The holodeck at least goes back to Ray Bradbury's "The Veldt," about a children's playroom where they can make it seem like any place in the world... including a jungle with very real animals. He wrote this back in 1950, so I think The Orville is safe in duplicating the Holodeck provided they don't call it "The Holodeck." The Transporter I bet is just "a bridge too far," where if they include one more additional thing, it'll be too much for the show. I know MacFarlane has said there were things they were specifically told not to use in the show because of legal advice, but declined to say what they were. You can make a good argument that Galaxy Quest used it, which makes The Orville a rip-off of two shows: Star Trek and Galaxy Quest, with maybe some Forbidden Planet and Deep Space 9 stirred in. The question for MacFarlane is what new material is he going to add? So far, it ain't much. (The writers of Galaxy Quest can't sue, either, because of prior art and sci-fi copyrights that go back decades before that.) Have we gotten to a point where nobody can do a new TV series with a plot and characters we've never seen before? Does everything have to be derivative? (Just asking.) What's funny is that they've used a Transporter-like device (albeit mainly for time-travel) in more than a dozen episodes of Family Guy.
They did use a transporter in an episode of Orville already, episode 2: Command Performance. When they enter the holography projected ship they are transported to another planet. The Orville traces the energy signature of the transporter they follow it to the planet.
I guess I wasn't counting that because that wasn't a Federation - I mean Union - technology. Didn't they mention something about the advanced technology of the zookeepers?
Watched the new episode, the remake of Star Trek's "For the World Is Hollow and I Touched the Sky," and it feels like they're lessening the comedy and increasing the drama. But for me, it's not intense enough to be drama, and it's not funny enough to be comedy. There were some little stupid moments that made me laugh, like MacFarlane's awkwardness in the elevator, but that's about it. It's an odd show.
I love how of all the things they stole from Star Trek, the most important theme of that show (the Prime Directive) is tossed out the window.
Surprisingly, I don't see the Prime Directive as an important theme in Trek, so much as a deus ex machina, as in, "why didn't they just do this?", "because they've rules to avoid doing that". Seems to me it took on more of a solid continuity point later on. (Kind of like, you never see them using salt in the Mess Hall, because that damn McCoy has 'em all up in Sick Bay... )
Remember the gangster planet! A previous federation vessel accidentally left a book about the gangs of Chicago. By the time the Enterprise arrived, every person on the planet was carrying a gun and looking to get a piece of the action. What planet or country does that remind you of...?
Ummm...Lithuania...? Tonga...? Of course, that was deep into the 2nd Season, I assume the Prime Directive had already become a prevalent continuity point by then.
It's nothing that hadn't been tossed out the window in realTrek whenever it became inconvenient to the plot. Here's an interesting little tidbit. The current Rotten Tomatoes audience score for ST Discovery is 60%, while The Orville is at 90%.
Yeah, but it was at least given some credence...not even a thought on this show to not interfere...or question if they should.
Note that the great writer/producer Gene Coon was the man who created Khan, the Klingons, the Prime Directive, The United Federation of Planets, Starfleet Command, and the bickering between Spock & McCoy. I think Star Trek lost a lot when Coon decided to quit the show halfway through the second season. Both Genes (Roddenberry and Coon) were instrumental in making the show work, but Coon added quite a few of the elements that pushed it to the top.
Well, you can't look at it in the 2017 mindset. I think 1966 audiences needed that "ethics 2.0" hook. Younger (i.e, science-fiction) viewers were able to to make the leap: food's different, weapons are different, issues driving their rules should be different too. They can't help Green-Hornet-style fight scenes or miniskirts, that's what was happnin' when the show was being created. But there are some things in the future which should carry-over with continuity, according to social change. Trek's real watershed development was, that nobody on Earth needed money anymore...and they didn't even really start to explore that until TNG. IMAGINE! The one thing you need to make you think you're better than everybody else around you...and that is taken away from the arrows in your social quivver. It's irrelevant! Do what you want, not what you have to do to pay the rent! Can you imagine the social upheaval that must have brought on, to get to that place in the future where all Earth's politics became each other's politics, each person's problems became all people's problems, and a person you never met, never will, and never know is on the other side of the world from you...still matters. And all they could do with that...was to downplay all the wish-fulfillment, and get right to the fight scenes! Because, again - that's what was happnin' when the show was being created. So in a life such as that, the Prime Directive is just a To-Do List. A great list of regs, and almost a throwaway plot point.
What's funny is the number of shows (particularly 3rd season) where they cite the Prime Directive, but then come up with a bunch of reasons why they have to overcome it. For example, if a planet is deemed stagnant or evil or otherwise falling apart, the Enterprise crew wouldn't hesitate shaking things up. (I'm reminded of the Nazi planet or the Gangster planet episodes.)
Both "Patterns Of Force" and "A Piece Of The Action" were second season STAR TREK episodes - but I get your point.
Oh, a whole bunch violated the Prime Directive -- know those weren't 3rd season. But I get that sometimes, you have to break the rules to make interesting television.
Which is exactly why the criticisms that this show isn't strictly drama or strictly comedy or "is odd" completely miss the point.
Both of those plots revolved around planets that were tainted by previous Federation meddling. They were attempting to undo violations of the Prime Directive.
Well I find that odd because Discovery is pretty well written. As. I have as I enjoy Orville, it's not so much as well written--it's neither fish or fowl.
You know, I watched tonight's episode of The Orville with Charlize Theron as the guest star, and I was pleasantly surprised: it basically felt like a lightweight -- but not terrible -- episode of the old Star Trek show. And I think that's what Seth MacFarlane is trying to go for. I could actually enjoy it on a certain level. It's not great TV, but it's not terrible, either. I laughed a few times, and I thought the story made sense to a point. Eh, there were a ton of others where the planets were doing just fine, but Kirk and company interfered anyway. I think it was just a way to artificially manufacture conflict and drama for story purposes. It is the will of Landru!
I very much enjoyed Last Night's episode! The jokes actually made me and wife laugh, the plot was fairly similar to what Next Gen would have done, and I left feeling like I like the characters better now, and the feel of the ship and the interaction. I felt like I was watching Star Trek! Maybe the highest compliment, but a lighter less moralizing version of it, which to me is fine! I like the casual interplay now, and how they dress off duty and use first names, maybe Next Gen was a bit too stuffy and preachy at times.
Old Trek (original series) used a very tired formula often of 1- Go to planet (Kirk, Spock, McCoy always) 2- Observe how it resembles some period of Earths history (mutated or controlled by a god, leader or computer) 3 -Try to Blend in, fight and Get captured 4- Find a way to overthrow a computer or convince citizens they are wrong, Using Kirk or Spocks greater intellect.... 5 -Say some Nice things, and Go back to ship and leave.
