3 ms·

Odd, that was the episode that just about made me drop the series. The crew of the Orville was driven by emotion, barely took any time to consider the aliens'

Odd, that was the episode that just about made me drop the series. The crew of the Orville was driven by emotion, barely took any time to consider the aliens' point of view, didn't seek any evidence for either side's position and argued their point primarily with logical fallacies ("look, these problems don't exist in other species, so clearly they can't exist in yours"). I don't think this episode could have worked in TNG because the episode would boil down to: "Picard: What evidence do you have to support your beliefs?" "Aliens: Uhh, why do we need evidence, clearly it is this way?" "Picard: Let's find some evidence" It had its upsides for sure but it's definitely not comparable to TNG.

ademup 9y ago
(spoiler alert!) The premise IS an emotional one. The entire construct of the episode is to find a place where logic doesn't rule the day(gender issues are, today, far from solved). Indeed, The Orville crew LOST the fight in the end, so... Your point is solidly made, and the episode agreed with you. In what way is that not freek'n awesome?
- Veratyr 9y ago
  My main problem is that, driven by emotion, the crew attempted to make a _logical_ argument, substantially based on fallacy ("these other species don't have this attribute you claim you have, so you mustn't either"). Their ultimate argument was, in the end, a pretty solid one, based on real evidence, however they didn't seem to bother looking for evidence until the very end, when all other avenues were exhausted. It wasn't a rational way to behave and I don't think this would have ever happened in TNG (did it? An episode doesn't come to mind). In TNG, Data would also have found the whole thing very confusing and grounded the crew somewhat. Isaac was notably absent in this episode. The ending was interesting and I think this episode could have been _much_ better if the rest of it was handled better but the irrational behaviour of the crew was so bad it broke the suspension of disbelief for me. I may be naïve to think I can do better but I'd do it something like this: - Crew asks, in a great deal of detail, what exactly the aliens believe the problem is and why they believe it's there - Aliens respond with their concerns and that they are primarily based on custom/legend and there is no modern evidence - Crew asks if it would be possible to gather evidence - Aliens say no - Crew tries to justify their search for evidence with the arguments presented in the episode as it was originally written - Aliens rightly point out that those arguments are invalid, continue to say no - Crew gathers evidence on their own, sneaking around and maybe getting in a bit of diplomatic trouble - Crew finds evidence, makes argument - Argument is overruled, episode keeps its nice ending
  - xbkingx 9y ago
    (Not the guy you responded to, but adding anyways.) The cleverness of that episode is, in part, how it contrasts TNG. I agree with your assessment of the situation, and judging by the way The Orville pulls from TNG, it was intentional. They SHOULD have lost the trial, and they DID, unlike TNG where everyone can quickly become an expert legal representative within 48 hours. It's analogous to why they have awkward quote scenes - in TNG everyone had a quote at the ready for any situation, but in reality, who does that? They argued like regular people argue, not lawyers. And true to Trek nature, even though they lost, they still won a little by bringing out the female author. So, you're right that they argued with emotion instead of logic, but you have to always be drawing from similar TNG situations with The Orville. It's why you see awkward elevator scenes and people spit out disgusting alien food. Those 'bad' jokes are fun references to TNG. How many times does Picard boldly proclaim to a Klingon that he looks forward to partaking in some zany, macho, ceremonial meal? How many times do we see him with said food in his mouth? I think The Orville is the best example of "you get what you put into it." Some people want to sit back and take it at face value, so the jokes are terrible and juvenile. Some people engage in every scene like a thought experiment and think about all the threads connecting the characters, the comedy, and the source material, and they probably love the show. And most people are somewhere in between. I'm far more on the loving it side and part of that is because the more I think about the scenes I don't like, the more I realize that this show is actually really complex. Most of the scenes I disliked on first viewing have become my favorites on second viewing because even when I think I know what it's going for, they slide a whole sub-commentary right under my nose. My first reaction is usually that I'm overthinking it, that it can't be X, but suddenly X is everywhere. For example, 'About a Girl' only seriously addresses gender issues in the reveal of the female author. The vast majority of that episode and its most important points have nothing to do with gender. And, finally, my favorite aspect of The Orville is that they take a very middle of the road approach, pointing out the faults of conservatives and liberals pretty damn equally. The show isn't trying to say which way is right and just wants to start a conversation. With how divided the US has become, I didn't think there was any way to talk about these issues on TV without alienating one side or the other, but the writers have done a remarkable job of walking that very narrow line. Anyhow, sorry for blabbing and going off topic a bit. I just wanted to say I agree with your assessment, but suspect that the aloofness was intentional. There was no underdog coming from behind to save the day, no deus ex machina, no pardon from the governor 5 seconds before the execution. It was a way for the writers to say, "This shit matters. Approach it like an amateur and there will be real consequences." Usually it takes shows a season to do the same by killing off a character. They did it in episode 3 and centered around a character that had 4-ish (?) lines in the entire series. And it was still a gut-punch. Okay, I'm rambling again. Anyhoo... so I kinda like the show. Totally cool if you don't, but if you keep watching you might enjoy it more if you associate the cringeworthy moments with the writers telling you to think about the scene more. At least it worked for me.

ademup 9y ago

(spoiler alert!) The premise IS an emotional one. The entire construct of the episode is to find a place where logic doesn't rule the day(gender issues are, today, far from solved). Indeed, The Orville crew LOST the fight in the end, so... Your point is solidly made, and the episode agreed with you. In what way is that not freek'n awesome?

Veratyr 9y ago
My main problem is that, driven by emotion, the crew attempted to make a _logical_ argument, substantially based on fallacy ("these other species don't have this attribute you claim you have, so you mustn't either"). Their ultimate argument was, in the end, a pretty solid one, based on real evidence, however they didn't seem to bother looking for evidence until the very end, when all other avenues were exhausted. It wasn't a rational way to behave and I don't think this would have ever happened in TNG (did it? An episode doesn't come to mind). In TNG, Data would also have found the whole thing very confusing and grounded the crew somewhat. Isaac was notably absent in this episode. The ending was interesting and I think this episode could have been _much_ better if the rest of it was handled better but the irrational behaviour of the crew was so bad it broke the suspension of disbelief for me. I may be naïve to think I can do better but I'd do it something like this: - Crew asks, in a great deal of detail, what exactly the aliens believe the problem is and why they believe it's there - Aliens respond with their concerns and that they are primarily based on custom/legend and there is no modern evidence - Crew asks if it would be possible to gather evidence - Aliens say no - Crew tries to justify their search for evidence with the arguments presented in the episode as it was originally written - Aliens rightly point out that those arguments are invalid, continue to say no - Crew gathers evidence on their own, sneaking around and maybe getting in a bit of diplomatic trouble - Crew finds evidence, makes argument - Argument is overruled, episode keeps its nice ending
- xbkingx 9y ago
  (Not the guy you responded to, but adding anyways.) The cleverness of that episode is, in part, how it contrasts TNG. I agree with your assessment of the situation, and judging by the way The Orville pulls from TNG, it was intentional. They SHOULD have lost the trial, and they DID, unlike TNG where everyone can quickly become an expert legal representative within 48 hours. It's analogous to why they have awkward quote scenes - in TNG everyone had a quote at the ready for any situation, but in reality, who does that? They argued like regular people argue, not lawyers. And true to Trek nature, even though they lost, they still won a little by bringing out the female author. So, you're right that they argued with emotion instead of logic, but you have to always be drawing from similar TNG situations with The Orville. It's why you see awkward elevator scenes and people spit out disgusting alien food. Those 'bad' jokes are fun references to TNG. How many times does Picard boldly proclaim to a Klingon that he looks forward to partaking in some zany, macho, ceremonial meal? How many times do we see him with said food in his mouth? I think The Orville is the best example of "you get what you put into it." Some people want to sit back and take it at face value, so the jokes are terrible and juvenile. Some people engage in every scene like a thought experiment and think about all the threads connecting the characters, the comedy, and the source material, and they probably love the show. And most people are somewhere in between. I'm far more on the loving it side and part of that is because the more I think about the scenes I don't like, the more I realize that this show is actually really complex. Most of the scenes I disliked on first viewing have become my favorites on second viewing because even when I think I know what it's going for, they slide a whole sub-commentary right under my nose. My first reaction is usually that I'm overthinking it, that it can't be X, but suddenly X is everywhere. For example, 'About a Girl' only seriously addresses gender issues in the reveal of the female author. The vast majority of that episode and its most important points have nothing to do with gender. And, finally, my favorite aspect of The Orville is that they take a very middle of the road approach, pointing out the faults of conservatives and liberals pretty damn equally. The show isn't trying to say which way is right and just wants to start a conversation. With how divided the US has become, I didn't think there was any way to talk about these issues on TV without alienating one side or the other, but the writers have done a remarkable job of walking that very narrow line. Anyhow, sorry for blabbing and going off topic a bit. I just wanted to say I agree with your assessment, but suspect that the aloofness was intentional. There was no underdog coming from behind to save the day, no deus ex machina, no pardon from the governor 5 seconds before the execution. It was a way for the writers to say, "This shit matters. Approach it like an amateur and there will be real consequences." Usually it takes shows a season to do the same by killing off a character. They did it in episode 3 and centered around a character that had 4-ish (?) lines in the entire series. And it was still a gut-punch. Okay, I'm rambling again. Anyhoo... so I kinda like the show. Totally cool if you don't, but if you keep watching you might enjoy it more if you associate the cringeworthy moments with the writers telling you to think about the scene more. At least it worked for me.