus.
* The action scenes (mostly).
* Can't say anything about the sound design inside of the ship.
Oh, fuck no. Got enough of that during Trek.
re: The atom in the medical emblem.
The doctor has qualifications in "molecular surgery." Maybe the atom is there for that.
The doctor has qualifications in "molecular surgery." Maybe the atom is there for that.
You understand that using thirds and halves was a total slam of percentages, right?
It's not a matter of understanding, it's a matter of how effective what they use is in the episode, and that's not useful.
I want them to go into eighths, sixteenths and thirty-seconds and have the Captain break his brain trying to convert the fractions into percentages in the middle of a battle.
Was useful enough to me, it got the point across.
I would find that very amusing, especially as he inevitably gets the conversions wrong and someone (probably Isaac) points out how wrong he is.
Isaac could say shields went from one-third to two-sevenths, and Ed might not know whether the shield strength went up or down. 
Even better!
I doubt it, it was just to sketch out the background of the character and the universe a bit more.
But from what I've read and especially heard from people who have had interactions with Seth MacFarlane in the past, he leans pretty solidly right.
I just watched the episode again, thanks to whoever mentioned it was on Hulu. I didn't dislike it quite as much the second time around, but I think I got a better overall idea of what I didn't like about the pilot.
One of the reasons the critics have said that the show doesn't know what it really wants to be is because the producers have been quoted as saying the show is not a spoof/parody, but the way the show is written, especially the jokes, Orville plays like a spoof/parody. The jokes were the generic deadpan/ironic style we see in lots of sitcoms but completely lack the self awareness required to make the humor sharp and incisive.
I hate to compare it to GQ because it is really unfair especially since I'm taking about just the first episode here. But what made that movie so memorable was it's self awareness and ability to craft gags to take advantage of that self awareness. GQ was able to bounce between parody and heatfelt homage cleverly and at will. Although Orville's write staff are steeped in Trek lore, very little of that knowledge seemed to be used to really shape the jokes into fine stilletos which jab at the hearts of Trekkies.
But further, even some of the generic sitcom humor falls flat because they break the 'show us, don't tell us' rule. In the bridge scene when Mercer, seemingly because he just can't help it, brings up his marital problems to the Krill dude. Then Kelly turns to him, incredulous, and asks if he's going to bring this up now. Scene was not original but still kind of interesting and funny up to this point, but then Mercer turns and tells Kelly, and us, he's actually stalling. Kelly then turns to the view screen and starts her own phony marital tirade. But Seth's explanation just sucked all the funny out of the bit. Let that bit play without Mercer's explanation and we maybe get that these two are good officers but have a blind spot when it comes to each other. Missed opportunity.
One of the critics also mentioned the dog on the couch licking his balls bit. It was at least a WTF moment, if not downright funny, until the two crewmen point out to us that, yes, that was a dog on couch licking his balls bit. Humor and mystique, gone. Stop explaining stuff and just let it play out and we'll draw our own conclusions.
The paucity of subtlety is, to me, a real problem. Subtlety is required in order to create an homage that is funny (which is what the producers are saying the show is). When the approach is lacking in self awareness and subtlety, you risk making a parody or spoof. Frankly, given Seth's skills, I think he might be better off just making it a balls out spoof. Then the jokes can be about just about anything he wants.
One of the reasons the critics have said that the show doesn't know what it really wants to be is because the producers have been quoted as saying the show is not a spoof/parody, but the way the show is written, especially the jokes, Orville plays like a spoof/parody. The jokes were the generic deadpan/ironic style we see in lots of sitcoms but completely lack the self awareness required to make the humor sharp and incisive.
I hate to compare it to GQ because it is really unfair especially since I'm taking about just the first episode here. But what made that movie so memorable was it's self awareness and ability to craft gags to take advantage of that self awareness. GQ was able to bounce between parody and heatfelt homage cleverly and at will. Although Orville's write staff are steeped in Trek lore, very little of that knowledge seemed to be used to really shape the jokes into fine stilletos which jab at the hearts of Trekkies.
But further, even some of the generic sitcom humor falls flat because they break the 'show us, don't tell us' rule. In the bridge scene when Mercer, seemingly because he just can't help it, brings up his marital problems to the Krill dude. Then Kelly turns to him, incredulous, and asks if he's going to bring this up now. Scene was not original but still kind of interesting and funny up to this point, but then Mercer turns and tells Kelly, and us, he's actually stalling. Kelly then turns to the view screen and starts her own phony marital tirade. But Seth's explanation just sucked all the funny out of the bit. Let that bit play without Mercer's explanation and we maybe get that these two are good officers but have a blind spot when it comes to each other. Missed opportunity.
One of the critics also mentioned the dog on the couch licking his balls bit. It was at least a WTF moment, if not downright funny, until the two crewmen point out to us that, yes, that was a dog on couch licking his balls bit. Humor and mystique, gone. Stop explaining stuff and just let it play out and we'll draw our own conclusions.
The paucity of subtlety is, to me, a real problem. Subtlety is required in order to create an homage that is funny (which is what the producers are saying the show is). When the approach is lacking in self awareness and subtlety, you risk making a parody or spoof. Frankly, given Seth's skills, I think he might be better off just making it a balls out spoof. Then the jokes can be about just about anything he wants.
Last edited: