The Orville first review

[Jayson1]

The problem comes in when fans suggest that Orville's deliberate TNG look makes it "more real Star Trek" than actual Star Trek. It's an aesthetics thing. If Trek's aesthetics had never changed whatsoever, barring minor changes, yeah, I'd be annoyed that DSC is deliberately trying to look different. But the films went for a different look, as did TNG, and just like both of those situations, this is the first new prime Trek in over a decade. So it does, and should, look strikingly different.

By "real" I think they mean the show will represent the spirit of what Trek is supose to be. To me I take that as a positive future that explores modern issues through it's sci-fi setting. Alien characters that represent earth cultures or earth traits or as a means of being able to comment on humanity from a outside perspective. PLus brightly colored sets and uniforms. I think also they are mostly thinking about TNG or the Berman era.

Jason

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Is it possible Orville was greenlit because of the timing with Discovery?

 

[C.E. Evans]

I tend to think that if TNG debuted today, it would probably be roasted by critics.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Which version of the pilot?

The original version without Q, or the good Encounter at far Point?

Also, would the actors have better hair cuts and tighter pants?

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

Oh please. Like those peoples' opinions matter.

Seems like a lot of those same people are here, though. I don't have any proof, just noticing similar avatars/names. And unfortunately, they do matter, at least in the sense that they count as potential viewers.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

I have a draft of the pilot script and it was so bad I stopped reading it after the first act.

Which pilot? You mean for Discovery?

 

[Maurice]

Which pilot? You mean for Discovery?

What is the topic of this thread? Seriously...

 

[Haggis and tatties]

(⌐■_■) So, people are saying The Orville, ( •_•)>⌐■-■) , won't take off!
YYYYYYYEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH

No....tough crowd. lol

I'l get me coat.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Can ship captains divorce people?

 

[bigdaddy]

Can ship captains divorce people?

No. Only God can divorce people.

 

[fireproof78]

Can ship captains divorce people?

No, only the Catholic Church can.

 

[Sophie74656]

I guess that means my divorce doesn't count...uh oh

 

[Guy Gardener]

Where you married by the Catholic Church?

God just nods and smiles, at any other fake ceremonies that don't use catholic priests.

 

[Sophie74656]

Where you married by the Catholic Church?

God just nods and smiles, at any other fake ceremonies that don't use catholic priests.

Nope...so I guess my marriage was never valid to begin with

 

[GNDN18]

NPR's review: Make It So-So: Fox's 'The Orville'

 

[BillJ]

I expect The Orville to stumble a bit out of the gate. We'll see where its at in a few weeks.

 

[Christopher]

IndieWire is even harsher, calling it "creatively, morally, and ethically bankrupt" in its blatant imitation of Trek.

The lack of creativity is clear, given how it takes the basic framework of a “Trek” series and files off the serial numbers. But morally, it’s hard to imagine how anyone involved with this project could be comfortable with walking onto that set, watching those episodes, and seeing how blatant the imitation is. And ethically, it’s frustrating to see that the systems put into place to keep creators from ripping others off in such a blatant manner failed here.

It sounds exactly like the sort of thing I've heard that science fiction publishers find on their slush piles all the time and toss out after the first page or two because the imitation of Trek is so obvious. The sort of thing that nobody in the industry would've given a second look if it hadn't been a big-name celebrity's vanity project. And it's in keeping with the charges of imitation to the point of plagiarism that I've been hearing leveled at MacFarlane through much of his career.

It's also oddly reminiscent of The Chronicles of the Intrepid, the Trek-knockoff series in John Scalzi's novel Redshirts, except that's an imitation of TOS rather than TNG. When I read that book, the most implausible thing for me was the pretense that such a blatant Trek imitator (and it's acknowledged as such in the book) would not only get on the air at all, but last for six seasons, an extraordinarily long run for a basic cable show. I guess it would've been more plausible if its creator had been a big celebrity.

There's also this:

But then there’s Episode 3, which, without spoilers, may be one of the most tone-deaf and offensive discussions of gender ever seen on screen, especially in an era when many people have come to embrace the idea that gender is a concept that goes beyond biology to personal identity. The episode is an allegory meant to invoke memories of “Star Trek” tackling social issues in the 1960s and beyond, but it’s so clueless in its approach that it probably sets back real understanding of the issue to, well, the 1960s.

A lot of the reviewers have spoken about that episode, but this is the harshest take yet.

 

[BillJ]

I liked it. Thought it was fun to watch. Hopefully it can find an audience.

It kinda hurt my enthusiasm for Discovery to a degree. I'm tired of Trek TV series over the last couple decades being so dour.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I enjoyed it overall. I posted my thoughts in one of the other threads.

 

[Ghislaine H. B. BRAEME]

It's all subjective. I never listen to reviews of movies or shows because they often disagree with my own personal opinions. In many cases I have loved movies that have received terrible reviews, or did not like a movie that recieved great reviews. So I never personally give much weight to reviews. Especially with something like comedy it's VERY subjective.

‎The same for me.