The Orville - Season 2 (1 Viewer)

[Josh Dial]

To quote Nicolas Meyer, “art thrives on limitations.”

I think a lot of what I love about TV came from great writers, producers, directors and actors knowing that they had to produce 22 or more episodes per year, and what they came up with as a result of having the operate under those guidelines. I think a lot, not all, but a lot of TV was improved by the showrunners having to hit the ground running and adjusting on the fly.

And then I look, for comparison, to Star Trek Discovery, where the showrunners were allowed to delay and delay nearly two years before they went to air, where they got to write all the scripts before shooting any of them, and where the whole thing was basically in the can before it went out to the public. That show had a lot of issues that could have been resolved if it was being made as a conventional show, where the showrunners could have had the opportunity to see what was and wasn’t working, and adjust along the way. But because it was all done before anyone even saw the first episode, there was nothing to be done about it.

TNG, which is obviously the biggest inspiration for The Orville, succeeded because there was room for trial, error, adjustment and growth. With these short runs all filmed in advance before they even go to air, that opportunity just isn’t there. And to my mind, that makes new TV much more like feature films rather than an evolution of the TV art form. TV as it existed since its creation is being replaced by longer movies doled out in installments, rather than evolving as its own separate format. And I think that’s a shame.

I don't agree with this at all. In fact, I think the "limitation" of fewer episodes is part of the magic behind modern prestige television. I think almost every TV was worsened--not improved--by having 22 to 24 episodes per season. Some of those shows (like TNG) succeeded despite having too many episodes, not because of it. In TNG's case, I think the writer's strike and its forced delay was one of the contributing factors behind the show's quality bump from season 2 to season 3. Another major factor was adding Ron Moore to the writers' room in season 3, and Jeri Taylor in season 4. Visually, I would argue letting Frakes direct starting in season 3 helped push the look in a new direction (Frakes continues to be an underrated TV director).

For my money, Discovery had the best first season of any Star Trek series. DS9's first season is just plain bad ("Move Along Home" rivals TNG's "Shades of Gray" for worst episode ever). TNG's first season had some good episodes, but was largely forgettable.

The 20+ episode season also saw producers rely on spec scripts and non-union writers. In fact, back in the day, show were required to buy--but not necessarily use--three scripts from non-union writers. This helped ease the burden on the writers' room, but reduced the overall quality for most shows.

I agree that art thrives on limitation. 22+ episodes was never a limitation: it was permission to be sloppy. Even 16 episodes tightens a show.

In the past 15 or so years, only a handful of network TV shows forged in the classic "television machine" have been truly great: The West Wing, LOST, Person of Interest, 24, Fringe, and House. There are others, but not many. The rest of the best lived on cable TV, un-tethered from the "limitation" of 20+ episodes and the weekly grind. The Wire, BSG, The Sopranos, Deadwood, Mad Men--these shows would have undoubtedly suffered under the weight of a 24-episode season. Nowadays, quality is everywhere (The Leftovers, Legion, Mr. Robot, Fargo, Westworld, Handmaid's Tale, Black Sails, American Crime Story, Rectify, The Americans), but seldom is it ever ground out in 24 episodes on network TV.

 

[cinemiracle]

SO looking forward to its return!

Me too.Loved the first season.

 

[spshultz]

This is my most anticipated returning show of the season, well...on the big 4 channels that is.

Oh and:

"This is... bitchin!" (I know that voice but just can't place it) and the mustache... !

The continued use of the bastardized "All Right Now"...

I want to say it sounded like Patrick Warburton

 

[Francois Caron]

I'm with Josh on this one. I prefer a 13 episode season over a 26 episode season as it gives everyone just enough time to get the show done right. I'm not a fan of "filler" episodes as they can be extremely hit and miss to the point where the misses can overwhelm the hits.

Also, having a 26 episode run means that the production crew has to pump out a new episode every two weeks to stay on schedule. And even if you stagger the work between the various departments (sound, sets, acting, special effects, editing, post-production), that still means each department only has two weeks to complete one episode before they need to move on to the next episode.

With a 13 episode season run, you now have up to a month to get the job done right along with some much needed vacation time. And in case anyone hasn't noticed yet, the first season of The Orville had far exceeded the level of quality one would expect from the first season of any new sci-fi TV show. The show runners don't need to do any major redesign to keep The Orville going. All that's needed for the second season are a few minor tweaks to balance things out, and leave the rest as-is.

 

[Josh Dial]

I'm with Josh on this one.

We're both Josh! :p

 

[TJPC]

I plan to watch each and every episode as soon as it airs in HD, since there is no way for we who prefer disc media to ever own it except for standard discs apparently.

I can only hope that a boxed set of multi-season Blu rays will be available some day. I still can’t understand the logic of a DVD only release when the show is broadcast in HD.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

To Josh Dial’s point (apologies, the quote function is intermittent on my phone) - I think some of our differences on this come down to just what we’re looking to get out of being a fan of a particular TV show.

I readily admit that one of the things I most enjoy about finding a show I love is having the routine that comes with it. I find that enhances the quality of my life, to have an episode of a program to look forward to every week from fall to spring, and to get to spend that time each week with characters I enjoy. When a show is only on for 10 or 12 weeks instead of 22 or 26, and when those shows don’t even run consistently from year to year, I find it much harder to have that kind of relationship with it, and I don’t get the same comfort or escapism from it. There’s nothing wrong with a show that’s designed as a miniseries actually airing in that format. But I am disappointed that the two different approaches to making shows aren’t really being allowed to coexist. Everyone seems to be moving to the less episodes on a less consistent basis model.

If you’re turning on the TV and you’re looking solely for the best quality programming, or to be more specific, looking for program that best emulates the production values and stylistic trappings of a feature film, I agree that you’re most likely to find what you’re looking for on these shorter season shows. But if you’re looking for a routine, if you’re looking for characters to spend time with on a weekly basis, if you’re looking for a consistent experience, that really doesn’t exist as part of the shorter season plan that’s becoming popular today.

So when I was using the “art thrives on limitations” quote, to me, the limitation is having deadlines and quotas and having to meet those regardless of how convenient it is to do so. Getting to say (as a show like Game of Thrones does), “Hey, we don’t feel like doing any episodes this year, and next year we’re only doing six” doesn’t strike me as much of a challenge. Of course the programming should be outstanding under those circumstances. The challenge is in producing a number of episodes to fit a traditional season, and to do it year in and year out. And I don’t see many attempting that anymore, which is what I want when I commit to a TV show.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Incidentally, I hope The Orville’s numbers don’t tank when it returns. I think it’s incredible that the #1 new show of fall 2017 doesn’t return in fall 2018. It’s a lot to ask an audience to keep a show they barely got a chance to see in their minds for a hiatus that lasts over a year.

 

[BobO'Link]

To Josh Dial’s point (apologies, the quote function is intermittent on my phone) - I think some of our differences on this come down to just what we’re looking to get out of being a fan of a particular TV show.

I readily admit that one of the things I most enjoy about finding a show I love is having the routine that comes with it. I find that enhances the quality of my life, to have an episode of a program to look forward to every week from fall to spring, and to get to spend that time each week with characters I enjoy. When a show is only on for 10 or 12 weeks instead of 22 or 26, and when those shows don’t even run consistently from year to year, I find it much harder to have that kind of relationship with it, and I don’t get the same comfort or escapism from it. There’s nothing wrong with a show that’s designed as a miniseries actually airing in that format. But I am disappointed that the two different approaches to making shows aren’t really being allowed to coexist. Everyone seems to be moving to the less episodes on a less consistent basis model.

If you’re turning on the TV and you’re looking solely for the best quality programming, or to be more specific, looking for program that best emulates the production values and stylistic trappings of a feature film, I agree that you’re most likely to find what you’re looking for on these shorter season shows. But if you’re looking for a routine, if you’re looking for characters to spend time with on a weekly basis, if you’re looking for a consistent experience, that really doesn’t exist as part of the shorter season plan that’s becoming popular today.

So when I was using the “art thrives on limitations” quote, to me, the limitation is having deadlines and quotas and having to meet those regardless of how convenient it is to do so. Getting to say (as a show like Game of Thrones does), “Hey, we don’t feel like doing any episodes this year, and next year we’re only doing six” doesn’t strike me as much of a challenge. Of course the programming should be outstanding under those circumstances. The challenge is in producing a number of episodes to fit a traditional season, and to do it year in and year out. And I don’t see many attempting that anymore, which is what I want when I commit to a TV show.

I was all set to side with you 100% on this subject when I suddenly realized that I love British TV series, most of whom have *never* had production runs like seen on US TV. My favorites have all had 6-13 episode "series" (seasons to us US viewers) with a year or more between. Yet they return with the same high quality they'd had originally. Of course many of them were written by a single person which usually means that "downtime" between series is when the next was written. That's not to say that US series written by a "writing staff" of 2-10 doesn't truly need that much time as it can help. You have time to tweak and get rid of the stuff that just doesn't work.

On the other hand, some of my all-time favorite US TV series have seasons of up to 38(!) episodes, several of which were written by only 1 or 2 people. And some are *hour length* with only a few episodes I'd consider "filler."

It seems that length of the season has little to do with the quality. That's all about the commitment of the production team.

From decades of observation I'd say that story quality seemed to begin to suffer in the 70s with lots of what I called "Saw that story on (fill in a classic TV show) back in (the year it aired in the 50s/60s)" on many series. Heck, even Lucy repeated herself into a mind numbing viewing experience with some of her later work. Then production quality began to suffer as Norman Lear introduced cheaply done video tape productions. He was successful so people emulated his techniques. It took over a decade to get studio based production quality back to a filmed level.

Whatever the reason, there were excellent series in the early days of TV and there are excellent series today (it just feels like it's fewer and further between since the advent of "Reality TV"). Many TV series in the 50s/60s had at least "B" movie production values with several rising to "Theatrical Quality." It's no different today, just fewer episodes across the board. You can partially blame the expense of producing TV today on the reduced number of episodes. The networks also control less of the production chain making airing those expensive products more difficult. That breeds reruns which practically requires fewer episodes.

I'd be quite happy if they'd produce 20+ seasons of The Orville but I'm also happy with what we have as it's an overall well produced program. It's much like many TV series which ended production after only 4-6 seasons. Always leave them wanting more and end on a high note. Shorter and fewer seasons help that mentality. After all, I own several series which started out strong but kept going long after they should have ended. I still like them but honestly feel I'd like them better had they ended sooner. Basically - I'd have rather had 10+ 13-14 episode seasons with all of them strong than 10+ 24 episode seasons, the last of which were just running on fumes.

Frankly, I think you can argue this case both ways and never come to a satisfying conclusion.

 

[Bryan^H]

I don't agree with this at all. In fact, I think the "limitation" of fewer episodes is part of the magic behind modern prestige television. I think almost every TV was worsened--not improved--by having 22 to 24 episodes per season.

To me the magic of television are the "small" episodes. Episodes that are finely crafted, and acted but don't necessarily stand out to the majority of a series fans as the most memorable, or best. Two of my favorites from TNG are "Home Soil", and "The Ensigns of Command" definitely "Filler". Episodes like that would not exist in todays current TV market, and to me that is sad.

 

[Malcolm R]

Incidentally, I hope The Orville’s numbers don’t tank when it returns. I think it’s incredible that the #1 new show of fall 2017 doesn’t return in fall 2018. It’s a lot to ask an audience to keep a show they barely got a chance to see in their minds for a hiatus that lasts over a year.

That's the downside of producing so few episodes. Hiatus between seasons is very long, especially if the network holds it for mid-season (which is easier to do if the show is only producing a half-season's worth of episodes).

 

[TJPC]

I have not had a routine of “sitting down each week at the same time to watch my favorite show” since around 1985 when I bought my first Beta machine and discovered storing shows until I had the time to watch them and fast forwarding through commercials.

Now I set my PVR to record my shows and it does so each week. We sit each night, look at the menu and pick. Sometimes we have two episodes of a series and watch them back to back. I can’t even tell you what day of the week the various shows are broadcast.

 

[BobO'Link]

I have not had a routine of “sitting down each week at the same time to watch my favorite show” since around 1985 when I bought my first Beta machine and discovered storing shows until I had the time to watch them and fast forwarding through commercials.

Now I set my PVR to record my shows and it does so each week. We sit each night, look at the menu and pick. Sometimes we have two episodes of a series and watch them back to back. I can’t even tell you what day of the week the various shows are broadcast.

At one time I had 2 tape machines either recording competing networks simultaneously or watching one while the other recorded that night's offerings. When DVD came along I dumped both and switched to disc for everything, watching "live" TV just to see if I liked a program well enough to purchase it on disc. With few exceptions, I've been a season behind ever since.

My TV hasn't been connected to cable for several years and I don't have a DVR as my wife wouldn't use it (hers is the only set connected to cable - she watches that and won't watch a disc). I streamed The Orville a day or three after it actually aired and will do the same this time out. Normally I'd just wait for S2 to appear on disc but I enjoy this one enough to watch it while it's airing.

I'm not bothered too much by S1 only being available on DVD. Even though I'd prefer BR, with an upscaling player it'll likely look just as good as most "HD" broadcasts I've seen on cable.

 

[Josh Dial]

If you’re turning on the TV and you’re looking solely for the best quality programming, or to be more specific, looking for program that best emulates the production values and stylistic trappings of a feature film, I agree that you’re most likely to find what you’re looking for on these shorter season shows. But if you’re looking for a routine, if you’re looking for characters to spend time with on a weekly basis, if you’re looking for a consistent experience, that really doesn’t exist as part of the shorter season plan that’s becoming popular today.

Fair point. I think I understand your position now, and I agree to an extent. Though, I would argue that the best-of-the-best "prestige" TV right now can create a universe I want to visit weekly and characters with whom i want to spend time just as well as shows with longer seasons. Heck, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel did with only eight episodes what most shows fail to do over entire seasons!

To me the magic of television are the "small" episodes. Episodes that are finely crafted, and acted but don't necessarily stand out to the majority of a series fans as the most memorable, or best. Two of my favorites from TNG are "Home Soil", and "The Ensigns of Command" definitely "Filler". Episodes like that would not exist in todays current TV market, and to me that is sad.

I agree with this, too (by the way, nice shout out to "Home Soil"--a great episode!). Many of my favourite episodes are not necessarily "small," but they are certainly experimental. TNG's "The Drumhead" is one of my favourites. "The Inner Light" is certainly small (and experimental). I would argue that, paradoxically, we're more likely to get these sorts of smaller/experimental episodes on shows with shorter seasons--though not because the seasons are shorter, but because they are likely to be on cable channels and freed from the confines of network control. My favourite season 1 episode of Discovery was "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad." Strangely, you might not get that sort of episode on a modern 26-episode Trek show (like you did, for example, with its TNG analogue "Cause and Effect"). Look at the two or three seasons of television. Were there any small or experimental episodes in a 20+ episode show (seriously, I'm asking--I only watch one or two network shows these days). The last cool network episode I remember watching was "If-Then-Else" on Person of Interest.

I think we're more likely to get an episode like "The Inner Light" or "Darmok" on Discovery than on The Orville.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Fair point. I think I understand your position now, and I agree to an extent. Though, I would argue that the best-of-the-best "prestige" TV right now can create a universe I want to visit weekly and characters with whom i want to spend time just as well as shows with longer seasons. Heck, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel did with only eight episodes what most shows fail to do over entire seasons!

Absolutely, shorter shows can create characters and worlds you’d like to visit for more than the length of their short runs.

I like routine. Having routines makes my life more enjoyable. The short seasons deprive me of the ability to have a routine around them. When a show runs from fall to spring, I can have a show to look forward to on a certain date. I can’t tell you how many lousy weeks I got through because I could say to myself, “Just make it to Wednesday and there will be a new West Wing!” Or: “Monday isn’t so bad, I get to watch a new 24 after work!”

When a show runs for just a handful of episodes, it doesn’t get to be part of a routine like that.

I don’t mean to suggest that this is the only right way to watch TV. But I am saying that this is how people enjoyed TV for decades, and over the course of a few short years, all of that is being abandoned. I miss having shows that I like anchoring my year. It’ll be great when The Orville is back, but a dozen episodes every other year isn’t really a routine for me to embrace.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

BTW, we both have the same favorite episode of Discovery - but I think that kind of show could have been produced in a 22 or 26 episode season. I think programs like that are more likely to appear on shows that have more episodes.

Look at a shorter run show like Stranger Things - they did one episode last year that wasn’t completely tied into the main plot, and they got raked over the coals for doing so. Their audience wanted more plot, and even though the Netflix delivery model puts out all episodes at the same so the audience didn’t have to wait a week for the next episode, they still heavy criticized the mere existence of that episode. I bet Stranger Things will never try that again. And I bet a lot of other similar programs will look at that backlash and be cautious about doing that too.

 

[Josh Dial]

BTW, we both have the same favorite episode of Discovery - but I think that kind of show could have been produced in a 22 or 26 episode season. I think programs like that are more likely to appear on shows that have more episodes.

I agree that it could be made on a "long season" show, but I think the reality is that likely won't--indeed, I think the proof is in the lack of such episodes on network TV over the last few years--though, again, I think that's mostly a product of the best talent leaving network TV for cable/streaming. Now that I think about it, didn't "This is Us" have an experimental episode this past season (I don't know--I don't want the show)? That show aside, can you see "Manifest" or "Chicago PD" or "The Resident" having a small/experimental episode? I can't. Frankly, at this point the DC and Marvel shows are the best candidates.

I thought of that episode of Stranger Things when I was writing my other posts. Personally, I liked it a lot. I would like one of those episode per season, actually (focusing on the other lost sisters).

Somewhat related, look at the recent mini-episode of Discovery: "Calypso." In my opinion, that 20-minute episode was better than any episode The Orville. That sort of experiment would never happen on the actual CBS channel.

I guess my point (which I've made in many threads--sorry for sounding like a broken record!) is that network TV is devoid of creativity, and that lack of creativity is partially fueled by the 24-episode model. If you want the best quality, the most creativity, the most interesting, the most risk-taking: you have to go to cable/streaming (where those qualities are partially fueled by the limited episode count).

I, like you, like having a bit of routine to my television watching. I've had to replace my "watch The West Wing every week" with "watch this awesome new show for 10 weeks and then watch something new and also awesome!" with a bit of "binge this awesome show over a weekend and then binge another awesome show next weekend!" Also, network TV screwed up my schedule long ago with their "schedule" of five new episodes, then two weeks off, then three new episodes, then two new episodes, then four weeks off... The "mini seasons" (10 weeks straight through, then a break for six weeks, then back for 10 more episodes straight through to the finale) fixed this a bit.

In the end, network TV has almost nothing I want, while cable and streaming has almost everything except the steady release schedule over half a year. Overall I think it's a net benefit for me.

 

[BobO'Link]

I guess my point (which I've made in many threads--sorry for sounding like a broken record!) is that network TV is devoid of creativity, and that lack of creativity is partially fueled by the 24-episode model. If you want the best quality, the most creativity, the most interesting, the most risk-taking: you have to go to cable/streaming (where those qualities are partially fueled by the limited episode count).

This same criticism has been leveled at network TV since at least the 60s. People complained that all there was were "stupid, repetitive, sitcoms and endless westerns." Anytime a new idea or truly innovative program came along everyone scrambled to make something identical, but different. Often, those original or innovative programs were accidental hits which had barely made it to the airwaves. It's still that way.

It's not quite fair to lump "network" TV in the same category as cable or streaming. The networks have to play by very different, and more restrictive, rules when it comes to programming. Declining ratings, caused by the network's own programming tactics, has decreased their willingness for risk taking, not that that it's been very strong at any time in broadcast history.

Lower episode count doesn't necessarily fuel higher willingness to risk taking. The networks have, for decades, been quite willing to cancel a show after only a few episodes if it's apparent things just aren't working or ratings don't meet expectations, often to their detriment by not allowing a program to grow and/or change to adapt to lower ratings. It's kind of like Josh S. said earlier. The current shorter series/seasons are more like extended movies or mini-series than are TV shows with more traditional episode numbers. That can provide huge advantages in audience retention and such series actually airing. If the networks would produce an entire 20-24 episode season prior to a program's airing you'd likely see similar results as they'd air them to completion simply because the production expense has been fully committed.

Considering The Orville is on Fox I'm actually amazed it received a 2nd season. Fox's executives historically have shown to be rather clueless when it comes to the potential of science fiction series. They seemingly don't understand the programs or the target audience. Frankly, the other networks aren't much better when it comes to science fiction and that includes cable/streaming.

 

[DavidJ]

We're both Josh! :p

Then we can’t be wrong.

We’re with Josh!
We’re with Josh!
We’re with Josh!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I never met another Josh in my entire childhood; I didn’t even hear of another one until I was in high school.

Plenty of us here though! And I would be honored to be mistaken for JoshEH or Josh Dial, who are both better writers than I am.