Octopus Overlords

The Orville is a one-hour science fiction series set 400 years in the future that follows the adventures of the U.S.S. Orville, a mid-level exploratory vessel. Its crew, both human and alien, faces the wonders and dangers of outer space, while also dealing with the familiar, often humorous problems of regular people in a workplace…even though some of those people are from other planets, and the workplace is a faster-than-light spaceship. In the 25th century, Earth is part of the Planetary Union, a far-reaching, advanced and mostly peaceful civilization with a fleet of 3,000 ships. Down on his luck after a bitter divorce, Planetary Union officer Ed Mercer (MacFarlane) finally gets his chance to command one of these ships: the U.S.S. Orville. Determined to prove his worth and write a new chapter in his life, Ed finds that task all the more difficult when the First Officer assigned to his ship is his ex-wife, Kelly Grayson (Adrianne Palicki). As the new commander, Ed assembles a qualified, but eccentric crew, including his best friend, Gordon Malloy (Scott Grimes), who has problems with authority, but is the best helmsman in the fleet; Dr. Claire Finn (Penny Johnson Jerald), one of the Union’s most accomplished physicians; Bortus (Peter Macon), an alien from a single-sex species; Isaac (Mark Jackson), an artificial life-form from a machine society that thinks biological life-forms are inferior; navigator John Lamarr (J. Lee), whose casual humor cuts through even the most dire situations; Alara Kitan (Halston Sage), a young, inexperienced security officer whose home planet’s high gravity gives her superior physical strength; and Yaphit, a gelatinous creature voiced by comedian Norm MacDonald. Somehow, Ed and Kelly must put the past behind them and, with the help of the crew, navigate fascinating and sometimes dangerous adventures in outer space, as well as the tumultuous and captivating day-to-day personal relationships with their colleagues.[

Daehawk wrote:ding

Smoove_B wrote:So it's like a Galaxy Quest TV show? I guess it's possible it'll be good but I know people are rather hot and cold over Seth MacFarlane.

Smoove_B wrote:That's weird because I thought the trailer looked entertaining. I like Seth MacFarlane's humor so I'm likely biased, but I'll give it a go when the show airs.

Smoove_B wrote: I know people are rather hot and cold over Seth MacFarlane.

Jeff V wrote:

Smoove_B wrote: I know people are rather hot and cold over Seth MacFarlane.

More like he's off or on. When he's on, there's none better. When he's off though, he can be truly dreadful. Sometimes he flips from one to the other from one scene to the next.

I hope he's on with this one.

With a few exceptions, sci-fi seems to be pretty devoid of humor, unless the audience is laughing at campy set design or bad alien prosthetics. Why do you think that is?

Oftentimes in science fiction, you’re dealing with life-and-death topics that are so grand and operatic in their size and scope that it’s a hard thing to weave humor in there without it seeming out of place. “The Orville” tries to recapture a kind of science fiction that celebrates human advancement and achievement and intellectual evolution rather than going for the cheap thrills of the zombie hunt. The inclusion of humor in “The Orville” is like an experiment.

But what accounts for the grim tone of so much recent (and excellent) sci-fi—“District 9,” “Battlestar Galactica,” “The Expanse”? Does dystopia make for better drama?

I’ve been asking myself this question for a while. Dystopia is good for drama because you’re starting with a conflict: your villain is the world. Writers on “Star Trek: The Next Generation” found it very difficult to work within the confines of a world where everything was going right. They objected to it. But I think that audiences loved it. They liked to see people who got along, and who lived in a world that was a blueprint for what we might achieve, rather than a warning of what might happen to us.

Did you draw on that utopian “Star Trek” vision at all in making “The Orville”?

It was important to take a cue from Gene Roddenberry that somehow we’ve gotten past money. Money can’t be a factor. It’s too primitive. I really love that, in “Star Trek,” reputation becomes the main form of currency in the absence of money. When you think about it, it’s not the warp drive, it’s not the transporter, it’s the replicator. We give a little nod to that in “The Orville.”

Max Peck wrote: For better or for worse, it sounds like the show is what it was intended to be, and the critical reviews are largely punishing it for not being what the reviewers expected. I wouldn't be surprised if audiences shun it for the double sin of not being MacFarlane's signature slapstick as well as being heavily influenced by ST:TNG without actually being Star Trek.

Zaxxon wrote:

Max Peck wrote: For better or for worse, it sounds like the show is what it was intended to be, and the critical reviews are largely punishing it for not being what the reviewers expected. I wouldn't be surprised if audiences shun it for the double sin of not being MacFarlane's signature slapstick as well as being heavily influenced by ST:TNG without actually being Star Trek.

Did you read the reviews posted here? They're knocking it not for being a TNG copy with MacFarlane humor. They're knocking it for being a terrible TNG copy with terrible 'humor.'

Whether or not that's fair, we'll see tomorrow. But the consistency of review opinion isn't giving me much hope.

Max Peck wrote:Does that mean I have to accept them at face value without any further context or seeing for myself whether the show works for me or not?

hepcat wrote:Does it have a talking baby or a talking dog?