That was just the background situation for the main plot, which was about relationships.
It's only brought up explicitly a couple times.
What can be improved for season 2?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
It's only brought up explicitly a couple times.
Yup, same. It was too much. I get accused of prudishness for disliking the gore, profanity and nudity Discovery has added to Trek, but at least I'm consistent in my prudery.
I was looking at some particularly bloody preview pages for an upcoming Batman comic and thought, "Why must everything be so ugly and explicit?" I don't need everything to be G rated, but I do get tired of what strikes me as a very juvenile trend in formerly family-friendly entertainment.
I think this is being brought up by people that didn't watch the whole episode, but Seth does excessively use toilet/sexual humor/jokes on The Orville.
That is the problem. If you look at Macfarlane's tv career, originality isn't really his thing. Family Guy was his "lovenote/copy" of the edgier early seasons of the Simpsons, and now is its own self-devouring parody. American Dad and Cleveland show were just variations on a theme, and if Fox was willing to throw money at him for them, why not. I haven't seen the Orville, so I can't comment on it, but I am not in love enough with Berman era trek to wan't to watch a lovenote to it. Maybe when I'm older. But expecting him to come up with some new idea outside of his umwelt just doesn't seem likely.
He's not too different from Abrams in that regard. They both like messing about with Trek and Star Wars, the problem is neither of those franchises were original to begin with, constantly need original material to say valid, and neither show runner has shown a penchant to provide that.
It's true. I shut it off after a few minutes. Cutting and pasting what I said elsewhere:
I feel like I should clarify something as well, from what I quoted from last week. Last week I said I lost interest even though in this thread I said I didn't have a problem with it. It is possible to not have a problem with something you don't feel like watching. If it were just a straight up sci-fi series done in Old Trek style with the MacFarlane-isms kept to a minimum -- or, better yet, done away with -- I probably would've gotten around to catching it "eventually" (whenever that would've been) or I would've been like "I'll get around to it" (which basically means "never", despite my best intentions).
So, you have a show where I'm already leaning towards indifference and haven't revisited in a year, where I'm kind of like "Ehhhhhh, it's there, I'll get around to it when I get around to it." Then I thought, "What the heck?" and put on the season premiere a few days later. Then when they have the conference about Bortus needing to go back to his homeworld to use the bathroom, it's like you're walking down a hallway and then someone throws a stink-bomb. "Oh! Don't worry! The stink-bomb isn't there the entire time!" doesn't exactly make me want to go out of my way to go down that hallway again, especially if I know they could show up anytime anywhere.
I hope the show sticks around for people who like it. I'm glad this show provides an alternative because it's always good to have alternatives. And that's basically it. Different strokes for different folks.
Last edited:
And what is that exactly? What is it that makes Discovery stand apart so much to not warrant the Star Trek label?
Sorry, I see the comparisons to BSG and Star Wars, but I don't track with them. So, apparently BSG means blue uniforms and darker sets?
Star Wars means more action? Does this mean that TOS was ripping off of Forbidden Planet too much?It doesn't make sense to me. Star Trek, for me, has always succeeded or failed on its characters, and not on what the computer does, or how the uniforms look. Otherwise, I would just reject TMP and TNG out of hand because of the looks.
And what is that exactly? What is it that makes Discovery stand apart so much to not warrant the Star Trek label?
Sorry, I see the comparisons to BSG and Star Wars, but I don't track with them. So, apparently BSG means blue uniforms and darker sets?
It doesn't make sense to me. Star Trek, for me, has always succeeded or failed on its characters, and not on what the computer does, or how the uniforms look. Otherwise, I would just reject TMP and TNG out of hand because of the looks.
The stuff that was unique to Trek is what burned the franchise out. It was great stuff...but if had pizza every day for 15 years...I'd be really frigging sick of pizza. That's what Star Trek became. It was time to move out, in the same manner that TWOK and DS9 did earlier in the franchise's history at their own unique inflection points. Mix up the whole feel and approach.
I'm really sorry, but The Orville isn't telling "new stories." Almost every Orville episode is directly derivative of a Star Trek story (or, more rarely, other genre story) that has already been told. And the episodes that aren't are plotless Sienfeld-like comedies. Even if the B-story is about something relatively unique (and relatively is a stretch)...the A-story is almost always directly derived from something that has already been done. It's okay...but it ain't unique. It's the exact opposite of unique. In fact, it's very core premise and, to your point, appeal is that it is derivative. And that's ok. But it ain't fucking unique. Not by a LONG shot.
Everyone has their own tastes. I love Star Trek. There isn't anything else in entertainment that even comes close for me. But, I find DSC to be a much more entertaining show than Orville, because I love Star Trek as an evolutionary thing....not as a formula confined to "staying true enough to what is unique to Trek." That's the approach that ended up with dwindling audiences and general apathy across the board. I've always loved it when Star Trek went in a different direction and stayed fresh. I've never cared for the whole "but it's not real STAR TREK" routine. We're talking over 50 years and 750+ hours worth of movies, television shows and cartoons....there's no such thing as "real Star Trek" any more.
Some find that distressing. I find it absolutely awesome.
One of the wisest things said on here in a while.
Being "disinterested" doesn't need to somehow translate into "hating." I never understood why the two seem so inseparable to some people.
I was "disinterested" in VOY and ENT. Like, the entire series. I NEVER hated them, though. I never wished for their demise. I certainly never heckled them on the internet to draw the ire of those who do enjoy them.
Same thing with The Orville. I'm not really interested in it...but I do like it. I just don't care about it. It could go on for 15 years, and I'd be happy and probably watch it occasionally. It could get cancelled tomorrow and I wouldn't care much at all, except to be bummed for people who really enjoyed it.
It's pretty simple-we live in the age of extremism. It isn't enough to just like something. You need to be all in on it, with tattoos, merchandise, cars and the like.
Piercings too and Discovery side-shaves or back-shaves. And Klingon ridges face-painted on, or mutilated ears made to look Vulcan.
Funny thing about The Orville. I always had this impression that MacFarlane just wanted to do his version of Star Trek, but to get the show on the air was forced by the network to include his patented potty humor. I was convinced that by season 2, if not the end of season 1, he'd have largely jettisoned the vulgar lowbrow comedy-- having tricked the network into producing his more high-brow sci-fi, TNG-insired series.
From what I'm hearing though I was clearly way off.
From what I'm hearing though I was clearly way off.
The humor is about the only thing Orville has going for it.
*By humor I really mean it's levity and light tone in general.
*By humor I really mean it's levity and light tone in general.
I don't know if this has been mentioned previously, but S1 lacked any strong male role-models. Lorca came closest, but he was a master manipulator, Tyler was weak, Culber seemed the most principled. I hope Anson Mount's Captain Pike will fill the void. Star Trek has always had strong male characters (maybe with the exception of VOYAGER) that male fans could identify with or want to be like.
There are a billion other shows you can watch for that.
I'm almost 40, I don't need a role model. BUT, I do I think Pike will be a positive male figure in the series. It looks like they're going out of their way to make him the Anti-Lorca.
Are you saying Trek doesn't need to have a positive male role model figure?
I'm curious why you did mention Stamets in your list. He was good.
you mean didn't mention him? Stamets was off-putting the first time we see him in Ep. 3, kind of a stuck-up Nerd that hates the Captain and thinks he's better than everyone else, except the scientist collaborator on the U.S.S. Glenn. He improves over the season, becomes more humane, he sacrifices himself for the ship, so yeah, I guess you're right, he can serve as a role model. I just didn't think of him that way.
Similar threads
