3 ms·

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

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

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...