News Seth MacFarlane’s The Orville
- Thread starter Kai "the spy"
- Start date
![1500996605821[1].jpg](https://www.trekbbs.com/data/attachments/2/2343-f9943d407117d15b8eb8f62598713795.jpg "1500996605821[1].jpg")
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/orville/s01
The audience score is 90 % fresh, while the critic score is 19 % rotten. They might still change a bit, but this is a big divide currently. But I rather have it this way than the other way around. A good critic score is useless, when the audience hate something.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5691552/
The IMDb score is 7.6 after about 2500 people have voted.
The Star Trek series have in comparison these ratings:
TOS: 8.4
TAS: 7.6
TNG: 8.6
DS9: 7.9
VOY: 7.7
ENT: 7.5
Some other scifi series:
Andromeda: 6.6
Battlestar Galactica (new): 8.7
Stargate SG1: 8.4
Stargate Atlantis: 8.1
Stargate Universe: 7.7
Firefly: 9.1
Farscape: 8.3
Dark Matter: 7.5
The Expanse: 8.3
The other series had way more votes than The Orville so far, so the later rating might still change a bit with time. But right now people might not see it as one of the best scifi series, but also not rate it as particular bad. When it comes to how long The Orville will last, the IMDb ratings are useless either way. For example Firefly with the best rating got the fewest amount of episodes before cancellation. Andromeda on the other hand was on screen for 110 episodes.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/daily-ratings/sunday-ratings-delayed-due-to-hurricane-irma/
The pilot got a 2.3 rating in the 18-49 demographic and was watched by 7.32 million viewers. The final rating might even adjust up. This is really good for FOX.
https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/fox-tv-show-2016-2017-season-ratings/
Hopefully it won't fall lower than a 1.3, when it moves to Thursday. That would get it a new season for sure. Likely a 1.0 would be enough, too. Lower than that and it gets dangerous as the series doesn't seem cheap. A 0.7 rating or lower should definitely mean cancellation. Let's hope we won't have to be concerned about the ratings for some years.
The audience score is 90 % fresh, while the critic score is 19 % rotten. They might still change a bit, but this is a big divide currently. But I rather have it this way than the other way around. A good critic score is useless, when the audience hate something.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5691552/
The IMDb score is 7.6 after about 2500 people have voted.
The Star Trek series have in comparison these ratings:
TOS: 8.4
TAS: 7.6
TNG: 8.6
DS9: 7.9
VOY: 7.7
ENT: 7.5
Some other scifi series:
Andromeda: 6.6
Battlestar Galactica (new): 8.7
Stargate SG1: 8.4
Stargate Atlantis: 8.1
Stargate Universe: 7.7
Firefly: 9.1
Farscape: 8.3
Dark Matter: 7.5
The Expanse: 8.3
The other series had way more votes than The Orville so far, so the later rating might still change a bit with time. But right now people might not see it as one of the best scifi series, but also not rate it as particular bad. When it comes to how long The Orville will last, the IMDb ratings are useless either way. For example Firefly with the best rating got the fewest amount of episodes before cancellation. Andromeda on the other hand was on screen for 110 episodes.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/daily-ratings/sunday-ratings-delayed-due-to-hurricane-irma/
The pilot got a 2.3 rating in the 18-49 demographic and was watched by 7.32 million viewers. The final rating might even adjust up. This is really good for FOX.
https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/fox-tv-show-2016-2017-season-ratings/
Hopefully it won't fall lower than a 1.3, when it moves to Thursday. That would get it a new season for sure. Likely a 1.0 would be enough, too. Lower than that and it gets dangerous as the series doesn't seem cheap. A 0.7 rating or lower should definitely mean cancellation. Let's hope we won't have to be concerned about the ratings for some years.
Last edited:
^ To be fair, a 9.1 now doesn't do Firefly then much good 
Exactly so.
The Audience Score has added about two hundred ratings since it topped out at 91%, which is a good sign as well - you expect a certain fall-off or regression on a very high (or low) score as more reviews come in. The Critics rating has jumped from 11% to 19%, which is arguably about as stable as the Audience Score - started low and is staying pretty low.
Honestly, I don't care about the professional critics. The big divide between the critics and the audience is the result of the two groups using completely different criteria to judge the show. Critics judge shows based on the quality of the production, cinematography, intellectual value whereas the audience judge based on whether they had a good time watching it. So critics are going to hate on The Orville because it does not meet their professional standards while fans will generally love the show because it entertained them.
Individual critics may or may not have "professional standards" or any real critical acumen. The best gauge of this sort of thing is still to follow a few folks who you've found both observant and whose tastes you share.
The wider their own familiarity with the history and workings of the media they review, the better. As an example, one of the most annoying tendencies of a reviewer (for me) is the citing of an "obvious" comparison or citing of influence of one work on another that reveals the writer to have limited awareness of many other possible and likely other influences that the two things might share. This is often an indication of unfamiliarity with older works or materials that are not so genre-specific.
I still mourn the loss of Roger Ebert, for many reasons.
The wider their own familiarity with the history and workings of the media they review, the better. As an example, one of the most annoying tendencies of a reviewer (for me) is the citing of an "obvious" comparison or citing of influence of one work on another that reveals the writer to have limited awareness of many other possible and likely other influences that the two things might share. This is often an indication of unfamiliarity with older works or materials that are not so genre-specific.
I still mourn the loss of Roger Ebert, for many reasons.
Last edited:
Considering her maturity and experience, methinks that the Doctor turns down promotions, so therefore has the rank that she wants to have and probably could have been an admiral 20 years ago if that's really what she wanted to make of her life.
I agree with this. From the photo, it looks like two thicker lines surrounding the thinner line, so probably Lieutenant Commander.
I don't mind critics but I also know that when it comes to sci-fi and horror they become less reliable. If you were talking about a mainstream drama I think they tend to be more acurate. Some people don't have the suspension of disbelief you need to like things in those genres unless of course the stuff is made to almost feel like it isn't sci-fi or horror.
Jason
Jason
Her statement made me think something like this. She said she goes where she thinks she's needed or will be helpful, not what she thinks will be the best for her career. It seems like the Orville is not a great assignment for anyone. Just a mediocre ship that needed some bodies aboard.
I agree with this especially about comedy, it is so subjective.
Yeah, if Finn's willing to go after postings to mediocre assignments like Orville she may be limiting her career...
In DS9's Explorers (S03e22), we see Julian nervous to meet the Valedictorian from his year at medical school, who got the ship he wanted, the Kensington, because he mixed up a preganglionic fibre with a post ganglionic nerve (no googling, why do I still remember that!?) in the final exam, but it turned out that her job sucked and she wished that she had picked Deep Space nine instead of the Kensington.
The Grass is Greener.
(This is before, barely before, Bashir is revealed as a Superman, and that he took a dive in the final exams so he wouldn't raise any suspicions about being genetically superior.)
Seaquest DSV was basically "Star Trek Underwater", so one could speculate that they could be sued, in theory. Heck, the original Star Trek was partially based on old submarine movies, as I recall.
I don't think Orville will or should get the runway that TNG got. But boy did that feel like very early TNG. And not in a great way.
At least McFarlane seems to be having a good time.
The Cage borrowed stuff, liberally, from The Forbidden Planet.
Upon reflection, some details I'm remembering from the first episode:
Those corridors were just a bit wider and taller than they ever would have reason to be; probably a reference to the fact that starships in Trek and elsewhere always have large, camera-crew-accommodating corridors, which would waste space and air on a real spaceship.
It may have been a trick of the editing, but did I see a spiral staircase going UP from the bridge-level deck? Talk about GNDN!
The mention of tardigrade DNA making an organism thrive in any environment. Tardigrades are highly resilient nearly-microscopic creatures that were talked about at length in MacFarlane's Cosmos. I wonder if it was a self-shout out, or just a writer using something he had heard a lot about.
Those corridors were just a bit wider and taller than they ever would have reason to be; probably a reference to the fact that starships in Trek and elsewhere always have large, camera-crew-accommodating corridors, which would waste space and air on a real spaceship.
It may have been a trick of the editing, but did I see a spiral staircase going UP from the bridge-level deck? Talk about GNDN!
The mention of tardigrade DNA making an organism thrive in any environment. Tardigrades are highly resilient nearly-microscopic creatures that were talked about at length in MacFarlane's Cosmos. I wonder if it was a self-shout out, or just a writer using something he had heard a lot about.