4 ms·

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 thi

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.
- Veratyr 9y ago
  I get where you're coming from and I see that Orville is deliberately trying to be different, often in a good way but even taking later episodes into account, I think this one really stands out in a bad way. > They SHOULD have lost the trial, and they DID, unlike TNG where everyone can quickly become an expert legal representative within 48 hours. This isn't about becoming lawyers, this is about the otherwise shown as brilliant and logical crew throwing all their judgement out the window and making arguments like "all these other species lack the issue you're describing, that means yours does too" and making emotional appeals without looking for _any_ kind of evidence. Look at their approaches to other problems. They're generally pretty rational and apply logic and reason. > They argued like regular people argue, not lawyers. But they're not regular people, they're highly trained explorers, often charged with diplomatic missions and making contact with other cultures. Plus they have a ton of science staff and a superintelligent walking computer. They don't need to be lawyers but they _do_ need to act like they can do their jobs, at least somewhat. > I agree with your assessment, but suspect that the aloofness was intentional I agree with you too that it was intentional but I really don't think it made sense. Am I really supposed to expect that the crew I saw in episode 3 is the same crew I saw in the other episodes? I could believe it if they showed that the admiralty was so disappointed in their performance that they made them undergo additional training between episodes 3 and 4 but that wasn't the case. > 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. I've kept watching it and I've mostly liked it but that episode just really stood out to me as bad.
  - xbkingx 9y ago
    Cool.Yeah there are bits and pieces that I think don't fit right even after they flesh out why the character acted in a certain way. LeMarr's statue grinding was one. I get how the last episode kinda explained it, but it still feels 'off'. > But they're not regular people, they're highly trained explorers Part of what the writers seem to be doing is feeling out the purpose of the crew and ship. Their mission statement is pretty vague, but a ship like that probably requires a certain mix of specialists and generalists. So, I'm not sure they are actually 'expert explorers'. It feels more like a redemption story for a team filled with people that fell from grace in one way or another. Like Malloy is an amazing pilot, but dumb as a bag of rocks in other ways. The crew as a collective seems to oscillate between expert and idiot which I've seen happen plenty of times in group project settings, especially when you have a mix of motivations and drive. By all appearances to the the higher ups (reports, academy grades, etc.) they are expert explorers, but they have plenty of flaws that the show celebrates (sometimes too much). I also think episode 3 was set up to be a kind of turning point for the seriousness of the show. They thought they could go in and argue like one of their beloved TV shows and received a tough smackdown. That might be why I let the trial scene slide but not the statue grinding. > Am I really supposed to expect that the crew I saw in episode 3 is the same crew I saw in the other episodes? I could believe it if they showed that the admiralty was so disappointed... That transition over the first 4 episodes is part of what sold me on the show. They suffered a big loss and stepped up their game afterwards without needing an authority figure to intervene or punish. The sense of taking responsibility because it is the right thing to do and not out of fear of punishment is quintessential Trek and relevant. Cool. Cool cool cool...

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.

Veratyr 9y ago
I get where you're coming from and I see that Orville is deliberately trying to be different, often in a good way but even taking later episodes into account, I think this one really stands out in a bad way. > They SHOULD have lost the trial, and they DID, unlike TNG where everyone can quickly become an expert legal representative within 48 hours. This isn't about becoming lawyers, this is about the otherwise shown as brilliant and logical crew throwing all their judgement out the window and making arguments like "all these other species lack the issue you're describing, that means yours does too" and making emotional appeals without looking for _any_ kind of evidence. Look at their approaches to other problems. They're generally pretty rational and apply logic and reason. > They argued like regular people argue, not lawyers. But they're not regular people, they're highly trained explorers, often charged with diplomatic missions and making contact with other cultures. Plus they have a ton of science staff and a superintelligent walking computer. They don't need to be lawyers but they _do_ need to act like they can do their jobs, at least somewhat. > I agree with your assessment, but suspect that the aloofness was intentional I agree with you too that it was intentional but I really don't think it made sense. Am I really supposed to expect that the crew I saw in episode 3 is the same crew I saw in the other episodes? I could believe it if they showed that the admiralty was so disappointed in their performance that they made them undergo additional training between episodes 3 and 4 but that wasn't the case. > 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. I've kept watching it and I've mostly liked it but that episode just really stood out to me as bad.
- xbkingx 9y ago
  Cool.Yeah there are bits and pieces that I think don't fit right even after they flesh out why the character acted in a certain way. LeMarr's statue grinding was one. I get how the last episode kinda explained it, but it still feels 'off'. > But they're not regular people, they're highly trained explorers Part of what the writers seem to be doing is feeling out the purpose of the crew and ship. Their mission statement is pretty vague, but a ship like that probably requires a certain mix of specialists and generalists. So, I'm not sure they are actually 'expert explorers'. It feels more like a redemption story for a team filled with people that fell from grace in one way or another. Like Malloy is an amazing pilot, but dumb as a bag of rocks in other ways. The crew as a collective seems to oscillate between expert and idiot which I've seen happen plenty of times in group project settings, especially when you have a mix of motivations and drive. By all appearances to the the higher ups (reports, academy grades, etc.) they are expert explorers, but they have plenty of flaws that the show celebrates (sometimes too much). I also think episode 3 was set up to be a kind of turning point for the seriousness of the show. They thought they could go in and argue like one of their beloved TV shows and received a tough smackdown. That might be why I let the trial scene slide but not the statue grinding. > Am I really supposed to expect that the crew I saw in episode 3 is the same crew I saw in the other episodes? I could believe it if they showed that the admiralty was so disappointed... That transition over the first 4 episodes is part of what sold me on the show. They suffered a big loss and stepped up their game afterwards without needing an authority figure to intervene or punish. The sense of taking responsibility because it is the right thing to do and not out of fear of punishment is quintessential Trek and relevant. Cool. Cool cool cool...