Last edited:
THE ORVILLE Season Two...
- Thread starter Mudd
- Start date
This is precisely correct.
Fully developed? Probably not, though The Orville dances rings around Discovery in this department. Well written? I don't find the Discovery characters particularly well written. They are just kinda there to do what the plot dictates, with little depth on the why. Though if you notice, I did ding "Pria" for the same thing with Mercer's destroying the anomaly.
Whatever one thinks of either show is clearly a "YMMV" kind of thing. Though I do notice a running theme of much of the criticism of Discovery coming down to the writing. And it isn't coming from "haters", it seems to be coming from people who just don't think it is very good.
It's not as clear to me. And, it's not a matter of "cribbing" that bothers me. I simply don't see one simple scene of a sneezing alien as "cribbing." I don't see it as a clear "1 to 1" connection.
Regardless, I am of the opinion that Discovery and Orville are not in a competition, at least not for my interest. So, I agree with you there. Both are doing their own thing, as I mentioned above, and if one considers both "Star Trek" (I don't consider Orville Star Trek as other do) then there is room for both.
Honestly, I've seen the same excuse for multiple shows, so I don't see it as unique "Star Trek."
Regardless, I do agree that if people are not bought in to the characters of Discovery I am skeptical that anything in Season 2 will change their mind.
At times I have also seen the excuse used for other shows as well but it's usually from Trek fans who are applying that TNG concept to shows outside of Trek. Me I think a show is kind of owed maybe 5 to 7 episodes to sort of get itself together and start making top notch tv and you should at least see some potential in those first 5 to 7 episodes as well. TNG was lacking any of that in season 1. Other than it being Trek and also like one of the only Sci-FI shows on tv at the time but that is something doing more with hope than shown potential. TNG made such a drastic change in season 3 it almost feels like except for a few episodes in the first 2 seasons, the show as we know it didn't even really start until season 3. Pillar and I guess Berman with more and more power and less Roddenberry influence changed things in a major way.
Jason
A
Amaris
Guest
Good point. I forgot Kurtzman was on staff. Still, that only appeared after The Orville was doing its thing. It really is a tonal shift from the first season, not that I'm complaining. As much as I love the characters, part of me wanted to start calling it "Star Trek Depressed."
Now, maybe maybe, we get to see some more lighthearted episodes that focus on character building, and exploration without the specter of war. That excites me.
I'm an avid watcher of both The Orville and Discovery, and the turbolift scene in DSC has it written all over it. I'm not saying that's bad. Quite the opposite, I think it's good, and I'm not saying I don't want that to happen, because I do. I want Discovery to be more lighthearted, more character focused rather than a series based on war. Goddess, I hate war, and I hate the idea that we get a new Star Trek series that launches right into a war, and with the Klingons no less.
Both shows have the potential to be fun, exciting, engaging, and bold. Right now, for me, The Orville has already managed to hit all four points. As for comparisons, it was inevitable, because Seth did base his series on the look and feel of TNG, and all that entails, and for TNG fans, it's so noticeable that it hurts, because the new Trek decided to veer into dark, brooding territory.
Now, that worked for DS9, but that's because we had just left TNG, and a change of tone was a nice change of pace, but here we are in 2018, with the real world knocking at our door and demanding our papers. Why would I want a show that says "200 years from now, this shit will still be happening with humanity" instead of the brighter, more optimistic show on another channel that holds to the Star Trek mythos without actually naming it?
To each their own, certainly, but as a Trek fan, and an Orville fan, I can enjoy both, and I can hope they both succeed, which I do. It's just for the moment I think The Orville has a leg up in the optimistic future department.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pretty much this. I can get dark and depressing from a ton of sci-fi on TV. It is much harder to find optimistic fare. The Orville really hit the spot for me.
I think it's coincidental, not causal. Kurtzman was, until Fuller left, no. 2. Now he is no. 1. Given that, among the general viewing public, the contemporary touches and humour of Kelvinverse Trek was quite appreciated AND the desire is to attract NEW viewers rather than only cater to existing fans, his going to the well of what he saw as working before is understandable.
She did a pretty good job with the monologue she delivered on this week's Walking Dead.
A
Amaris
Guest
Perhaps hiring Bryan Fuller was a mistake.
I know it's mixed for everyone, but I have no problem with dark and brooding, Trek or otherwise. I don't need a show to be fun for me to enjoy it.
As for Orville, it's fine what they are doing. But, I refuse to do the comparison game. That's too painful for me.
I agree on this point. I want both to succeed. I don't need one to be more "Trekkier" than the other. That's not a path to enjoyment for me.
Like the way DSC has (as usual), caught the "discussion-ship' of yet another Orville thread? DSC living rent free in the heads of Orville fans.
As odd as running a Seinfeld episode on the bridge view screen? Considering that the Orville is set in the 25th century, it's separation from a 1990's sitcom is much greater than the separation between DSC and a 20th century song.
But beyond that, the song wasn't being played in-universe. It was background music for the trailer. But actually DSC did have a scene at a party where they played 20th century music, which was odd, I thought.
BTW, the party scene with the 20th century music in DSC went over MUCH better than the Seinfeld on the view screen scene. The DSC scene was at a party. The Orville bridge crew was on duty while watching Jerry. But both shows have indulged in anachronisms.
And I get it. The Orville scene was supposed to be "funny", and I can understand why Orville fans saw it that way, But this was just one of the reasons why I could not think of the show as anything but a parody despite Seth's insistence that the show is a "dramady".
Last edited:
A
Amaris
Guest
Just like The Orville gets brought up in DSC threads.Like the way DSC has (as usual), caught the "discussion-ship' of yet another Orville thread? DSC living rent free in the heads of Orville fans.
Just like The Orville gets brought up in DSC threads.
It usually does get into the home teams head when the underdog is playing better than they are.
A
Amaris
Guest
I think part of it is because Orville managed to steal some of Trek's thunder before the series had even premiered. I know that, for myself, after watching The Orville premier, I was a little less enthused about Discovery, and the first two episodes of DSC are still my least favorite of the season.It usually does get into the home teams head when the underdog is playing better than they are.
Discovery might have hooked me more if they had started out with "Context is for Kings", and not that dreadful two-parter, plus far less fanwank. The cast is stellar.
Just like The Orville gets brought up in DSC threads.
Gets brought up by same people as in this thread DSC is.
A
Amaris
Guest
Agreed. That opener was craptastic. Visually? The show was stunning, but thematically I was put off by the immediate need to go right to war.
People can't help but compare them.
It would be nice if people would try to help that tendency.
Why? Comparing things is what humans do. It helps us to make choices.
Similar threads
