The Orville Season 2

I really like it.

Need less Bortus...not into that character at all.

Need More Scott Grimes...that dude is funny.
 
Ep 1 was ok, the whole "Bortus needs to pee" thing was a joke set up in season 1 and this was the pay off.


Ep 2 had me cringing almost the entire first half.

I get it, Bortus is gay. His entire species is gay. Gay biker bar gay.

It's not new information. I didn't need to see awkward scenes of naked fat gay aliens to get across the point that he's gay. I also didn't need awkward scenes of naked fat gay aliens having awkward fat gay foreplay to tell me he was "cheating" (it's hologram porn, is it really cheating?).


In TNG's first season, there was a LOT of half naked aliens. Like whole civilizations of half naked aliens. But that was the 80's/early 90's. By season 2 there was almost none of that, and when there was, it was usually needed by the story.


The holograms in the second half of the episode got funny. I got the joke.

But the holograms in the first half of the episode had me waiting for a punchline that didn't happen, which made it even more uncomfortable. I felt like I was watching bad fat gay alien softcore fan fiction.
 
They combined the Old Married Couple troupe, with being Gay and then the Porno Addiction all together. That was too much. They strung that joke out too much. They didn't spend enough time on the "B" Plot. The only real connection between the two plots was that
Spoiler


It just wasn't a very well structured story on several levels that go beyond the whole "lol gay porn addiction".


And we're not done with Bortis, I predict we'll see at least another episode with him and his family dealing with the inevitable drama of his kid having to deal with the fact that "he" was born a girl and they forced "him" to be a boy. That was left hanging out there and is too obvious.


Bortis (IMO) was supposed to be the straight-man in that his character plays the comedy straight-faced like he's the one in the room that doesn't get the joke, Everyone else is silly, but he is always super serious. Almost like he's the sane person among a group of lunatics.

In Brooklyn Nine-Nine, this is seen in the character of Captain Ray Holt. Who is also Gay and Black... just like Bortis, except Orville turned Bortis into too much of a parady and I can't take him seriously now.
 
That is not what I meant.

I could have phrased that better. They sabotaged Bortis as a character the audience wants to relate too (?).
 
there have been way too many episodes centered on Bortis and all of them seem to have some kind of contemporary message, but that message (and the episode) always fall completely flat. they are trying to hamfist way too much shit on one character who isn't particularly interesting. but to be fair, most of the characters aren't that interesting.

although it took TNG awhile for characters to gel so it could be a matter of time, but to do that they'd probably need to take a more serious approach to the show with the bits of humor (seth pulling up in the shuttle outside chick's window was pretty funny) without the stupid slapstick like a yearly pissing ceremony.
 
At least this episode is about Alara.

The Orville
S2 E3 Home
Ed, Gordon and Alara visit Alara's home planet.
9:00 PM

It's a great show, but the pattern is becoming the same. Feature 2 characters switching between them like a soap opera with a challenge thrown in.
 
Last edited:
havax said:
So it's a lot like Star trek :shrug:
Click to expand...
Naw, Star Trek was all about Kirk (William Shatner). He had such a big ego, the show was about him. Sometimes they featured another character with a problem, but Kirk was always there. I watch the re-runs on H&I every night.

I remember hearing an interview on Stern's show, where Sulu was going to be the Captain. Shatner kept interrupting Sulu's lines and throwing him off track with jokes, until they decided not to make him captain.
 
People do not understand that the original series wasn't an ensemble cast performance.

Shatner, Nimoy and DeForest were the leads. Everyone else was a supporting character. The stories revolved around the lead characters, so of course Kirk is at the epicenter of every episode. It's why it is "STAR TREK - starring William Shatner" and not George Takei.



In TNG, there was more of an ensemble cast. More of the cast gets billing during the opening credits. By the third season the writers began focusing an entire episode around a individual character. There would be a "Picard" episode, a Riker, Worf, Troy story ect ect. That allowed an individual character to develop more of an arc over the 7 seasons of TNG. It also benefited the production schedule because it gave the other cast members a break since they weren't required full time for every story of the 24 episode season.

We see them doing s similar thing in The Orville.
 
This episode was definitely the best of the three episodes aired so far. The revenge plot was kinda cliched but John Billingsley always plays unhinged sickos really well. Damn I got the feels more than I thought I would.

So...

Spoiler
 
Spoiler
 
Last edited:
I like the Orville. It's not the greatest show ever but I'm down to watch it.

The thing about Trek which I don't think the Orville has the ability to match is character development. Even a series as poorly regarded as Voyager actually had meaningful development for Tom, B'lana, The Doctor and Seven (even though the doctor and seven both served the same purpose as a foil for humanity.... which is what Data's character was in TNG and Spock in TOS). Most of these were one-dimensional archetypes who grew into something more.

Look at Bortus - When he's a punchline he's great but when there's some sort of moral challenge or development of character, it just doesn't fit. The same would go for the other 'punchline characters' like Isaac, Gordon or John. They work as a cartoon of a person but fall flat when asked to be taken seriously. Alara was probably the best character they had done anything with and now she's off the show, lol.

Most of the crew are portrayed with an undertone of ineptitude. The show works better as a space (mis)adventure than it does when it asks us to then believe these characters in a serious tone.
 
Atreides said:
I like the Orville. It's not the greatest show ever but I'm down to watch it.

The thing about Trek which I don't think the Orville has the ability to match is character development. Even a series as poorly regarded as Voyager actually had meaningful development for Tom, B'lana, The Doctor and Seven (even though the doctor and seven both served the same purpose as a foil for humanity.... which is what Data's character was in TNG and Spock in TOS). Most of these were one-dimensional archetypes who grew into something more.

Look at Bortus - When he's a punchline he's great but when there's some sort of moral challenge or development of character, it just doesn't fit. The same would go for the other 'punchline characters' like Isaac, Gordon or John. They work as a cartoon of a person but fall flat when asked to be taken seriously. Alara was probably the best character they had done anything with and now she's off the show, lol.

Most of the crew are portrayed with an undertone of ineptitude. The show works better as a space (mis)adventure than it does when it asks us to then believe these characters in a serious tone.
Click to expand...

It takes time to develop characters. TNG wasn't all that great in the first 2-3 seasons. It took time to find their stride. When you have a 24 episode season you have that luxury, especially when you know you are going to be around for a while.

IMO, DS9 had some of the best character development arcs of all of Star Trek, but the first 2 seasons where pretty bland.

The Orville has had only 15 episodes thus far, just a little more than half a regular season of traditional Star Trek to get character arcs going. That's a tougher challenge when it comes to character development when you have a diverse group of characters to work with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top