I find that article to be poorly written and the arguments to be incredibly weak. 1) It's an old idea in a new package. There are a lot of Star Trek fans who love the Orville precisely for this very reason. They see it as a modernized TOS/TNG and that's what they want. They see it as a good thing, not a negative thing. 2) Seth is not good at live acting. Well, Jerry Seinfeld was never a great actor either but the show "Seinfeld" has become an iconic, beloved show. It's possible to have a bad actor and still have a great show that people love. 3) Content just does not fit with the time allotted. He argues Family Guy works because it a 20 mn show so there is very little filler between jokes whereas Orville needs more filler because it's a 60mn show but that argument only works if Orville were a clone of Family Guy which it isn't. Orville and Family Guy are completely different shows. Family Guy is an animated comedy show, Orville is a live action scifi show. Family Guy's whole premise is just telling jokes. Orville has humor of course, but it's not primarily just a comedy. He does not seem to understand what Orville fundamentally is. The strength of Orville has been that it has told some genuinely good scifi stories. The humor is really incidental to the story. Orville works precisely because it's not just doing filler in between jokes but is doing good scifi with endearing characters. So the space between jokes is actually critically important because it's where the best parts of the show happen.