Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TV Shows' started by SamT, May 15, 2017.
This renewal cheered me up after being completely crushed by an evening of baseball last night.
In Canada, all the Super Bowl commercials are taken out and replaced by lame Canadian ones. When we first got HG channels (from Detroit) they would forget to do this and I would record the game and for the only time ff through the show to watch commercials! Unfortunately as more and more people had HD, they started replacing them again.
That is a problem!
I'd still go with the 22 episode season that was expected for network shows until... well, now apparently. 26 was a great number because it meant that for half the year, you'd get a new episode, but 22 is still in the ballpark.
Over in the Stranger Things thread, I think it was Adam Lenhardt who made the great point that with binge watching and quick releases, the wait from one season to another is ridiculously long compared to what it used to be. You used to wait maybe three or four months for new episodes. Now, with a show like Stranger Things, most people who watched Season 1 seem to have binged it last June, and then it seems most people who watched Season 2 binged it this weekend. So they waited over a year for new episodes and then were done with them within a couple days. That doesn't feel like television to me. That's a mini-series or something. And there's nothing wrong with a mini-series, but I didn't sign up to have all television replaced by mini-series.
22 or 23 works for me. Even the 18 of this summer's Twin Peaks revival on Showtime was perfectly fine (though I could have kept watching that forever).
More than a particular target length, it's just the way of watching television that I want back. Television used to be something that you'd follow for a year, that would keep you company throughout your week, that was something you could look forward to as part of a routine. Sure, Sunday night could be filled with dull chores like taking out the trash or doing the laundry, but there was also a new Star Trek: The Next Generation to look forward to each week! That's what I miss. Now it's, "Oh, I'll watch this Netflix show for a week" or "I'll check out this HBO show for the summer" but it's not that kind of lifestyle commitment that used to exist.
And, I mean, that's the argument in favor of a shorter season. But on one hand, I don't see why a longer season has to guarantee that it'll be stuffed with filler shows - I was a big West Wing fan when that was on, particularly when Aaron Sorkin was writing it, and it was serialized and ran about 22 episodes per year, but to me they rarely felt like filler. "24" had 24 episodes a year, and you could argue that some were filler, but the nature of the premise also kinda forced that - and when they did their 12 episode "event series" that still had filler, so filler just seems to be the nature of the beast.
I really just miss the feeling of having a show accompany you through the year. It's not really that there's anything wrong with Netflix or binge watching or short seasons, but they're not what I think of when I think about TV, and so, when I feel like watching "TV", those kinds of things don't tend to scratch that itch.
For the record, IMO restricting the first season of “The Orville” to 13 episodes is a huge mistake. If this were a midseason replacement show 13 eps would be just about right. But for a now recognized “hit” series which started in September you’re giving the fans of the show too long a period to find an alternative they might like better.
BOTTOM LINE: The renewal is *great* but it should have come with at least a 4 episode extension for the initial season.
I think that's a huge danger. As it stands now, they could burn off all their episodes before Christmas. (If they choose to spread them out more, then they'll face unreasonably long breaks for what amounts to just a couple more episodes next year). Either way, instead of the audience being asked to wait three months for new episodes, it'll be more like nine or ten months, which I think is deadly for momentum.
Fox in particular cares about ratings and live views, and I think those kinds of delays can really halt a show. It's not like it's an HBO or Netflix program where it'll be there in perpetuity and the network is counting on getting subscribers longterm, so the first night airing doesn't matter as much, or at all. If this takes a 10 month hiatus and comes back with low numbers, even if that's just because fans didn't realize it was back that week, it could be all over before it even begins.
(And that doesn't even take into account Fox's love of cancelling sci-fi shows prematurely.)
There are a lot of ‘normal’ seasons. Many are on CBS.
NCIS, Bull, Blue Bloods tend to have regular schedules.
There are many others as well.
I'm very happy to hear about the renewal but...
...I agree with this. The short episode count is going to kill any momentum this show had coming out of its freshman run.
My guess is that the reason for the short run is practical considerations. The production budget has to be higher than most shows, and the turn around time probably takes longer. The first season of "Supergirl" had a shorter episode count -- though not this short -- for the same reason. FOX probably would have had to pick up the back nine in the first or second week to make the production schedule doable.
And that's when New York Comic Con was happening -- my wife was at the Orville panel. MacFarlane was supposed to be there but had to cancel at the last moment because he was working on postproduction for the show, and joined by Skype instead. My wife reported to me that the cast hadn't officially been told that the show was being picked up for the back nine, but that everyone was very optimistic that it was going to happen. And that was the first week of October.
So maybe Fox took too long making the decision and by the time they did, MacFarlane and Co couldn't guarantee that they'd be able to whip up nine more episodes in the time given? Or maybe it made more financial sense, especially if they were no longer in production, to go on a longer hiatus and start working directly on Season Two?
Whatever the reason, while I'm thrilled the show is coming back, I'm getting really sick of these long breaks.
Star Trek Discovery is running a 15 episode season with a two month or longer break in the middle. Stranger Things did an 8 episode season last July, and then waited until the end of this October to come back with only a 9 episode season. Westworld premiered in October 2016, and is taking a two year break before returning. Game Of Thrones (a show I don't watch) is apparently taking equally ridiculous breaks between seasons that are merely six episodes long. The BBC didn't feel like making Doctor Who the other year, so they just skipped a season, and next year, they are starting late and running short.
I was really hoping that the Orville would be a break from this new method of producing TV by not actually producing much TV, but sadly, it seems like it's falling into its own version of this same trap.
I really think having this show wrap up this December or so, and then waiting until next September to October to return, is a dangerous gamble. Out of sight and out of mind isn't a good thing when you're trying to launch a show. Will people remember a year from now and care? I'll be back, but I bet marginal viewers who were just sampling the show will be more likely to sample a different show than return to this one. Fox has a history of bailing on sci-fi shows at the first sign of trouble, so if it doesn't premiere with the numbers they might unrealistically expect, it'll be over as soon as it returns.
About tonight's episode. How many here lost it at the G----H--- bit?
I thought it was very good episode. The doctor kills a couple of aliens and then tells her son, "We don't kill." I thought it was realistic.
I especially liked it when Bortus repeated it.
Another nice episode.
So glad it got renewed.
So does this mean back nine scripts are now season 2 scripts.
And that any ideas they would have had for later on in season 2, may get shelved for future season(s) ??
Seems that some ideas or stories may not even see light of day.
I don't know if Seth would like this, but the funniest episode so far is this one he didn't write. "The older, less intelligent one. . . ." "I can vaporize them if you'd like." The blob saying, "Don't get us lost, man!" "Don't worry, mom's alive." "At the moment, that's a baseless assumption!" Issac telling the bedtime story that happens to be the one they're actually experiencing. I'm sure Braga and Bormanis like getting to work within a Trek environment but with the ability to cut loose.
Without looking it up, I'm pretty sure the captor was played by the alien bounty hunter actor from the X-Files.
I'm sure you're right about that. Brian Thompson? Or a name similar to that.
It was a funny episode, but the bratty children got on my last nerve during the first half hour. The survivors were like alien zombies which I also found kind of funny.
That's him. He's also one of the punks that Arnold gets clothes from at the beginning of The Terminator.
And one of the sadistic cult leaders in Stallone's Cobra.
Just like in real life!
I suspect the doc's comment about how they value life will later come back to haunt her once it's revealed she killed two of the locals.
As for next week's episode, that blue guy looks awfully familiar...
Favorite line from this week's show: "I've got to get better people."
It was fascinating to watch this episode, given how antiseptic Braga-era Trek was. While "The Orville" is pretty much a clone of his brand of Trek in style and format, the characters are decidedly not Roddenberry's evolved future humanity. There were a number of actions taken here that would never have happened on Trek, certainly not by series regulars.
Given that MacFarlane is the showrunner, I wouldn't be surprised if he punched up the humor in the script after Braga & Bormanis turned it in.
Speaking of Bormanis, there's a nice little video of him discussing the thought that went into the design of the Orville:
I thought she had said "We value life." Which I don't think is at odds with her behavior.
When she kills the two guys, she's been taken captive and is being held against her will. She has tried to negotiate a peaceful exit to no avail. Using improvised and primitive weapons, she acts in self defense to free herself from a much larger/stronger/more imposing opponent, who would otherwise have held her captive and probably raped her, while her children died elsewhere on the planet. In that circumstance, killing in self-defense is justified.
But when her sons and Isaac are fighting off the aliens, the rules of engagement have changed. They now have their advanced weapons and are able to stun the aliens without killing them. They're able to survive the situation without resorting to deadly force.
The first situation was a kill-or-be-killed situation for the doctor; the second one was not. She recognized the differences and acted accordingly.
While I agree the circumstances were different, she did what she had to do including kill, and I think that was something the writers were going for, something like, "this is what a mother would do for her kids". Not only was she a member of the Union, but she's a doctor to boot, so this was an extreme action and not something you would see in Roddenberry era Trek. This is fiction - those writers would have found some sort of way for her to escape without having to kill. I doubt the Orville writers shrugged their shoulders and decided it was the only way.