The Orville

[Fabinas]

Seth said the chances for Orville coming back are slim, since contracts of the cast already ended. Only a small chance to return if the series does good in Disney+.

[Endus]

I really liked how they explained why the Prime Directive is important. I don't think Star Trek ever did that or at least not as effectively, though I could be wrong.

The problem with the Prime Directive in Star Trek was that it made sense as a Secondary or Tertiary objective, but making it a Prime Directive is so colossally, unremittingly stupid that it's basically only every brought up in Trek when a captain, rightly, is going to ignore the Prime Directive.

The Prime Directive tells you that if you identify an asteroid that will impact a planet with a pre-warp civilization, and they're completely unaware of the threat, you can't nudge that rock off-course. You need to sit back and document their extinction, like psychopaths. TNG had at least a couple episodes around this concept.

General non-intereference is fine, as long as it comes after concepts like salvation.

Even the way the Orville is discussing it is grating and arguably indefensible. The whole "less-advanced groups shouldn't be uplifted because they're ignorant baboons and will inevitably kill themselves and each other" thing is incredibly patriarchal and condescending. It also suggests that technological development and social development are inherently shared; that a less-technological society is necessarily less-ethical than a more-technological society. This is the same kind of garbage racism that led to local cultures being subjugated and oppressed during the colonial era; the "savages" didn't know any better, so it was up to those "more developed" groups to make those decisions for them. It sounds good, until you realize it's fundamentally based on a statement of moral and intellectual superiority; that the Federation, or the Planetary Union, are just "better" than the pre-warp groups, and thus those pre-warp groups don't "deserve" the knowledge of those other groups. They're just chimps smacking rocks together, so who cares what happens to them.

There's a clear argument to be made against forcibly uplifting a group against their wishes, but I find the arguments about "playing God" deeply offensive and inherently dishonest; if you have the ability to help, whichever choice you make, you're "playing God". You just get to choose whether you're the God that saves innocents, or the God that pats themselves on the back for nobly not helping.

A reasonable stance would be to offer assistance, but not to force anything. Might this change their society? Sure. So would annihilation. You're still making a choice, and your decision will cause things play out differently, either way. Telling yourself you don't have a choice and that letting events play on without involvement is not a choice is a lie; it absolutely is one. It's watching a puppy drown in a river when you could easily save it, and telling yourself you're making the ethically correct decision. Ask the puppy how it feels.

That's where Trek and the Orville lose me; the absolute lack of consideration for the suffering they choose to allow.

[everydaygamer]

The problem with the Prime Directive in Star Trek was that it made sense as a Secondary or Tertiary objective, but making it a Prime Directive is so colossally, unremittingly stupid that it's basically only every brought up in Trek when a captain, rightly, is going to ignore the Prime Directive.

The Prime Directive tells you that if you identify an asteroid that will impact a planet with a pre-warp civilization, and they're completely unaware of the threat, you can't nudge that rock off-course. You need to sit back and document their extinction, like psychopaths. TNG had at least a couple episodes around this concept.

General non-intereference is fine, as long as it comes after concepts like salvation.

Even the way the Orville is discussing it is grating and arguably indefensible. The whole "less-advanced groups shouldn't be uplifted because they're ignorant baboons and will inevitably kill themselves and each other" thing is incredibly patriarchal and condescending. It also suggests that technological development and social development are inherently shared; that a less-technological society is necessarily less-ethical than a more-technological society. This is the same kind of garbage racism that led to local cultures being subjugated and oppressed during the colonial era; the "savages" didn't know any better, so it was up to those "more developed" groups to make those decisions for them. It sounds good, until you realize it's fundamentally based on a statement of moral and intellectual superiority; that the Federation, or the Planetary Union, are just "better" than the pre-warp groups, and thus those pre-warp groups don't "deserve" the knowledge of those other groups. They're just chimps smacking rocks together, so who cares what happens to them.

There's a clear argument to be made against forcibly uplifting a group against their wishes, but I find the arguments about "playing God" deeply offensive and inherently dishonest; if you have the ability to help, whichever choice you make, you're "playing God". You just get to choose whether you're the God that saves innocents, or the God that pats themselves on the back for nobly not helping.

A reasonable stance would be to offer assistance, but not to force anything. Might this change their society? Sure. So would annihilation. You're still making a choice, and your decision will cause things play out differently, either way. Telling yourself you don't have a choice and that letting events play on without involvement is not a choice is a lie; it absolutely is one. It's watching a puppy drown in a river when you could easily save it, and telling yourself you're making the ethically correct decision. Ask the puppy how it feels.

That's where Trek and the Orville lose me; the absolute lack of consideration for the suffering they choose to allow.

My point is that they managed to justify it in universe. They don't interfere because in the past they unintentionally wiped out entire civilizations.

It's not nescesarrily a perfect solution but they do a good job explaining why such an advance society would adopt such a policy.

[Combatbutler]

That's where Trek and the Orville lose me; the absolute lack of consideration for the suffering they choose to allow.

Why? These places are not meant to be an utopia, with every problem being magically solved, we have a clear precedent in the Orville universe of something going horribly wrong, by actually interfering. In such a universe their mindset is neither unrealistic, nor is it really cruel.

[Gaidax]

Excellent show.

It would be too bad for it to be over, but what you gonna do.

Maybe they can produce a spin off to continue story if current cast can't be reassembled or a sequel with part of the crew on new ship.

[Relikk]

Hands down season 3 towers above both of the preceding seasons, and it's a superb series of Trek-like television in its own right. The long episodes were one of its many highlights, along with the decision to tone down the wacky humour in favour of a more subtle and sporadic approach, and playing it straighter than what was usually done with McFarlane taking a back seat for much of it. Its only flaw remains with wooden acting from LaMarr and Talla.

[Mace]

wrong post.. soz