Recommended Posts

I find I like the show myself. Its cheesy in some places but on the whole, I'm going to watch.  Maybe its been said already but it wasn't until I watched the last one that I discovered it Orville is directed by Jonathan Frakes of Next Generation fame. 

1 hour ago, Louisifer said:

Time travel and science fiction go hand in hand, i dont think i've seen any that havent used it. :o 

Yeah but it doesn't have to be used so much is all I'm saying. 

8 hours ago, techbeck said:

Good episode tonight.  

  Reveal hidden contents

Avis jokes were pretty good.

 

Spoiler

There was a hunger games drop to, also the line about humans worshiping Hertz was a nice touch.

 

Orville is one of the best Star Trek series ever!

 

I was really pleasantly surprised by MacFarlane's restraint. I really expected more of his satire, but the jokes have been really restrained and actually well timed and written. Maybe he has learned his lesson?

 

One thing they are doing well with not having is the transporter technology. Yea they're messing with time travel, but the transporter has just always been a huge crutch in ST, at least to me. When they had to make transporters not available to make an episode dramatic was always very cheesy.

 

Don't really like the ship design (exterior), practical or CG. It doesn't look great and it makes absolutely no sense. The docking bay is inside the three spirals of the engine for some reason?

 

And I also don't like Bortus. Some of the character development paths are looking to be kinda difficult; the characters have a thin definition, which gives them more latitude but also makes it harder to find depth. The 6 or so episodes we have so far isn't enough to really tell where they will be going.

 

1 minute ago, Son_Of_Dad said:

Agree. It's quite a good watch. Imagine what it would look like if it also had an 8M budget per episode!!

I hope it never gets that. What works in Orville is mostly the writing, and they aren't hurting for acting.

7 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

Orville is one of the best Star Trek series ever!

 

I was really pleasantly surprised by MacFarlane's restraint. I really expected more of his satire, but the jokes have been really restrained and actually well timed and written. Maybe he has learned his lesson?

I think it's a combination of that, and MacFarlane being a huge Trek fan and wanting to keep his version as true to his love as he can.

 

7 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

 

One thing they are doing well with not having is the transporter technology. Yea they're messing with time travel, but the transporter has just always been a huge crutch in ST, at least to me. When they had to make transporters not available to make an episode dramatic was always very cheesy.

 

 

I agree. Transporters have always been a large crutch in Trek, and that's the main thing I really liked about Enterprise. Transporters were very new and not used a lot for human transport.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

 

Don't really like the ship design (exterior), practical or CG. It doesn't look great and it makes absolutely no sense. The docking bay is inside the three spirals of the engine for some reason?

 

I dunno. It looks kinda pretty to me, but would definitely look better as a real model instead of CGI.

 

7 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

And I also don't like Bortus. Some of the character development paths are looking to be kinda difficult; the characters have a thin definition, which gives them more latitude but also makes it harder to find depth. The 6 or so episodes we have so far isn't enough to really tell where they will be going.

 

Bortus is just a huge lampooning of Worf from TNG/DS9.

 

7 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

 

I hope it never gets that. What works in Orville is mostly the writing, and they aren't hurting for acting.

A little more cash per ep would be nice, but yeah.  Don't wreck it by giving them TOO much money. They story is more important than the sets.

  • Like 3
18 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

I hope it never gets that. What works in Orville is mostly the writing, and they aren't hurting for acting.

I was referring more to upping the level of the CGI and sets

18 minutes ago, T3X4S said:

I miss Eureka - what a great idea (only watch the 1st 20 or so episodes)

But then you miss James Callis terrible American accent :)

11 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

I dunno. It looks kinda pretty to me, but would definitely look better as a real model instead of CGI.

If it gets a second season (fingers crossed) I'm hoping the ship has to be sacrificed an he gets Orville-A being a much better ship, this one is meant to be a bit of a tub that was in need of a captain but Ed is showing himself I think to be more capable than his superiors might have been expecting.

On 9/20/2017 at 1:29 AM, George P said:

It seems to me, over the years, that trek fans are some of the most annoying high and mighty know it alls out there.   Maybe I'm just old enough to remember, and due to there being no internet at the time, Trek fans were hating on TNG before the show even aired.  They're doing it yet again with STD based off of trailers, because trailers are a perfect indication of how a show/movie is going to turn out, really guys?

 

Cry, moan and overall complain as much as you guys want, the fact is, you so called "die hards" aren't enough to keep a damn trek TV show on the air anymore.  Where were all the fans when Enterprise needed it?  Instead it got canned.   Voyager had to resort to the old trek crutch known as the Borg to keep it going, even introducing Borg v2 and upping the action, the only "exploration" was the fact they were stuck in the delta quadrant just because the writers knew that way when they were starting to run out of ideas, and oh boy did they, they could always just drop the Borg in, boy did that make you guys happy, right?  

 

And for all the praise DS9 gets, what did it end up doing?  We went down the path of war with the dominion, nice action and battles, exploration and peace?  ha!   Something that Paramount and CBS has known for quite some time, and a fact some of you can't seem to come to terms with, the fanbase is small, the core trek fanbase that's been around since close to the start, it's small.  There isn't enough fans out there to support it the way it was back in TNG, scifi costs too much period.  And as far as this show goes, it's another sci-fi show on fox, FOX, of all channels, where scifi goes to die after one season.   Enjoy it while it lasts guys, because with fox's track record on scifi shows, this one, even if it's good, probably won't last long.

Hmm...

 

No, even though I agree with your premise that die hard fans can be annoying, I don't agree with your view that nobody ever watched Star Trek except die hard fans, or nobody watches sc-fi in general except die hard fans...

 

Just starting with Star Trek, Nielsen ratings proved otherwise. The TNG finale, which earned an Emmy nomination, was No. 1 in its time slot, and so was the DS9 series premiere. Most episodes din't reach that mark simply because the shows were in syndication and people relied on watching re-runs. Voyager and Enterprise suffered from quality problems and Trek fatigue. DS9 was weak in the first few seasons so a lot of people stopped watching and many didn't come back when it got better.

 

I think a lot of sci-fi btw suffers from quality problems, and its the quality problems combined with the costs that doom it as "too risky" moreso than public disinterest in the genre as a whole. Sci-fi is actually a huge genre that has included low budget shows that don't require a lot of special effects like X-Files, which also was popular, and really expensive shows like just recently Westworld -- which was both extremely popular and critically acclaimed (which I can't disagree if you would characterize it by saying it cost too much, just that the cost was worth it apparently, because the quality of the show garnered a lot of attention).

 

I don't quite get your pessimism about sci-fi viewership at all.

  • Like 2
5 hours ago, redfish said:

Hmm...

 

No, even though I agree with your premise that die hard fans can be annoying, I don't agree with your view that nobody ever watched Star Trek except die hard fans, or nobody watches sc-fi in general except die hard fans...

 

Just starting with Star Trek, Nielsen ratings proved otherwise. The TNG finale, which earned an Emmy nomination, was No. 1 in its time slot, and so was the DS9 series premiere. Most episodes din't reach that mark simply because the shows were in syndication and people relied on watching re-runs. Voyager and Enterprise suffered from quality problems and Trek fatigue. DS9 was weak in the first few seasons so a lot of people stopped watching and many didn't come back when it got better.

 

I think a lot of sci-fi btw suffers from quality problems, and its the quality problems combined with the costs that doom it as "too risky" moreso than public disinterest in the genre as a whole. Sci-fi is actually a huge genre that has included low budget shows that don't require a lot of special effects like X-Files, which also was popular, and really expensive shows like just recently Westworld -- which was both extremely popular and critically acclaimed (which I can't disagree if you would characterize it by saying it cost too much, just that the cost was worth it apparently, because the quality of the show garnered a lot of attention).

 

I don't quite get your pessimism about sci-fi viewership at all.

It's not pessimism,  I'm bringing up facts,  scifi shows, on primetime TV like FOX have been canned very quickly.  Just look at the past 5 years, if not longer.     Costs is something I bring up as a factor, and the only way you overcome the cost issue is with high ratings, many scifi shows just don't get that.  You talk about quality, sure, but quality in what area?  The look of the show in question?  The CGI?  The writing overall?    You bring up shows like X-files, that's not traditional scifi, it has some scifi mixed in sure, but it's a mix of other things in a procedural, you know, procedurals that everyone seems to like doing now and get most of the big ratings?  I'm a huge X-files fan, don't get me wrong, but scifi is not what made the show great, it was the two leading characters and their chemistry that did.  Also back then FOX was a new network channel and it had nothing else to show, once X-files started to become a hit there was no stopping it, also nothing else on TV at the time but sitcoms.

 

Westworld, well you know, HBO,  they're going to make a good show, the writing and the budget are all there.  While it's a scifi show, it's not in your face scifi like others, it doesn't so much rely on it to move the plot and story along.  You're not scratching your head at technobable in the middle of an episode.  In fact the show just uses some scifi to toss philosophy at you, and what is real/alive and so on, with dabs of moral questions and so on.  

 

My contention and point, when it comes to trek and it's "fans" is that most of you that are complaining are stuck asking for the same old formula from TNG or the later part of DS9 to be given to you yet again, over and over.   Why?  And is it exactly a surprise that trek, until the 2009 reboot movies hit, was on a downward trend?   Each TNG movie after First Contact, which, come on, had to use the Borg yet again (gotta love that Borg story crutch), to make it interesting.   All the others are just bad, making less and less, people, heck even some trek fans, started to ignore it.     Without actually running the numbers I'd say it's safe to assume the newest 3 trek movies have made more than all the TNG movies put together.   All that says to me is that the formula needed to be shaken up or you're not going to bring in new viewers.    The Orvilles been good, don't get me wrong, but it's new, even if it feels like trek to people, the comedy sets it apart, and it's got Seiths name attached to it, so you get viewers interested anyways.   If it gets a 2nd season or not, I don't know, the fact is that right now, FOX is where scifi shows go to get killed after one season.  That's not just my opinion, it's a fact.

I'm really enjoying this show. I was initially afraid that they would overdo the comedy but it's been a pretty nice balance. I especially liked the two of them trying to come up with alien names on the shuttle. Really funny. I really get a TNG feel from this show which is probably why I am so endeared to it already. I think Discovery is some of the best TV on right now, but Orville has it's place for sure.

5 hours ago, George P said:

It's not pessimism,  I'm bringing up facts,  scifi shows, on primetime TV like FOX have been canned very quickly.  Just look at the past 5 years, if not longer.     Costs is something I bring up as a factor, and the only way you overcome the cost issue is with high ratings, many scifi shows just don't get that.  You talk about quality, sure, but quality in what area?  The look of the show in question?  The CGI?  The writing overall?    You bring up shows like X-files, that's not traditional scifi, it has some scifi mixed in sure, but it's a mix of other things in a procedural, you know, procedurals that everyone seems to like doing now and get most of the big ratings?  I'm a huge X-files fan, don't get me wrong, but scifi is not what made the show great, it was the two leading characters and their chemistry that did.  Also back then FOX was a new network channel and it had nothing else to show, once X-files started to become a hit there was no stopping it, also nothing else on TV at the time but sitcoms.

 

Westworld, well you know, HBO,  they're going to make a good show, the writing and the budget are all there.  While it's a scifi show, it's not in your face scifi like others, it doesn't so much rely on it to move the plot and story along.  You're not scratching your head at technobable in the middle of an episode.  In fact the show just uses some scifi to toss philosophy at you, and what is real/alive and so on, with dabs of moral questions and so on.  

 

My contention and point, when it comes to trek and it's "fans" is that most of you that are complaining are stuck asking for the same old formula from TNG or the later part of DS9 to be given to you yet again, over and over.   Why?  And is it exactly a surprise that trek, until the 2009 reboot movies hit, was on a downward trend?   Each TNG movie after First Contact, which, come on, had to use the Borg yet again (gotta love that Borg story crutch), to make it interesting.   All the others are just bad, making less and less, people, heck even some trek fans, started to ignore it.     Without actually running the numbers I'd say it's safe to assume the newest 3 trek movies have made more than all the TNG movies put together.   All that says to me is that the formula needed to be shaken up or you're not going to bring in new viewers.    The Orvilles been good, don't get me wrong, but it's new, even if it feels like trek to people, the comedy sets it apart, and it's got Seiths name attached to it, so you get viewers interested anyways.   If it gets a 2nd season or not, I don't know, the fact is that right now, FOX is where scifi shows go to get killed after one season.  That's not just my opinion, it's a fact.

Sci-fi is not what makes any show great, its always the ability of a show to transcend its genre and create something compelling to watch. But I think people did watch the X-Files for the sci-fi elements; the chemistry between the characters worked as long as they focused on the sci-fi, and when the show got too much into Mulder and Scully's personal life, it got tedious real fast. People also watch Star Trek for the sci-fi, and when writers go overboard in focusing on interpersonal relationships to the expense of great sci-fi storytelling, this harms the shows. It was one of the quality problems with Voyager. I didn't care about the relationship between Torres and Chakotay, or between Paris and Kim, for godsakes. It was dull and uninteresting, and not why anyone would tune in to watch the show. And I would definitely disagree with you that Westworld isn't in your face sci-fi, or that it didn't have what you'd refer to as technobabble in the Star Trek context. References to QA testing, bulk apperception, and other stuff that had meaning to the technical world of the show and were mainly used to deepen the relationship between the show and its fictional sci-fi reality.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think there are things that can be tweaked with the Trek formula, and if I were rebooting Star Trek, I'd tweak things around myself, but a lot of the movies and shows had quality problems that went way beyond just keeping the formula the same. I think "canon" is bunk. You keep things that work, and throw out things that don't work. There's a lot of "canon" in Voyager that I think Trek writers should just pretend never existed. To further prove my point, I don't think JJ Abrams movies were bad and I like a lot of his updates, though in general I also think he also proved that from a sci-fi perspective Trek always worked better on the small screen, because it has more room in serial format to do thoughtful stories.

 

But just as there's some resistance to changing things up by fans, there's also a tendency of some to be overly negative and critical of the original formula in the sense that they'll come up with overreaching theories about why it failed (often blaming the fanbase) and go overboard with changes -- which often end up going against the spirit of the show and not even working out in the end. I see it not only with Star Trek, but other franchises, not just movies and TV shows, but also games. The bottom line is people want to watch quality shows, and you need quality writers and directors with some sort of vision to produce a show and not just lean back on cliches. But completely changing things in a way go against the original spirit of the series is just desperate -- not creative -- and is destined not to work out. I haven't watched Discovery yet, so I'm not judging it, but just looking at what I have seen, there's a combination of this kind of bad change and more general lackluster quality that doesn't draw me in to watch. I think producers can create a Trek series that attracts both die hard fans and a larger audience if they put together a team of writers and set directors who actually have talent, and thread the needle. Its not a zero sum game where you have to pit fans against a mass audience, and have one group lose and one group win.

 

I haven't seem much of The Orville, either, just part of one episode, so I'm not going to get into that too  much either. 

Tonight's episode teaches us the dangers of downvoting. Neowin, take heed. 

 

The thing I like about this show's comedy is the timing. The joke is rarely the center of the scene, it is just some off the cuff comment that people would make in real life. A few are a bit cheesy ("Bustin Jieber") but then, jokes are lame sometimes.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • I think there will be a 27H1 for actual users of 26H1 The 25h2 supports ARM too : Snapdragon X, Snapdragon X Plus and Snapdragon X Elite
    • Poll: Grand Theft Auto VI price predictions, cast your vote by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe After years of waiting, Rockstar will be solidifying the launch date of Grand Theft Auto VI with the launch of pre-orders next week. While the studio has confirmed a date for this occasion, it is yet to attach a price to the highly anticipated game. So let's see what our readers think it will cost at launch. The Grand Theft Auto VI pre-orders will kick off on June 25 for digital and physical editions. Unless some last-minute changes happen, the release date will be November 19, 2026, across Xbox Series X|S and PlayStation 5. Unfortunately, there's still no information about a PC version from the developer or the publisher Take-Two. Now the question becomes, how much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost at launch? The game is predicted by some analysts to be the biggest launch of an entertainment product ever. With the amount of hype that has been built behind it and with ballooning development costs, Take-Two may price this Grand Theft Auto entry differently from other AAA titles. The current price of a AAA game is $69.99. That norm almost rose to $79.99 before calming down. But with such a massive release, Grand Theft Auto VI may be the game that pushes the boundary again. It's also possible that Take-Two keeps the price relatively low to increase the number of players that jump in early and keep them hooked on Grand Theft Auto Online to spend on microtransactions for years to come. Keep in mind that the below poll is asking for a prediction of the standard edition price, not a deluxe or any other special edition that Take-Two will introduce for additional benefits. Also, there is also the chance of the company splitting up the campaign and online portions. If you think that will happen, put your vote on what you think will be the total cost of the two. Poll Poll: How much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost? $59.99 $69.99 $79.99 $89.99 $100 or more Submit Vote If you have a very specific prediction in mind, sound off in the comments below.
    • Would you please fix your graphics. They are outdated and don't fit the article.
    • The Light of Life? We actually do glow till our Death, study finds by Sayan Sen Image by Rafael Rendon via Pexels A study by researchers at the University of Calgary has found that living organisms produce an extremely faint light known as ultraweak photon emission, and that this glow appears to drop significantly after death. The research was published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry in April 2025 and quickly drew widespread attention, leading to more than 200 news stories about the findings. Ultraweak photon emission (or UPE), sometimes called biophoton emission, refers to tiny amounts of light released by living cells as a result of normal biological activity. A photon is the basic particle of light, and researchers say every living system examined so far, including plants and animals, has been found to emit these photons. The glow is far too faint to be seen by the human eye. “I suppose it has a little to do with people being reminded of auras,” says Dr. Christoph Simon, PhD, one of the authors of the study and a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy in the Faculty of Science. “It is a fact that living beings glow. It’s a very weak glow, but it’s there and visible with very sensitive cameras.” According to the study, the light involved is extremely weak, ranging from 10 to 1,000 photons per square centimetre per second across a spectral range of 200 to 1,000 nanometres. For comparison, a nanometre is one-billionth of a metre and is commonly used to measure wavelengths of light. Detecting emissions at such low levels requires highly specialized equipment. To study the phenomenon, researchers used electron-multiplying charge-coupled device (EMCCD) and charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras. These imaging systems are designed to detect extremely small amounts of light, including individual photons, while minimizing background noise. The technology allowed researchers to capture signals that would otherwise be impossible to observe. The team worked with the Human Health Therapeutics Research Centre at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) in Ottawa to examine photon emissions in mice. Researchers took two-hour exposure images of the animals before and after death and compared the results. “We saw that the level of light that they emit – this biophoton glow – is distinctly different between living and dead animals,” says Dr. Daniel Oblak, PhD, an associate professor in Physics and Astronomy and the corresponding author of the study. The images showed a clear decrease in photon emissions after death across the entire body of each mouse. According to the researchers, this provided direct evidence that living and dead tissue produce different levels of ultraweak photon emission. “It’s a very small amount and it’s, of course, very tricky to detect,” Oblak says. The study grew out of discussions between Simon, whose research interests include quantum biology, and Oblak, whose work focuses on detecting light for quantum communication experiments. Quantum biology is a field that explores whether processes described by quantum physics, which studies matter and energy at very small scales, may also play a role in living systems. “Since I work as a quantum physicist on light detection for quantum communication, I thought that experimentally we have a lot of the tools to be able to detect the light,” Oblak explains. The researchers also investigated UPE in plants and found that the light changed in response to stress. When plants were exposed to higher temperatures or physically injured, their photon emissions increased. Chemical treatments also affected the glow. Among the substances tested, the local anesthetic benzocaine produced the strongest emission response when applied to injured plant tissue. These findings suggest that ultraweak photon emission is closely linked to biochemical and metabolic activity inside living organisms. Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions that allow cells and organisms to stay alive and function. Because these reactions change when an organism experiences stress, injury or disease, researchers believe UPE may provide a way to monitor those changes. The researchers stress that the glow is a physical and biological phenomenon, not a metaphysical one. Oblak says more research is needed to understand exactly how the light is produced and what information it may reveal about the condition of living tissue. “We must understand what that is to figure out what’s happening,” he says. “If we can understand how that relates to certain influences on the body – stress, diseases – then that could be used as a diagnostic tool.” The researchers believe the technique could eventually help scientists study health and disease without invasive procedures. Because UPE can be measured without adding dyes, markers or labels, it may offer a way to monitor whether tissue is healthy, damaged or alive. In plants, it could help researchers better understand how organisms respond to injury, heat and other forms of stress. While the work is still in its early stages, the study demonstrates that ultraweak photon emission imaging can provide a non-invasive and label-free way to observe biological activity. Researchers say the approach could become a useful tool for studying vitality, stress responses and other important processes in both animals and plants. Source: University of Calgary, ACS publication This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      hhgygy earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      AMV earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      513
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      82
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!