is this star trex jr


cuz iheard it was

reply

Try again with a full sentence, in English.

reply

Spiritually, yes; a lot of the same team from 'Star Trek: TNG', 'Deep Space 9', 'Voyager', and 'Enterprise' work the set of "The Orville."

~~/o/

reply

I have watched 3 of the 4 DVDs I bought of Season 1, and I grew a bit weary.

Many episodes made me miss watching the old TNG episodes. DATA seems to have more personality, and to be more interesting character than the faceless robot (I think it was a mistake to make the robot so faceless).

Picard seems more serious, Q seems more interesting a character, and the whole 'we are hypermoral and dull characters' sort of adds humor to the whole show, and many of Qs statements are actually good points.

Orville is a valiant effort, and in these modern times, this is probably more than anyone should expect of a show like this - and I don't even want to try to watch any modern Star Trek show, but when compared to TNG.. well, it's of course unfair, TNG had the magic of the 1980s atmosphere working for it, of course.

I also don't like how everyone talks so casually in this show. There's rarely a 'sir' or 'mister' used, unless it has a big plot purpose. People just come to a captain with "hi, guys" and such.

I miss Spock saying "Mister Saavik", when that happens.

reply

I get the feeling Isaac is meant to be very mysterious, The Orville creators must be aware that the character is compared to DATA, and tried to separate emotional appeal from the humans by making [him?] faceless. I was surprised at the direction they have taken Isaac with Claire, the starship's doctor. Even though it was hinted that a relationship would develop between the two, I felt the trigger was pulled rather fast, but it certainly breaks from the old soap opera formula of keeping the audience waiting, ha-hah! (^_^)

I know what you mean, the humor on TNG was much more subtle than The Orville. Perhaps it's Seth McFarlane's attempt to give his series some distinction so it's not too similar of a copycat. I will say that I like that there's no transporter device. Can make the story resolutions more interesting that way, even if the episodes end with unanswered questions for us to ponder on. Plenty of opportunities late in the show to revisit these actions and the subsequent consequences resulting from them.

Today's TV atmosphere is totally different. Back then with fewer things to watch, less competition and syndication on the rise in the experimental phase, showrunners had to be more creative in my opinion to garner as large of a following as possible. Shows didn't swing in one direction if you get my drift, had to offer a little bit of everything. The bad thing about that though was more shows failing and getting cancelled because of it. At least the successful shows had deep insight due to the nature of the TV landscape at the time.

On the last part, great catch. Intentionally gives The Orville less sense of structure, like it wants to be seen from average joe's perspective.

Whether or not it's your thing, Happy Valentine's Day, and thanks for this lively discussion!
More like this in the future, please.

~~/o/

reply

It's more like Little House on the Prairie in space. Charles Ingalls is, naturally, the creator of the universe.

reply