Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, techbeck said:

Wish the Orville didnt take so much stuff from Trek and was more original. 

Yet in the Discovery thread you argue an audience would have trouble with the same :?

Edited by Son_Of_Dad
2 hours ago, Son_Of_Dad said:

They were presented in the same way during Enterprise however

Yeah I guess the were, but they were also still a new branch of Starfleet (though some books and podcasts seem to think S31 was founded when Starfleet was founded also) and they were no where near the organization being shown in Discovery, let alone in DS9. I mean let's be clear here, it seems pretty obvious to most Trekkies that S31 and its advanced tech is being brought in to either bring the show into canon more somehow, or will literally be a maguffin to align it as such. Red Angel stuff not withstanding of course :D

 

I feel that The Orville leans a bit to heavy on the Trek nods (especially so far in S2) and eventually that's going to become tiresome even to us Trekkies. Also, I'd really like it if Seth MacFarlane got a guest spot or even just a cameo in either Discovery or one of the other new Trek shows coming up (though I'd imagine he'd love to be on the Picard show) He's obviously a HUGE Trek fan and it'd be pretty awesome to see him dressed up in a Starfleet/Federation uniform.

5 hours ago, Son_Of_Dad said:

When does Discovery even attempt that? Given every man and his dog is aware of Section 31 in this weeks episode, who when first introduced Starfleet would not even acknowledge the existence of. The Discovery writers are doing "whatever"?

DS9 was 100 years in the future. Do you even know what the CIA's predecessor was without Googling it?
The producers have already said they're Starfleet Intelligence and something in the next century happens and causes them to go underground  - which will more than likely be revealed in the upcoming series.

Enough with your hate and misinformation.

51 minutes ago, Son_Of_Dad said:

Yet in the Discovery thread you argue an audience would have trouble with the same :?

There is a difference when another show steals ideas and basically copies another.  As compared to people's opinions on how a new Trek show follows a different timeline. 

 

Bortus and Isack are cheap ST knock offs IMO as well.   There is also the holodeck and many other things taken from ST.  It is a different show, be original.    But I am still giving it a chance as next weeks episode looks to be good. 

28 minutes ago, PeterTHX said:

The producers have already said they're Starfleet Intelligence and something in the next century happens and causes them to go underground 

 

Except Starfleet intelligence is already a known branch of Starfleet which had been mentioned in previous iterations of Star Trek (swing and a miss). They were underground when they originated also.... The most important officer in Starfleet the guy who is actually boldly going where no man had gone before knew nothing about them. So they were underground, then they poked head up only to duck back under. And while everyone knew about them they never thought of sharing any of the super-duper high tech advancements with the rest of Starfleet during a war which they were getting belted in? Ships that could look like asteroids REALLY might have helped out during the fight. please feel free in pointing out misinformation however just because you don't agree with something does not magically make it misinformation.

2 hours ago, Son_Of_Dad said:

 

Except Starfleet intelligence is already a known branch of Starfleet which had been mentioned in previous iterations of Star Trek (swing and a miss). They were underground when they originated also.... The most important officer in Starfleet the guy who is actually boldly going where no man had gone before knew nothing about them. So they were underground, then they poked head up only to duck back under. And while everyone knew about them they never thought of sharing any of the super-duper high tech advancements with the rest of Starfleet during a war which they were getting belted in? Ships that could look like asteroids REALLY might have helped out during the fight. please feel free in pointing out misinformation however just because you don't agree with something does not magically make it misinformation.

Can you please make your posts understandable?

7 hours ago, PeterTHX said:

I can't quite understand why you're frothing at the mouth over Discovery's very existence and your compulsive need to tell everyone such.

Am I? On what do you base that given you couldn't understand my post?

  • Facepalm 1
  • Haha 1

Please play nice, guys. This is a constructive thread about the Orville.

 

... which I do enjoy. It isn't the best show in the world - I feel like it balances between comedy, drama, and satire a little too well, in that it doesn't commit to any of them. It has funny moments and moving moments and good stories and decent characters, but none of them especially stand out. This makes it enjoyable, but not outstanding.

 

I know it isn't popular (graphics don't matter!), but it also has an inconsistent visual quality. The CGI of the outside of the ship is solid, and it clearly isn't trying very hard, but the costumes and some of the sets look really, really cheap, and I can't get over that in my head.

 

(I also appreciate that many of the jokes are very understated and often span many episodes to come to the "punchline" that is never some sarcastic comment one would expect from MacFarlane.)

 

That said, I do enjoy it. The most recent episode with the new security officer and the gay analogs (vague to avoid spoilers) was, imo, really good, and had a really good ending that went to an interesting place. We rarely get that these days.

The critics seem to have done a 180 during season 2. The season 1 rating was in the 20s, the season 2, so far, is in the 90s. And the first season was probably better.

  • Like 2
2 hours ago, Zagadka said:

The critics seem to have done a 180 during season 2. The season 1 rating was in the 20s, the season 2, so far, is in the 90s. And the first season was probably better.

I rarely agree with critics. Generally, I find them to be a bunch of morons who seem to have an ingrained hatred of anything scifi.

 

  • Like 2
3 hours ago, Zagadka said:

The season 1 rating was in the 20s, the season 2, so far, is in the 90s. And the first season was probably better.

Rotten Tomatoes? Nerdrotic did a video on it and nailed it for the most part given it has very little difference between seasons

1 hour ago, FloatingFatMan said:

I find them to be a bunch of morons who seem to have an ingrained hatred of anything scifi.

 

They seem to have a very different opinion than fans looking at ratings for The Orville, Discovery, Dr Who and the more recent Star Wars content

Just shows how useless critics are.

 

Last episode (Identity, Part 1) was excellent. Felt like the series has officially started. Some of the acting was really good. No spoilers. For a reason.

 

Well, one very minor tidbit really bothering me...

 

Spoiler

the whole Kaylon cheap costume situation is unfortunate, in hindsight.

 

But... Please cut me a corner piece.

Yea, which is why I said that it feels like the series has officially started. It is the first dramatic  universe-building, over the usual character driven episodes. Until now, we've gotten some cultural commentary, but this is the first big thing to happen and really involve the Union as an entity. Wasn't expecting it.

It was also a season finale style cliffhanger, which the show hasn't done before right? I don't remember a single double episode from them yet, or am I forgetting something? Plus, with who did what they did, I didn't expect that AT ALL. I mean, I guess we'll have to wait until next week to see what happens with that and all, but uh, yeah wow. That was legit one of the best hours of scifi TV I've seen since the Babylon 5/Deep Space Nine heyday of scifi. I'm not even joking.

  • Like 2

Btw, anyone else find that weird mix of musical notes from Aliens and Star Trek TMP a little off putting? Though I kinda think that was the idea 😛 I especially like how they used some of those edgy 70s guitar riffs from TMP heh.

1 minute ago, Yogurth said:

Identity Part 1 was a good episode but one planet vs entire Union, no matter how advanced? All of a sudden their collective IQ is in question :)

I don't think numbers matter to the Kaylon, and I'm pretty sure they would wipe the floor with not only the Union itself but the Krill also. I mean, they are basically the Borg aren't they? Just not evil (or areeee theyyyyyyy!) like the Borg.

Well, they switched the Orville off like a switch and said they were seconds away from being destroyed, so I think the Union would be in trouble...

 

BTW, aside from the outfits, one of the things that bothers me is the design of the Orville - specifically, the docking in the rear being inside the rings... that makes no sense at all. It is a beautiful ship, but the shuttle docking must be maddening.

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

    • 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.
    • Damn, I loved this show back in the day.  
  • 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
      512
    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!