Menu
STD Vs ORV
(Or DSC VS ORV if you're no fun)
Oh Boy
Discovery is on break until January and we're quickly approaching the end of the 1st season of The Orville. So I thought now would be a good time to talk about my thoughts on the 2 series. I've already talked a fair bit about my thoughts regarding the Discovery Klingons so I won't rehash that rant... too much. And it should go without saying that this is going to be rife with spoilers for both shows.
Firstly, an Overview of both series.
Discovery:
As Discovery is the show that actually has Trek in the title, we'll start there. STD(deal with it) is set 10 years before TOS, for seemingly no good reason beyond shoe-horning Sarek into the story. Seriously, I can't think of a decent reason for STD to be set when it is beyond that. Hell, most of the show's canon fuck-ups evaporate if you set STD in the 25th century. The story follows Micheal Burnham, the worst Starfleet officer, as she engages in a covert mission to fuck up the Klingons with mushrooms, all while Jason Isaacs gets to have fun being psychotic captain that may or may not be the badguy. Meanwhile the Klingons are generally being terrible. Torture, Rape and Genocide are all on the table because fuck subtlety, I guess.
Orville:
The Orville is a show written and created by long-time Trek fan, Seth MacFarlane. Most Known for Family Guy, MacFarlane has gathered a cast and crew of major names, including cameos from Trek actors, A-listers and scripts written by former Trek staff. The show is being run by Fox in a clear attempt to compete in the sci-fi serial market. The downside to this is that it's Fox, so you just know that some soulless accountant is taking a break from his busy schedule of ruining normal TV to make sure that the Orville gets its company mandated portion of awful. This can be seen in the excessive use of humour throughout the show.
Anyway, the story follows captain Ed Mercer (played by Seth MacFarlane) as a deadbeat officer in the Union Navy. He was on track to command a Starship until his personal life was rocked by his wife's affair with some blue prick. After some time, He's offered command of a Light Exploratory Cruiser, the titular USS Orville. Along with an eccentric crew, Mercer sets out to boldly go where TNG probably went before. But before he can get comfortable, Mercer is faced with a major problem... *record scratch* his ex-wife is his new XO.
As Discovery is the show that actually has Trek in the title, we'll start there. STD(deal with it) is set 10 years before TOS, for seemingly no good reason beyond shoe-horning Sarek into the story. Seriously, I can't think of a decent reason for STD to be set when it is beyond that. Hell, most of the show's canon fuck-ups evaporate if you set STD in the 25th century. The story follows Micheal Burnham, the worst Starfleet officer, as she engages in a covert mission to fuck up the Klingons with mushrooms, all while Jason Isaacs gets to have fun being psychotic captain that may or may not be the badguy. Meanwhile the Klingons are generally being terrible. Torture, Rape and Genocide are all on the table because fuck subtlety, I guess.
Orville:
The Orville is a show written and created by long-time Trek fan, Seth MacFarlane. Most Known for Family Guy, MacFarlane has gathered a cast and crew of major names, including cameos from Trek actors, A-listers and scripts written by former Trek staff. The show is being run by Fox in a clear attempt to compete in the sci-fi serial market. The downside to this is that it's Fox, so you just know that some soulless accountant is taking a break from his busy schedule of ruining normal TV to make sure that the Orville gets its company mandated portion of awful. This can be seen in the excessive use of humour throughout the show.
Anyway, the story follows captain Ed Mercer (played by Seth MacFarlane) as a deadbeat officer in the Union Navy. He was on track to command a Starship until his personal life was rocked by his wife's affair with some blue prick. After some time, He's offered command of a Light Exploratory Cruiser, the titular USS Orville. Along with an eccentric crew, Mercer sets out to boldly go where TNG probably went before. But before he can get comfortable, Mercer is faced with a major problem... *record scratch* his ex-wife is his new XO.
Head to Head: Compare and Contrast
Thematically, these 2 show's could only be more different if one of them was the Antiques Roadshow. STD is a dark, gritty re-imagining of the Star Trek franchise. Imagine someone let Zack Sneider near Star Trek... okay you can stop screaming now... that's what STD is. Everybody is glum faced and super-serious about the war. Rare gleams of humour and hopefulness break through in some of the episodes, but this show is definitely the DC Cinematic Universe of Trek.
By Comparison, the Orville is bright and upbeat, sometimes gratingly so. The show definitely owes its lineage to The Next Generation more than any other show. Each episode is certainly part of a larger story, but can be viewed individually as their own closed plotline. The sets, music and acting are all reminiscent of TNG and VOY. Where STD is too grim and depressing, Orville is too flippant and on the nose. Some of the comedy lands well, but there are just as many jokes, if not more, that come off as awkwardly inserted into the script, like there were a weekly joke-quota that needed to be filled. This being Fox, I wouldn't at all be surprised if that were the case.
Visually, the 2 shows are also distinct. STD has pumped millions into CGI that apes the J.J. Abrams style Kelvinverse Films in aesthetic. Starfleet ships are more ornate and yet clearly inspired by old concept art for previous shows, and te Klingon ships looks like somebody read about the Dark Eldar from 40k and decided that they were a great idea, visually.
The Orville has a clean, comfortable aesthetic that riffs off of several previous incarnations of Trek. Most notably, the warm, comfortable colours of TNG, but also the blue-green consoles of the Movie-Era. Externally, the ships look fantastic. This is, to my mind, one of the biggest triumphs of the Orville, by using physical models they've created stunning visuals which will age much better than pure digital effects. It's the old DS9 vs B5 situation. Bab 5's CGI looked good and cutting edge at the time, but now we literally have free-to-play games with higher resolution, whereas the physical models of early DS9 have held up.
Storywise, again, the shows are diametrically opposed. STD is going for long-form arc-based storytelling. While Orville has stuck firmly to the "problem of the week" format. That isn't to say that they both haven't done the other. STD has an enclosed time-loop episode with relatively little to do with the larger plot, and Orville has a background Arc dealing with the growing threat of a hostile alien race, the Krill. However the 2 are clearly meant to be viewed in entirely different manners. You have to watch STD in order, while you could bounce around with the Orville with little to no inconsistency.
The story differences don't stop there. All of STD is meant to be viewed with Burnham as the protagonist. A choice I'll talk about more in a later segment. So, while we get pieces of POV for other characters, particularly Lorca and Stamets, events prioritise Burnham's outlook on the situation.
The Orville is an ensemble cast. Ed Mercer can certainly be seen as the main character, however the protagonist of the story changes from episode to episode. In some episodes there is no core POV character, but instead a pairing of characters that work well together. This is, and you'll start to notice a theme here, very reminiscent of TNG and that era of Star Trek as a whole.
Finally, let's have a gander at the cast. Both have a lot of heavy hitters on board, moreso Discovery. Jason Isaacs is known for Papa Malfoy from the Harry Potter films, but has also worked in a wide range of roles, from the criminally underrated Event Horizon, to his portrayal of Zhukov in "The Death of Stalin". Isaacs is a fantastic actor and Lorca is one of the strangest characters in STD. There's also Anthony Rapp, of Rent fame. Michelle Yeoh, famed for her work across cinema, but likely most remembered for her role in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Doug Jones, go-to creepy monster guy for Guillermo Del Toro. Clem Fandango. And, of course, Soniqua Martin-Green, who made a name for herself on the most boring zombie show ever, as well as numerous other shows. And a bunch of others. Seriously regretting the decision to do this section because you could all just go look at IMDB instead. Suffice it to say that the cast is good and there are many, many more of them. I'll get onto looking at the characters in a later section.
The Orville's main cast have an equal pedigree, however the biggest names have been brought on for Cameo's and single episode appearances. For instance, Liam Neeson appears as the long-dead captain of a colony ship, for all of 30 seconds. Gotta admire the balls it takes to grab a bunch of A-listers for 30-40 second parts. Though MacFarlane likely had a huge part to play in that. He's on good terms with a lot of big names and he's had them appear on his previous shows.
I think we've pretty much covered the core differences between the 2 shows, so now let's do an actual review, shall we?
By Comparison, the Orville is bright and upbeat, sometimes gratingly so. The show definitely owes its lineage to The Next Generation more than any other show. Each episode is certainly part of a larger story, but can be viewed individually as their own closed plotline. The sets, music and acting are all reminiscent of TNG and VOY. Where STD is too grim and depressing, Orville is too flippant and on the nose. Some of the comedy lands well, but there are just as many jokes, if not more, that come off as awkwardly inserted into the script, like there were a weekly joke-quota that needed to be filled. This being Fox, I wouldn't at all be surprised if that were the case.
Visually, the 2 shows are also distinct. STD has pumped millions into CGI that apes the J.J. Abrams style Kelvinverse Films in aesthetic. Starfleet ships are more ornate and yet clearly inspired by old concept art for previous shows, and te Klingon ships looks like somebody read about the Dark Eldar from 40k and decided that they were a great idea, visually.
The Orville has a clean, comfortable aesthetic that riffs off of several previous incarnations of Trek. Most notably, the warm, comfortable colours of TNG, but also the blue-green consoles of the Movie-Era. Externally, the ships look fantastic. This is, to my mind, one of the biggest triumphs of the Orville, by using physical models they've created stunning visuals which will age much better than pure digital effects. It's the old DS9 vs B5 situation. Bab 5's CGI looked good and cutting edge at the time, but now we literally have free-to-play games with higher resolution, whereas the physical models of early DS9 have held up.
Storywise, again, the shows are diametrically opposed. STD is going for long-form arc-based storytelling. While Orville has stuck firmly to the "problem of the week" format. That isn't to say that they both haven't done the other. STD has an enclosed time-loop episode with relatively little to do with the larger plot, and Orville has a background Arc dealing with the growing threat of a hostile alien race, the Krill. However the 2 are clearly meant to be viewed in entirely different manners. You have to watch STD in order, while you could bounce around with the Orville with little to no inconsistency.
The story differences don't stop there. All of STD is meant to be viewed with Burnham as the protagonist. A choice I'll talk about more in a later segment. So, while we get pieces of POV for other characters, particularly Lorca and Stamets, events prioritise Burnham's outlook on the situation.
The Orville is an ensemble cast. Ed Mercer can certainly be seen as the main character, however the protagonist of the story changes from episode to episode. In some episodes there is no core POV character, but instead a pairing of characters that work well together. This is, and you'll start to notice a theme here, very reminiscent of TNG and that era of Star Trek as a whole.
Finally, let's have a gander at the cast. Both have a lot of heavy hitters on board, moreso Discovery. Jason Isaacs is known for Papa Malfoy from the Harry Potter films, but has also worked in a wide range of roles, from the criminally underrated Event Horizon, to his portrayal of Zhukov in "The Death of Stalin". Isaacs is a fantastic actor and Lorca is one of the strangest characters in STD. There's also Anthony Rapp, of Rent fame. Michelle Yeoh, famed for her work across cinema, but likely most remembered for her role in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Doug Jones, go-to creepy monster guy for Guillermo Del Toro. Clem Fandango. And, of course, Soniqua Martin-Green, who made a name for herself on the most boring zombie show ever, as well as numerous other shows. And a bunch of others. Seriously regretting the decision to do this section because you could all just go look at IMDB instead. Suffice it to say that the cast is good and there are many, many more of them. I'll get onto looking at the characters in a later section.
The Orville's main cast have an equal pedigree, however the biggest names have been brought on for Cameo's and single episode appearances. For instance, Liam Neeson appears as the long-dead captain of a colony ship, for all of 30 seconds. Gotta admire the balls it takes to grab a bunch of A-listers for 30-40 second parts. Though MacFarlane likely had a huge part to play in that. He's on good terms with a lot of big names and he's had them appear on his previous shows.
I think we've pretty much covered the core differences between the 2 shows, so now let's do an actual review, shall we?
By their Individual Merits
Here I'm going look at each show in a vacuum. As if my poorly thought out, Mushroom fueled bullshit engine accidentally ripped through to another reality and i now existed in a world where only STD or the ORV existed, as opposed to the 2. We'll look at the story, characters and other choices within the show. And I'll, no doubt, bitch incessantly about the Klingons.
Discovery
So let's start by asking a very simple question: Is Discovery Star Trek? Now you might think that the answer is self evident. After all, the ST in STD doesn't stand for sexually transmitted. However I don't think it's as clear cut as that. After all, I can go out and claim that my cock is Star Trek, but I'll still end up in court for indecent exposure, won't I? Crass examples aside, simply being called Star Trek isn't enough. Your show, characters, themes and visuals all have to adhere to a very specific idea of the future. So let's look at it, piece by piece.
Music and Visuals:
Not much to say on Music beyond the fact that I think it's fairly spot on. Though you could say that about the Kelvinverse films too, so faint praise is faint praise. As I've mentioned in other pieces, I quite like the exterior of the Starfleet ships. I'm also partial to the Uniforms. With one exception, I can't be the only person that thinks the half collar thing they all have going on is just stupid, right?
As for the Interior of the Shenzhou and the Discovery, it's all rather antiseptic. The ship feels unlived in, cold and uninviting. This is more apparent on the Discovery. It's as if the ship designers have gone through great effort to make the crew feel as uncomfortable as possible while aboard. Hell, the Klingon ship interiors look more inviting, and we all know how I feel about the Klingons. It is, at least, recogniseably Starfleet.
To abbreviate my thoughts on the giant tardigrade in the room, I think the whole Klingon aesthetic is terrible. Nothing of the old, iconic Klingons has been kept intact. The new designs are cluttred or downright ugly. They'd be more at home as the badguys in a Gears of War game than on screen as trek baddies.
Characters and Theme:
One of the important things in Star Trek, as pointed out by RLM, is that you should want to live in the world you are being presented with.
I don't feel that Discovery delivers on this at all. Throughout the show we've seen a drab, dark depressing vision of the future. Where the crew are constantly at odds with one another and we're not given any evidence of the Utopia that the Federation is supposed to be. All we get to see is he grind of war and a very militarised Starfleet frowning at everything. DS9 did this better because they led into the actual war with five seasons of making us give a damn about the characters, the setting and the idea of the Federation.
The crew (the good guys, I'll remind you) are racist, bitchy, incompetent or clearly insane. Besides Cadet Tilly and Commander Saru, the main named cast have no business in Starfleet Uniforms.
These character problems are exemplified by Micheal Burnham. Besides the obnoxiousness of her backstory, Burnham is a terrible officer and, as THE protagonist, hard to sympathise with. Micheal Burnham is literally soul bound to Spock's Dad and the show has gone out of its way to explain how she's just as competent as the smartest Vulcan and... hasn't actually shown her to be smart at all. She is impulsive, disloyal, untrustworthy and quick to violence. A normal, reasonable character might learn from their mistakes and correct their behavior after the fact, however Burnham obstinately refuses to do so. She got in trouble for disobeying orders, so, when given a second chance she immediately disobeys orders.
This is intended to be part of her developmental arc. Burnham is supposed to be learning to be human again. Others have pointed out that she really should be much further along, seeing as she's lived with humans for around 8 years now. This is a fair point, however let's put that aside for a moment and examine her development on screen. There are, to the show's credit a couple of scenes where this is done well. The fish out of water moments we get in "Magic to make the Sanest Man go Mad" are a nice touch. However other attempts have been lackluster at best and insultingly bad at worst.
There's a scene where Burnham starts expositing feelings at Ash Tyler in the 5th or 6th episode. She literally just lists off some feelings, hope, confusion and a few others. Ash knowingly tells her that it's just part of being human. I hate this scene. Rather than showing us Burnham's emotional state through her actions, we're being told and I just fucking hate that.
Now let's have a quick rundown of the other characters.
Gabriel Lorca: Lorca is the sort of character that would have made a great antagonist for a one-off episode. The Starfleet captain gone rogue that we've seen before. Following him more closely might be a more interesting story thread, in the long run. I'm just not sure that he can continue being portrayed in a positive light if the writers want to reveal him as the big bad. All the same, despite being a clear cut character archetype. Lorca makes for an interesting character and wouldn't be easily replaced in a prospective season 2.
Saru: I thought I was going to hate Saru, when I saw the first trailer for STD. That whole "sense the coming of death" shtick was cheesy as all fuck. And it still is, but Saru was at least given more characterisation than that. His hostility to Burnham is multifaceted and well founded. His character is fairly weak, but at least he acts like a Starfleet Officer most of the time.
Paul Stamets: Stamets starts out as completely unlikeable, has a good redemption arc and then goes nowhere. Spends most of the episodes high on mushrooms.
Hugh Culber: Kind of a non-character. Could be summed up by "does the medicine" and "loves Stamets".
Sylvia Tilly: Besides some inconsistencies in her character (in one episode she's got no social skills, in another she's giving Burnham dating advice and acting as a social mentor) Tilly is pretty good. She seems to have been assigned as the comic relief character, and yet she acts the most like a Starfleet officer out of the lot of them. She shows concern for her fellow crew-mates, helps her new bunk-mate because she wants to be friends and does her job without breaking all the rules.
Ash Tyler: He's alright. Definitely Voq, but Clem Fandango is an alright dude. Not much to say about him besides the fact that he's seen some shit, but rarely acts like someone that's seen some shit.
L'Rell: Torturer and serial rapist. Can you imagine the outrage this character would have created if she were male? That aside, I would actually like to see what her master plan is seeing as she comes off like a Romulan more than a Klingon.
Philipa Georgiou: The proper, level headed Starfleet captain that the show needed more of. Hopefully she'll make an appearance again in the future through some alternate reality fuckery.
Overall:
I personally feel that STD falls short of Trek on nearly every front. That isn't to say that it is an inherently bad show, it's just not Star Trek. Several people have suggested that Discovery would have made more sense in the Mass Effect universe. As many of the visuals and themes would seem more at home in the grittier, post BSG sci-fi saga of Mass Effect. I tend to agree.
And that raises an interesting point. If you were to abstract Discovery from Star Trek, would it be a better show? No and Yes. No, because it would still have all of the story telling problems it already has. Yes, because some of those story telling problems disappear when you don't have to make the show work with Star trek continuity.
So if you're able to think of Discovery as it's own thing, then you'll probably enjoy it more.
Music and Visuals:
Not much to say on Music beyond the fact that I think it's fairly spot on. Though you could say that about the Kelvinverse films too, so faint praise is faint praise. As I've mentioned in other pieces, I quite like the exterior of the Starfleet ships. I'm also partial to the Uniforms. With one exception, I can't be the only person that thinks the half collar thing they all have going on is just stupid, right?
As for the Interior of the Shenzhou and the Discovery, it's all rather antiseptic. The ship feels unlived in, cold and uninviting. This is more apparent on the Discovery. It's as if the ship designers have gone through great effort to make the crew feel as uncomfortable as possible while aboard. Hell, the Klingon ship interiors look more inviting, and we all know how I feel about the Klingons. It is, at least, recogniseably Starfleet.
To abbreviate my thoughts on the giant tardigrade in the room, I think the whole Klingon aesthetic is terrible. Nothing of the old, iconic Klingons has been kept intact. The new designs are cluttred or downright ugly. They'd be more at home as the badguys in a Gears of War game than on screen as trek baddies.
Characters and Theme:
One of the important things in Star Trek, as pointed out by RLM, is that you should want to live in the world you are being presented with.
I don't feel that Discovery delivers on this at all. Throughout the show we've seen a drab, dark depressing vision of the future. Where the crew are constantly at odds with one another and we're not given any evidence of the Utopia that the Federation is supposed to be. All we get to see is he grind of war and a very militarised Starfleet frowning at everything. DS9 did this better because they led into the actual war with five seasons of making us give a damn about the characters, the setting and the idea of the Federation.
The crew (the good guys, I'll remind you) are racist, bitchy, incompetent or clearly insane. Besides Cadet Tilly and Commander Saru, the main named cast have no business in Starfleet Uniforms.
These character problems are exemplified by Micheal Burnham. Besides the obnoxiousness of her backstory, Burnham is a terrible officer and, as THE protagonist, hard to sympathise with. Micheal Burnham is literally soul bound to Spock's Dad and the show has gone out of its way to explain how she's just as competent as the smartest Vulcan and... hasn't actually shown her to be smart at all. She is impulsive, disloyal, untrustworthy and quick to violence. A normal, reasonable character might learn from their mistakes and correct their behavior after the fact, however Burnham obstinately refuses to do so. She got in trouble for disobeying orders, so, when given a second chance she immediately disobeys orders.
This is intended to be part of her developmental arc. Burnham is supposed to be learning to be human again. Others have pointed out that she really should be much further along, seeing as she's lived with humans for around 8 years now. This is a fair point, however let's put that aside for a moment and examine her development on screen. There are, to the show's credit a couple of scenes where this is done well. The fish out of water moments we get in "Magic to make the Sanest Man go Mad" are a nice touch. However other attempts have been lackluster at best and insultingly bad at worst.
There's a scene where Burnham starts expositing feelings at Ash Tyler in the 5th or 6th episode. She literally just lists off some feelings, hope, confusion and a few others. Ash knowingly tells her that it's just part of being human. I hate this scene. Rather than showing us Burnham's emotional state through her actions, we're being told and I just fucking hate that.
Now let's have a quick rundown of the other characters.
Gabriel Lorca: Lorca is the sort of character that would have made a great antagonist for a one-off episode. The Starfleet captain gone rogue that we've seen before. Following him more closely might be a more interesting story thread, in the long run. I'm just not sure that he can continue being portrayed in a positive light if the writers want to reveal him as the big bad. All the same, despite being a clear cut character archetype. Lorca makes for an interesting character and wouldn't be easily replaced in a prospective season 2.
Saru: I thought I was going to hate Saru, when I saw the first trailer for STD. That whole "sense the coming of death" shtick was cheesy as all fuck. And it still is, but Saru was at least given more characterisation than that. His hostility to Burnham is multifaceted and well founded. His character is fairly weak, but at least he acts like a Starfleet Officer most of the time.
Paul Stamets: Stamets starts out as completely unlikeable, has a good redemption arc and then goes nowhere. Spends most of the episodes high on mushrooms.
Hugh Culber: Kind of a non-character. Could be summed up by "does the medicine" and "loves Stamets".
Sylvia Tilly: Besides some inconsistencies in her character (in one episode she's got no social skills, in another she's giving Burnham dating advice and acting as a social mentor) Tilly is pretty good. She seems to have been assigned as the comic relief character, and yet she acts the most like a Starfleet officer out of the lot of them. She shows concern for her fellow crew-mates, helps her new bunk-mate because she wants to be friends and does her job without breaking all the rules.
Ash Tyler: He's alright. Definitely Voq, but Clem Fandango is an alright dude. Not much to say about him besides the fact that he's seen some shit, but rarely acts like someone that's seen some shit.
L'Rell: Torturer and serial rapist. Can you imagine the outrage this character would have created if she were male? That aside, I would actually like to see what her master plan is seeing as she comes off like a Romulan more than a Klingon.
Philipa Georgiou: The proper, level headed Starfleet captain that the show needed more of. Hopefully she'll make an appearance again in the future through some alternate reality fuckery.
Overall:
I personally feel that STD falls short of Trek on nearly every front. That isn't to say that it is an inherently bad show, it's just not Star Trek. Several people have suggested that Discovery would have made more sense in the Mass Effect universe. As many of the visuals and themes would seem more at home in the grittier, post BSG sci-fi saga of Mass Effect. I tend to agree.
And that raises an interesting point. If you were to abstract Discovery from Star Trek, would it be a better show? No and Yes. No, because it would still have all of the story telling problems it already has. Yes, because some of those story telling problems disappear when you don't have to make the show work with Star trek continuity.
So if you're able to think of Discovery as it's own thing, then you'll probably enjoy it more.
The Orville
So, now we must look at The Orville with the same critcal eye and ask; is it Trek?
Music and Visuals:
You know, for the show that has clearly put a lot less money into it's visuals and general presentation, I feel like the Orville looks and sounds a lot better. The music is on point, very close to the orchestral pieces in TNG movies, to my ear. Visually, as already mentioned, I feel that the physical models lend a wonderful feeling to the ships in ORV. First and foremost, the Orville is a beautiful model and whoever is responsible for it has an excellent eye for aesthetics. The design is fluid, unique and follows a consistent theme. (in the same way that Nebulas and N'Orleans are similar to a Galaxy, the Orville clearly fits into a design scheme).
The interior of the Union vessel is, quite simply, comfy. The ship feels lived in. Small touches make the ship feel like a nice place to live. The colour palette is just a touch warmer than that of STD, still prioritising paler colours, but injecting warm beiges and greys to offset them. Beyond that, there are spacious public areas and, surprisingly effective, plants placed throughout various ship environments. it's a small touch, but it's effective. in fact, it's mostly the small touches where ORV shines.
Characters and Theme:
Orville is much closer to older Trek. This means that the show is, thematically, much more exploration-centric. There's a sort of optimistic enthusiasm that feels quintessentially Trek about the whole thing. What's more, they don't just shoot all their problems away. Characters confront one another and talk through serious topics. Their assumptions are challenged. They grow... for the most part. Even the principle antagonists, the Krill, are sold as a more complex and conflicting species than is first put forward. What I'm selling here sounds a little better then what we get because there are a few issues here.
As much as the show is trying to be thoughtful, the unnecessary juxtaposition of dick jokes into the mix doesn't' help and, to be honest, some of the solutions to problems they come up with are scarcely more thought out that the punchline they were spawned from. Not to say that they're all like that. Some episodes have wonderfully thoughtful conclusions. But the quality is inconsistent. Much like the humour, actually. I really laughed at some of the better planned jokes but a fair few were just jarring to the scene.
There are certain aspects of the show that seem like a direct response to in-built flaws of Star Trek. The prime directive is (thankfully) done away with and the crew are quite happy to help developing worlds because they have the ability to do so. the crew are more willing to start fights but clearly still uphold a strict moral code. Superior alien species are treated like a fact of life rather than gods. All good things, as far as I'm concerned. But I suppose I'm more affirmative of these details because I'm such an unbearable fucking nerd for Trek in the first place. So maybe those concepts are less apparent to the average viewer.
Now let's look at the core cast. And a few minor character I'm going to completely shit on (DERULIO!).
Ed Mercer: Plays up to Seth MacFarlane's previous work, certainly. The Captain is snarky and awkward. At least in some scenes. In others, he's much more the traditional captain, naysaying other officer's harebrained schemes or emotional overreactions. Despite the fact that Mercer is billed as the protagonists, he's only really the main character for 3 of the current 10 episodes in the series. And in 2 of those cases you could argue he's sharing the spot with Commander Grayson. In short, Mercer is a snapshot of what a run of the mill Starfleet captain would look like. Still good at his job, but nowhere near the superhuman talents of a usual Trek captain.
Kelly Grayson: Mercer's estranged wife and now his First Officer. Throughout the show you get the feeling that Grayson is much more together than Mercer. They're both capable officers but Grayson takes everything a bit more seriously. Hasn't really had a good character developing episode apart from Mercer yet so it's hard to tell what her own motivations are.
SUPPLEMENTAL: She gets a character-centric episode at the end of the 1st season. Adds some welcome flaws to her personality, which work to reinforce the problem between her and Ed. She's a leap-before-you-look sort of person, as it turns out.
Bortus: Surprisingly deep as a character. Initially seems to be a reskinned Worf. However he's quickly established to have much different motivations. Given the hostility that Gay characters tend to receive, at least online, Bortus manages to be just alien enough to avoid most of that.
Alara Kitan: The character that gets the most screen time besides the main pair. Alara is very young and admits to having been pushed into a command position for which she is unready. Her species are, as it turns out, the Vulcans of this setting and people tend to over-estimate there abilities. Alara has, so far, avoided being consigned to love interest and may end up being the closest thing to a main character the show has.
Claire Finn: A character that absolutely would have been at home on TNG. Dr. Finn is the no nonsense CMO of the Orville. Also a single Mother. Works well as the (usually) sound voice of reason.
Gordon Molloy: Not much there, as of yet. Basically only in scenes to spout one-liners. Might get developed later.
John LaMarr: Again, not much done here as of yet. Kind of just comes off like an asshole in his only character-centric episode. SUPPLEMENTAL: Episode 11 just came out and it's another LaMarr heavy episode. Complete turn around for his character, the hint of an interesting backstory as well as a more comfortable position for him on the crew.
Isaac: Racist space robot with 0 understanding of social graces and the moral compass of a cat. If I really need to say more then I honestly don't know how to save you.
Steve Newton: I get the feeling this guy might as well be called O'Brien.
Yaphit: Cool idea, having a crewmember that's basically a ball of jelly. Not a fan of his 1-note character though.
Derulio: Here we go. Here we fucking go. Derulio is in 2 episodes. The first has him as the basically identity-less man that Grayson cheats on. In the second episode he appears in, it turns out he conceals the fact that he secretes pheromones that take away people's ability to refuse to have sex with him. And throughout the entire episode, the obnoxious prick can't seem to fathom why this is a bad thing, even as everything goes to shit as a direct consequence of his shitty, shitty move. I could, and likely will, rant about this blue shithead until the cows come home. But suffice it to say that Derulio is bad in every sense of the word.
Overall:
Not bad. Not great. By no means perfect but pretty good. I think the Orville is more Trek than Discovery. I also think that it is, overall, the better show. And I think, like Discovery, it would suffer for being part of the Trek canon. The show certainly feels Trek, but is quick to discard those concepts it finds unwieldy. If ORV was a licensed Trek series, it wouldn't have the freedom to do that.
Right now I see the show going 1 of 2 ways. Either the writing team lay off the comedy and start telling their own stories for their own merit, or a Fox exec takes a break from his cocaine/dolphin hookers fever dream long enough to decree "more jokes". Really hoping it's the former.
Music and Visuals:
You know, for the show that has clearly put a lot less money into it's visuals and general presentation, I feel like the Orville looks and sounds a lot better. The music is on point, very close to the orchestral pieces in TNG movies, to my ear. Visually, as already mentioned, I feel that the physical models lend a wonderful feeling to the ships in ORV. First and foremost, the Orville is a beautiful model and whoever is responsible for it has an excellent eye for aesthetics. The design is fluid, unique and follows a consistent theme. (in the same way that Nebulas and N'Orleans are similar to a Galaxy, the Orville clearly fits into a design scheme).
The interior of the Union vessel is, quite simply, comfy. The ship feels lived in. Small touches make the ship feel like a nice place to live. The colour palette is just a touch warmer than that of STD, still prioritising paler colours, but injecting warm beiges and greys to offset them. Beyond that, there are spacious public areas and, surprisingly effective, plants placed throughout various ship environments. it's a small touch, but it's effective. in fact, it's mostly the small touches where ORV shines.
Characters and Theme:
Orville is much closer to older Trek. This means that the show is, thematically, much more exploration-centric. There's a sort of optimistic enthusiasm that feels quintessentially Trek about the whole thing. What's more, they don't just shoot all their problems away. Characters confront one another and talk through serious topics. Their assumptions are challenged. They grow... for the most part. Even the principle antagonists, the Krill, are sold as a more complex and conflicting species than is first put forward. What I'm selling here sounds a little better then what we get because there are a few issues here.
As much as the show is trying to be thoughtful, the unnecessary juxtaposition of dick jokes into the mix doesn't' help and, to be honest, some of the solutions to problems they come up with are scarcely more thought out that the punchline they were spawned from. Not to say that they're all like that. Some episodes have wonderfully thoughtful conclusions. But the quality is inconsistent. Much like the humour, actually. I really laughed at some of the better planned jokes but a fair few were just jarring to the scene.
There are certain aspects of the show that seem like a direct response to in-built flaws of Star Trek. The prime directive is (thankfully) done away with and the crew are quite happy to help developing worlds because they have the ability to do so. the crew are more willing to start fights but clearly still uphold a strict moral code. Superior alien species are treated like a fact of life rather than gods. All good things, as far as I'm concerned. But I suppose I'm more affirmative of these details because I'm such an unbearable fucking nerd for Trek in the first place. So maybe those concepts are less apparent to the average viewer.
Now let's look at the core cast. And a few minor character I'm going to completely shit on (DERULIO!).
Ed Mercer: Plays up to Seth MacFarlane's previous work, certainly. The Captain is snarky and awkward. At least in some scenes. In others, he's much more the traditional captain, naysaying other officer's harebrained schemes or emotional overreactions. Despite the fact that Mercer is billed as the protagonists, he's only really the main character for 3 of the current 10 episodes in the series. And in 2 of those cases you could argue he's sharing the spot with Commander Grayson. In short, Mercer is a snapshot of what a run of the mill Starfleet captain would look like. Still good at his job, but nowhere near the superhuman talents of a usual Trek captain.
Kelly Grayson: Mercer's estranged wife and now his First Officer. Throughout the show you get the feeling that Grayson is much more together than Mercer. They're both capable officers but Grayson takes everything a bit more seriously. Hasn't really had a good character developing episode apart from Mercer yet so it's hard to tell what her own motivations are.
SUPPLEMENTAL: She gets a character-centric episode at the end of the 1st season. Adds some welcome flaws to her personality, which work to reinforce the problem between her and Ed. She's a leap-before-you-look sort of person, as it turns out.
Bortus: Surprisingly deep as a character. Initially seems to be a reskinned Worf. However he's quickly established to have much different motivations. Given the hostility that Gay characters tend to receive, at least online, Bortus manages to be just alien enough to avoid most of that.
Alara Kitan: The character that gets the most screen time besides the main pair. Alara is very young and admits to having been pushed into a command position for which she is unready. Her species are, as it turns out, the Vulcans of this setting and people tend to over-estimate there abilities. Alara has, so far, avoided being consigned to love interest and may end up being the closest thing to a main character the show has.
Claire Finn: A character that absolutely would have been at home on TNG. Dr. Finn is the no nonsense CMO of the Orville. Also a single Mother. Works well as the (usually) sound voice of reason.
Gordon Molloy: Not much there, as of yet. Basically only in scenes to spout one-liners. Might get developed later.
John LaMarr: Again, not much done here as of yet. Kind of just comes off like an asshole in his only character-centric episode. SUPPLEMENTAL: Episode 11 just came out and it's another LaMarr heavy episode. Complete turn around for his character, the hint of an interesting backstory as well as a more comfortable position for him on the crew.
Isaac: Racist space robot with 0 understanding of social graces and the moral compass of a cat. If I really need to say more then I honestly don't know how to save you.
Steve Newton: I get the feeling this guy might as well be called O'Brien.
Yaphit: Cool idea, having a crewmember that's basically a ball of jelly. Not a fan of his 1-note character though.
Derulio: Here we go. Here we fucking go. Derulio is in 2 episodes. The first has him as the basically identity-less man that Grayson cheats on. In the second episode he appears in, it turns out he conceals the fact that he secretes pheromones that take away people's ability to refuse to have sex with him. And throughout the entire episode, the obnoxious prick can't seem to fathom why this is a bad thing, even as everything goes to shit as a direct consequence of his shitty, shitty move. I could, and likely will, rant about this blue shithead until the cows come home. But suffice it to say that Derulio is bad in every sense of the word.
Overall:
Not bad. Not great. By no means perfect but pretty good. I think the Orville is more Trek than Discovery. I also think that it is, overall, the better show. And I think, like Discovery, it would suffer for being part of the Trek canon. The show certainly feels Trek, but is quick to discard those concepts it finds unwieldy. If ORV was a licensed Trek series, it wouldn't have the freedom to do that.
Right now I see the show going 1 of 2 ways. Either the writing team lay off the comedy and start telling their own stories for their own merit, or a Fox exec takes a break from his cocaine/dolphin hookers fever dream long enough to decree "more jokes". Really hoping it's the former.
Conclusion
So you're probably expecting me to recommend you one of the shows. We'll get to that. But honestly, so long as you have the time, you should really give both of them a look. My opinions are just that, opinions. There are plenty of garbage people out there that like the new Klingons. And I bet you there's even a war criminal that thinks Derulio isn't the worst. So my subjective-as-fuck look at the show's shouldn't be taken as anything other than that. Odds are pretty good you can watch one of the shows for no extra cost to yourself. So you maybe that's the one you go with. At any rate your best bet is finding out first hand if you like the shows or not.
But, apart from that, if someone pointed a gun to my head and told me to choose between the 2 shows, I'd absolutely go with Orville. I like the lighter tone, I prefer the way the story is being presented and honestly I just feel tired when I watch Discovery. And that's not something I've ever felt about any other Star Trek series, not even the dumbest parts of Voyager. I'll still watch it, because I'm an idiot. But I'm not gonna go out of my way to recommend it or sing its meager praises.
But, apart from that, if someone pointed a gun to my head and told me to choose between the 2 shows, I'd absolutely go with Orville. I like the lighter tone, I prefer the way the story is being presented and honestly I just feel tired when I watch Discovery. And that's not something I've ever felt about any other Star Trek series, not even the dumbest parts of Voyager. I'll still watch it, because I'm an idiot. But I'm not gonna go out of my way to recommend it or sing its meager praises.