The Orville: New Horizons (Hulu)

This is gonna take awhile. We have a lot to discuss. First of all, my reaction was overwhelmingly favorable. My biggest concern in writing this review is that I'm going to have to make some negative Star Trek comparisons. This series is done by producers who actually understand psychology and how people work. Star Trek does not, never did, and Gene Roddenberry's lip-service to it was comically inept in almost all cases. I think the thing I regret most about the fact that Star Trek doesn't show human grief or ugliness properly is because Star Trek: Picard has been inching in that direction for two seasons. The suicide of Picard's mentally ill mother is actually a huge plot point on that show. And Strange New Worlds is a return to form for that franchise. But for whatever reason, neither show has really explored the darker aspects of humanity yet. That's not really a slam on them. This is really first time The Orville itself has gone there too and it's season three. Picard and Strange New Worlds can deal with this stuff better later on.

Interestingly, Star Trek: Discovery, the weakest of the Kurtzman live-action shows, did an entire arc exploring Book's grief over his planet being destroyed. I think the thing that makes me realize how inadequate it was is that everyone agreed it was a bad thing, so everyone was on Book's side, and even sort of forgave him when he stupidly went rogue. It was pretty straightforward as far as grief goes. But Isaac's suicide is messy in contrast. Even people who didn't want that like Claire and Mercer are entirely conflicted about it. And Malloy shocked me in revealing he was against Isaac being reinstated because Malloy has always been the most happy-go-lucky crew member, so to learn he took what happened personally really shocked me.

I'll tell you one thing I like about the show. I still have things to complain about. Perfect television is rare, and when I see it it actually makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. That's the biggest reason I've been dragging my feet on seeing both Breaking Bad and The Wire. I like feeling like the show is still on a bit of a learning curve.

There were two huge, really terrible mistakes the episode made. One of then will undoubtedly be forgotten by the fandom, but I should mention it and that it's suckiness did not pass my notice. The second one is something that's probably going to hurt the show in the near-feature, and even potentially in the longterm.

The first thing I hated was the fact that the opening of the season was a fake-out dream sequence. Nobody is going to remember or care about that after that level of drama, but let me just pause the admiration for a few moments to point out how much that absolutely sucks.

The second thing is something Seth MacFarlane probably would have done better to avoid. I can't stand Charly. I don't think liking or forgiving Isaac is a particularly easy issue. But Charly's bile stopped being personal early on and turned into simple genuine racism. And her coming onto the ship and just berating one of the cast members, that the audience both cares about (and has mixed feelings about too) is basically Dr. Pulaski's riding Data's poor ass for no reason whatsoever, only because Roddenberry and Berman were trying to turn her into Dr. McCoy, because they were so dumb they actually believed Data was REMOTELY like Spock. Remember when I said Next Gen has piss-poor psychology? They think a mean, bitter woman coming aboard the Enterprise and essentially being a racist monster towards the most benign, beloved, fan-favorite crew member would create and sparks and drama. It just made us instantly loathe Pulaski. Charly's hatred of Isaac is not actually personal. It's an entrenched belief about an entire group of people which makes it far ghastlier. I think perhaps the most ghastly thing about it is that even if you could argue Isaac's a good guy, her prejudice against everyone else on his planet is earned and accurate.

I don't think the rest of the crew really got the full story of how Isaac switched sides, but the thing I remember most about it is that he turned his back on his home planet and entire world to save the life of a little boy who cared about him. Isaac did not switch sides because it was convenient (or even prudent). Until he did, the Kalon were destined to destroy the fleet. He did it because he valued Ty Finn as a friend and Claire as something he can't describe. Nobody really is talking about what a sacrifice Isaac made. They can talk about "Too little, too late", but the truth is him coming around at all is the biggest personal sacrifice anyone on the crew has ever made. I want to ask Charly if she'd be willing to turn her back on ALL of her family and friends, and all of humanity itself on behalf of one kid. Yeah, Isaac may not have emotions in the same way we do. But that's a huge deal even if he doesn't.

A few more Star Trek comparisons occur to me. The first one I want to mention because it struck me as an interesting parallel, and both versions were equally fascinating for different reasons. The whole Charly refusing to save Isaac thing is very much in the vein of Worf declining to donate rare blood to a dying Romulan on the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "The Enemy". What great's about Worf's refusal in that episode (and shows what an inferior character Charly is to him) is that he quite clearly tells Captain Picard he will do it if Picard orders him to. Picard can't bring himself to do that. Donating blood is a much more invasive deal that repairing a system so that's why Picard refuses to give the actual order. But Worf is a loyal Starfleet officer who will obey his commanding officer. He just refuses to do it as a personal favor or out of the goodness of his heart. The Romulan wound up dying (but not before telling Worf on his deathbed he didn't want filthy Klingon blood running in his veins) and that's another difference.

Charly refusing to obey the order is disqualifying. They're talking about how controversial reinstating Isaac was. Well she just committed the exact same sin he did! How does Mercer not bring that up?

In fairness to the episode, it explored nearly every other inch of the controversy.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is the best Star Trek show, and people who dislike The Orville grumble that Isaac's arc is just a rip-off of Odo's. This episode says it isn't and won't be. Odo faced some prejudice from Klingons after the reveal the Changelings were the Dominion Founders, but Starfleet themselves stuck by him entirely. And he wound up making some questionable choices in Season 6 about that, and he was still ultimately forgiven. I don't think even Ira Steven-Behr, the most progressive of the Trek writers of that era, was willing to explore hatred and prejudice among human crew members against Odo on a weekly basis. I admit, that could have been a mandate from Rick Berman (any of DS9's weaknesses can always be traced squarely to him) but the fact that this show just went for it instead and explored every bit of the controversy from all angles is why this show isn't a rip-off of Star Trek. It's Seth MacFarlane telling a version of Star Trek audiences can actually relate to and understand, and exploring tough issues without simply giving lip service to them for one week before dashing off to the next adventure. Like Deep Space Nine, many of the conflicts on The Orville are between the crew members and their different philosophies and ways of seeing things. But The Orville takes the conflict so far here that Isaac commits suicide.

Isaac's explanation after he's revived for why he did it sounds rational, which is my problem with it. It's too pat. I can tell Claire is frustrated too, and believes there's dishonesty attached to that explanation. Here's a weird opinion for ya. I don't agree with Isaac's explanation at all, and still believe he's being 100% sincere when he offers it. It's the best he can do and maybe exploring actual reasons for why it happened are too dark and scary for him.

I love that the season is being dedicated to Norm McDonald. If there IS a season four (and there might be) the show will be measurably worse with Yaphit gone.

I'll tell you another thing The Orville has on Star Trek. Star Trek has been around for nearly 60 years. If a robot crew member committed suicide there is no question they'd be brought back to life by the end. Not that Star Trek would ever explore a crew member's suicide, but that's not how Star Trek deaths work. Funnily enough, whenever Star Trek shows a major death, it ALWAYS bungles it. Spock is the big exception and an exception that doesn't count because they bought it back in the next movie. But nobody was ever happy with the way Tasha War, Jadzia Dax, Trip Tucker, Captain Kirk, and even Data went out. The way you know a Star Trek character is actually gone is if the death is meaningless, pointless, and entirely preventable. In most cases it's all three. But as far as robot characters go, on a weekly episode that is not a season or series finale, Star Trek plays that kind of thing VERY safe. And The Orville is just new and different enough that you begin to wonder if they are going to play it for keeps and if Mark Jackson has left the show. They could have stopped the episode at the 44 minute mark upon the ship undocking from repairs, and heading off to their next adventure, and just kept Isaac dead and nobody, would call foul on that. Extending the episode past the ship leaving dock was great.

I love Mercer directing Bortus to using a submarine maneuver against the Kalon. I mentioned the Orville is telling Star Trek the way it should have been told in its heyday. It's amazing we've never seen Worf, Geordi, Seven of Nine, Scotty, or Chief O'Brien pull off that specific move.

Mercer brought up an interesting point with Charly about why Isaac is still there. They might need him. He is their only edge against the Kalon. Does he fully trust him? No. But it's safer having him there. Plus, he didn't mention he has nowhere else to go.

Also, while he is a necessary asset, I would think Mercer should be telling the crew to treat him better. Yes, there is a controversy to him being there. But while they NEED Isaac, they should do everything in their power to keep him on their side. Especially knowing he doesn't have to be. They treat him like crap long enough, he could perhaps decide the rest of his people were right about humanity all along, and finish what they started. Best not tempt that fate.

I love that Talla's concern for Isaac brought her to Mercer. You can call her a snitch in modern times, but for evolved humans I admired her transparency. She left nothing out of the confrontation, and refused to sugarcoat anything the crew did in the mess hall. Mercer seems perplexed that Isaac has been enduring this for months without saying anything. I think the far more disturbing thing is this is the first time Talla's seen it. It suggests it's been building and worsening over the course of time, and people are getting emboldened to do it more openly. That is also a very human thing Star Trek would never explore. But it says that people have been doing this in whispers and secret before this. They knew it was wrong the entire time, and did it anyways. Isaac not reporting it might not be simply because he found the behavior fascinating. Maybe he felt a bit threatened by it. The fact that it's been done in the shadows before that shows that to be an entirely rational reaction. And maybe as far as the Kalon go, snitches get stitches. We just don't know.

I am very glad the move to Hulu hasn't drastically coarsened the show. I knew it wouldn't, but I've seen some online idiots chomping at the bit over their comedy God Seth MacFarlane being able to FINALLY do a raunchy TV-MA version of the show. These fools either have never seen the show, or simply don't understand it. This is Seth MacFarlane's passion project. It's not Tripping The Rift. It weird some MacFarlane fans think it should be. Did I say weird? I meant totally messed up. Get help, people.

I really hope all my reviews for this season aren't that long and involved, but I have a suspicion they might be. Thank you for sticking through this one. ****1/2.

Good news! This week's review won't be as long as last week's! It was good, but we don't have as much to discuss.

I'll discuss the one thing I didn't like first. I didn't like Claire promising to cure Paul. Because she wasn't able to. If that was going to be the ending, the writers were wrong to have her promise that. Yes, it's realistic. This is also fiction. It feels wrong for that reason.

What kills me is that the crew should have been able to take the Krills' warning at face value, and sort of gotten the gist of what was going on, if not the specifics. It could have been possession by non-corporeal lifeforms instead of alien spores, but the warning itself was sound. When Mercer is talking about their religious interpretations, he's acting like they were overly superstitious. In reality, even though the warning had no scientific basis to rationalize it, it was actually sound.

It was rewarding to see Lamar escape the monster in the dark. Because it's people who look like Lamar who are always killed first in horror movies. It felt cathartic for that reason.

Speaking of which, Talla's endless smackdown with the bug aliens was pretty much nonstop awesome. If Next Gen had ever given Worf that scene, I'd never say any bad things about it.

The thing I'm paying closest attention to is Isaac's story, and how the crew are reacting to him. Claire has started to be friendly again, and the rest of the crew are starting to get used to him too. His scene at the end with Claire was quite endearing.

This was cowritten by Star Trek vets Brannon Braga and Andre Bormanis. I'm not saying Braga has grown as a writer. He has done as much good stuff as he's done awful stuff in the past. But ultimately Star Trek was NOT good for him, and The Orville has been. Make of that what you will.

Here's an interesting complaint I don't offer current sci-fi much. But the inside of the alien ship looks very much like a TV studio set. Now, as The Orville is a Star Trek tribute, that's actually fine. But it should be noted those kinds of sets are never seen on Star Treks Discovery, Picard, or Strange New Worlds anymore. It's sort of a charming throwback, but a throwback is what it is.

That's it! The review's over! You don't have to read any more of my nonsense about this basic (but solid) episode! How great is that? ****.

I'm giving that a negative review.

The drawback to the show being such a heavy Star Trek homage is that they are eventually gonna showcase the bad tropes of that franchise. One of Trek's most tiresome and overdone tropes is "Inexplicable mystery that makes less and less sense as it goes on is actually a dream / hallucination or an alien mind experiment". The twistier and more inexplicable the mystery winds up, the more frustrated I always become by that predictable resolution. As this episode was going on, and becoming more and more intriguing, and the more unpredictable and interesting it got, I began to like it less and less. Because only a fake-out could possibly tie every random mystery posited together.

Weirdly, I would not have objected to the Kalon reality having been what was going on, because not only was that outside of the Trek trope of an inexplicable mystery being an obvious fake-out, but it would have had significant ramifications for the series at large. I'm disappointed they made it all an experiment from an advanced lifeform (even if it was one we'd technically met before).

The first ""Back To Reality" sequence turning out to actually be a part of the simulation is utterly old hat too.

Charlie's accusations against Isaac was particularly maddening knowing they didn't really occur. It's the show adding random crap and drama for the sake of random crap and drama.

I'll tell you the one thing I liked. I liked Mercer admitting at the end he'd like to live forever. Because he wants to see what comes next. And I am totally with him there.

But for the most part the episode wasn't just Star Trek, it was bad Star Trek. *1/2.

That was powerful, chilling, disturbing, melodramatic, and effecting. And I'm still giving it a negative review. Why?

It's too damn long. DS9 got away with some very dark episodes. But they were 45 minutes each, and not TOO punishing. The 65 minute runtime just makes it feel like unending misery.

I believe that TV shows that have an episode involving a mass shooting, should NOT pull that episode from airing if a real-world one occurs soon before it. If anything, that should give creators MORE license to address a topical issue head on. But the Trump parallels here still freaked me out. They even have an advanced version of Fake News.

I think Brannon Braga and Andre Bormanis bit off more than they could chew there. It's fine for a space opera in the Star Trek vein to deliver a leftwing political moral. Despite what Discovery trolls thinks, that's totally what the franchise has always been. But I didn't feel the shot they took at antiabortion zealots landed as well as it should have. Because the episode wasn't actually about it, and it felt like the producers just felt like showing every way Republicans currently suck, and were just piling on regardless of whether the story called for it or not. And that's not what the premise of the episode comfortably allowed. You can do the allegories to the scary populism, the violence against political opponents, unthinkable election outcomes, and fake news, but I think every bad allegory they want to make against a Republicans needs to do with the subject at hand. I am a Partisan Democrat but I also consider myself a conservative, personally, if not politically. I vote for Democrats because they most represent my conservative values. So if you want to take shots at Republicans, that's fine, but there has to be certain rules an allegory must follow. I believe what The Orville attempted tonight with the antiabortion Krill stuff was what is known as "overreach". It was the right message for the show in the wrong episode.

I am concerned. A good show is entitled to deliver an occasional underwhelming, or even BAD episode. Hell, a GREAT show is also entitled to that. The problem is I didn't like last week either. I usually love the show. Not every episode of course, but this is the first time I can ever remember disliking two weeks in a row. That's worrisome to me. **1/2.

I sort of understand why Seth MacFarlane wanted to be the one to write and direct this specific sensitive tearjerker. I don't necessarily think it was done an apology for insensitive jokes against both transgender people and women in general on Family Guy and elsewhere. But I like Isaac's explanation that he did the procedure so the crew would like him more. I think that's the real reason why MacFarlane put himself in the writer / director episode rotation for this one too.

Let me just say I am relieved to finally see the back end of Klyden. None of the other characters seemed to like him (not even Bortus) and all he was during the first two seasons was part headache, part diplomatic incident waiting to happen. He last words before he left the show being "I wish you were never born," to his daughter were entirely appropriate to how much he sucks. I remember last year Talla gave him the business and told him to stay away from her. I'm glad we don't have to deal with him anymore.

I like MacFarlane writing the scene where the admiral fully dresses him and Kelly down in the most humiliating manner possible. I like the admiral correctly pointing out that Mercer and Amanda feigning ignorance isn't an actual defense. It's a brutal confession of incompetence. I don't think enough people in 2022 understand that bit either.

Were there any weaknesses in this episode? I think the only real note I could give is that the episode was pretty predictable. Which is fine my standards. I like predictable television. The episode doesn't need the characters to act surprised over these things though. When Kelly says she surprised by Mercer's journal to his daughter I was like, "Why would you say that? It doesn't surprise me at all." Likewise the admiral declaring Maclans' resolve against the Kalon was hardened upon learning Isaac performed the procedure was not a surprise, or a way he and Kelly "got lucky". It was always the most likely outcome which is why when Isaac offered to do it I was super delighted. I figured as much.

Being a MacFarlane episode means there is some humor, but unlike season one, it is very gentle and not vulgar. These are all the kinds of jokes Star Trek could do with Data, although I don't see Next Gen creative or hardcore enough to have an arrow sticking out of his head.

Great episode and progression for Bortus and Topas' storyline. ****1/2.

I thought it was a very interesting and high drama episode, but I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions it reached. Confusing the matter is the show is clearly taking the strictness of the laws of temporal mechanics from Star Trek VERY seriously, when Star Trek itself violated them with no negative repercussions on Star Trek: Picard this year. The Orville has always been much more permissive and understanding about these types of rules than Star Trek was. To see modern Star Trek suggest it's no big deal while this show takes the controversy to the bitter end feels weird.

I mentioned I didn't agree with the conclusions reached. Honestly, I think that Malloy should have been allowed to stay. But what I really didn't buy was Malloy telling Ed and Kelley at the end that they made the right decision. That was done because as a Star Trek homage, The Orville is also designed to be TV comfort food, and to wind up the week hating Mercer and Grayson works against that. But the truth is Gordon only said that to comfort the audience. It doesn't make sense from storytelling or character perspective.

Another conclusion reached I disagreed with was his wife being so understanding upon learning the truth. She should have been pissed. Let me tell you, the entire situation left a bad taste in my mouth knowing Gordon has been stalking and lying to this woman for their entire marriage and knew everything about her, and loved her, even before they met. It's creepy. Her being understanding instead felt antifeminist to me. The is not the Seth MacFarlane show that should be making me feel that.

Ultimately, the biggest conclusion I disagreed with was Ed, Amanda, and Talla confronting him and his family at the end. There was absolutely no reason to do it except rub salt in the wound. They knew it was a lost cause. So they should have simply jumped back the ten years without telling him. It was would have spared him and his family agony. The reason they don't do it that way is for the audience's benefit. It's better drama for us to see that knockdown drag-out and pathos ourselves. Let me correct the show there. It's better for US, but it's not better for the show or the characters. It's meaner than it needs to be for that reason. I don't object to painful drama. Unnecessary painful drama? We don't need it. And the audience shouldn't be allowed to witness it under the misguided assumption that it's all right simply because we can.

I like that Gordon yells at Ed many times during the episode. Ed's trying to pull rank and failing because Gordon doesn't consider himself a crew member anymore.

I didn't like this week that much. It was interesting for sure, but it still felt like a misfire. **1/2.

When this show is on-point, it's on.

Lots to discuss. Learning the history of the Kalon is outright appalling. I cannot really watch these types of shows and actually picture a group of aliens uglier than real-world modern day humans. Like Star Trek, the negative alien characteristics are an allegory of us. But I DO almost always recognize myself in them. But while they tried to make the Builders sound like us with their business concerns and disdain for the stupidity of their leaders and voters, the truth is I don't recognize any part of myself in them. That is a lack of imagination on my end. Certainly people who went through slavery all had similar stories, but using the cute robot as the allegory is intense because you don't ever want to see Luke Skywalker torturing R2-D2. In fiction, and I imagine real life, humanity would attach emotional weight to any given robot. I can picture humanity doing things like that to itself. We suck to each other. Doing it to a cute looking robot brings the allegory home visually about what clear unambiguous monsters the builders were.

I think the thing I like about Temmis is that he's permanent. He's still out there and something they can return to. He was giving me a sinking feeling all throughout the episode, which turned out to be groundless (for now). But Isaac getting the emotions was the true thing I knew wouldn't end well.

I like Claire's discussion with Kelly about it. It was refreshingly frank about what a scummy ask it is of Claire for something Isaac doesn't actually want to do. But maybe he'll do it on her behalf. And Claire expressing distaste over the selfishness of the idea that Isaac as he is isn't enough for her is exploring the issue properly.

Honestly, I am very glad the emotions fused at the end. I don't know about you, but I don't think Isaac was remotely processing his feelings in a healthy manner. We have no clue how hard it was for Timmis (and it probably WAS hard) but he was saying some things that would give any sane woman giant red flags about a dude. And to be honest, Claire looks a little uncomfortable with some of the things he says too. But I think she allows it because it's new for him too.

Charly's apology to Isaac was both long overdue, and something I think was probably offered too soon. The fact that Isaac himself didn't change her opinion about it struck me as the wrong storytelling move.

Talla and Lamar's plot was a real zero. Weakest part of the episode.

Although to be fair, the negotiation with the matriarchal aliens sucked too simply because the plan to "ease them into the truth" was both super dumb and 100% television, the latter of which is the harshest critique I can ever give a piece of fiction.

The show has been a bit on-and-off this year so far. This was an on episode for sure. ****1/2.

This novella was a bit shocking in its darkness and grimness, especially since it was written by MacFarlane himself. I'm especially surprised how the first half seems like an entirely different project and a WWII period piece focusing on the Nazis. It's pretty hard stuff.

Once we get to the Orville and the end of the simulation, I think the novella loses a little bit of luster. The way MacFarlane describes the crew is not as literate as the first half of the story, and feels about as cliched and lazy as a Star Trek tie-in novel. Of course, The Orville is a Star Trek tribute, and this IS a tie-in novella, but considering MacFarlane wrote it, I was hoping it would be less of the Pocket Books-type of cliched prose.

If this novella is to be considered canon, it spoils a major thing. However long the series runs, Ty Finn is going to survive it. I thought it was interesting they put him in that specific role and thought he was a good choice for it. That's one thing that pleased me.

Knowing how insensitive MacFarlane has been to Jews on both Family Guy and American Dad makes the first half a bit hard to accept and reconcile. Which might be one of the reasons MacFarlane chose to tell this story at all. Either as an apology for those gross jokes or to suggest they aren't all he's about.

I liked the high-concept moral dilemma put forth. It was something Star Trek hadn't done before. And yet I believe it would have been inappropriate to explore on the series itself. I think it was a good choice to make it a prose novella.

This was the first prose story I have ever read by MacFarlane, and when he's detailing Otto's horrible life and crimes it's riveting. It's when he gets to the whole "tie-in book" part of the story that I feel the story and prose loses a bit of it's juice and edge. ***1/2.

Long story short: I'm giving that an easy five stars.

Long story proper length: One of the things I believe a Star Trek homage should do, and it's something I try very hard to do with my Star Trek homage F.I.S.H., is play Devil's Advocate to well-known Star Trek shows. I don't expect anyone who regularly reads my reviews to have gotten far enough to get to F.I.S.H., but I can say that F.I.S.H. works similarly, except the conclusions it reaches are far darker. I will stand by and defend Gilda And Meek to my dying breath. If you want a stark example of why The Orville is a hundred times the Star Trek allegory F.I.S.H. is, this is it.

I'm not jealous. Let's be clear about that. F.I.S.H.'s dark morality works exactly as intended in the background of the larger story I am trying to tell. If I put as much heart and pathos into it as The Orville just did, the entire story would be different. It's apples and oranges. But I have never admired The Orville more than this episode.

The Devil's Advocate position the episode takes is questioning the wisdom of the Federation allying with the Klingon Empire during The Next Generation era. Really, the planetary alignment of free species to the Klingons is a bad fit, because the Klingons are both a patriarchy and what's essentially a dictatorship. The Orville asks the moral question how much of this crap should be tolerated by the Federation until they throw up their hands in disgust. It is a direct shot at the bow at a Star Trek idea, which I love. What I especially love is that Star Trek really would have no business exploring this idea itself. Because as rude and awful as Klingon society is, and despite the fact that the Federation often has to look the other way at essentially legal first degree murder among themselves, the Klingons don't try to control the Federation itself. It thinks Jean-Luc Picard is strange, but it equally respects him and treats him so as well. What's also important to keep in mind is that when the Klingons step out of line, they have Ben Sisko there to draw the moral line, no matter the cost. The Feds don't bend over backwards for them if the Klingons do actual wrong.

I like Star Trek for this. In fact I actually prefer that dynamic and believe the Klingons are far superior fictional aliens to the Maclons. But just because it wouldn't be right for Star Trek itself to explore that idea, doesn't mean I don't enjoy seeing a show SIMILAR to Star Trek use it with a species that is far less defensible than the Klingons. You insult a Klingon he either laughs it off or kills you. The Klingon Empire is never demanding the Federation conforms to its moral standards. And it could have if they had remained at war and the Klingons had conquered it like that do most species they encounter. Instead it's the Klingons who have been meeting the Federation halfway. Simply because the Federation has earned that consideration. The Maclons committing all of these horrific crimes and accusing the Union of intolerance by being justifiably repulsed by them is this show exploring the controversy of siding with a species as violent as the Klingons, with none of the Klingons' redeeming virtues.

Here is something else to ponder. As of the early 21st Century, when Star Trek Picard is set, the Klingons may be ALLIED with the Federation, but I don't believe they've applied for or been granted membership yet. A Union alliance with Maclon is fine. But they never should have been allowed into the Union itself. Graning them the full benefits and perks of every other free planet there is a mockery behind the entire concept. I frankly think the Union spends WAY too much time trying to ally with shady species for military benefit. I thought the alliance with the species of alien matriarchs was stupid for that exact reason a couple of weeks ago. Membership Has Its Privileges, but as far as both the Federation AND the Union should be concerned, it should also have its expectations. Having an alliance with military benefits for both sides with the Maclon is fine. Seating them on the Council and having them help craft Union law and policy is not. Maybe the Union would not be in the position they are if they hadn't granted the Maclons actual membership. Perhaps both species would find more plausible deniabilities with each other's philosophies if the Union membership didn't really put them in DIRECT conflict. Food for thought there, and The Orville's thought food tends to be delicious (and quite filling for me head).

A lot of people will think the Dolly Patron stuff, and her surprise guest appearance, was an example of this show's warped sense of humor. I think they are reading that wrong. I think the show is being entirely sincere in suggesting Dolly's activism in the 20th and 21st Centuries could potentially inspire a future race of oppressed alien women. Of course, it actually MEANING that moral makes it cheesy, but man, STAR TREK is cheesy. If The Orville never is, it's a sucky homage. Period. I respect the fact that The Orville is still cheesy and the Kurtzman era of Trek refuses to be. Kurtzman really misses a huge part of the appeal and experience by not making the audiences feel like utter dorks now and again.

And, yes, Dolly IS just a hologram, and not real, and Haveena actually knows this. But her advice is sound and her music is kickass, so Haveena makes the right decision anyways.

Briefly, something I'm unhappy with: Grayson and Bortus clearly almost kissed. I don't ever want to see this subject broached again. The stuff with Bortus and Maclons is damn complicated enough.

Speaking of which, I am delighted the show took the unexpected and very welcome tack of redeeming Clydus, who I only a couple of weeks ago pointed out totally sucked. Clydus' apology to Topa is sincere and the first start of a father who wants to do better. If somebody heard what I said as I was watching these tear-jerking scenes, they'd have thought I disliked it. I uttered "Oh, God," after every moving moment. I tend to say that whenever I am experiencing extreme pleasure. Whenever a show gives me The Good Hurt and The Major Case Of The Feels that I am always chasing, my verbal reactions are exactly the same as if I'm eating an ice cream sundae for the very first time. Somebody who doesn't know me would think I thought that stuff was lame. To be honest, I'm almost betting that people who DO know me would make that mistake too. Very few people in my life actually get me.

I tell you what I love. I DO understand Haveena's position perfectly. But I love that Mercer is just plain pissed instead. He knows what her defense is, and he just doesn't care. I believe he put it that he wasn't ever going to mistake opportunism for pious morality. That's just freaking great. I love that. Malloy's honest rant about why the Maclons suck is similarly awesome.

Where does The Orville go from here? I think if the Union is to ever have any chance of surviving, it needs to do a better job of convincing the Kalon, the Krill, and the Maclon that their way is right. I always feel there is a tinge of human supremacy and outright racism in Picard's speeches to Q about how far humanity has come. But in reality, Picard selling his species' philosophy is far more effective and healthy in the long term than simply looking the other way when someone the Federation wants to befriend commits evil. There is something morally questionable about the fact that the Federation believes its way is the only way. And yet it drawing that line, and letting everyone know where they stand makes alliances with other species ALL that much easier, especially over the long-run.

So yeah, this show explores the downside to Star Trek, playing Devil's Advocate. It is everything F.I.S.H. would be if it were great itself, instead of a necessary part of a greater whole. I respect the hell out of that. The Orville is amazing, and that was one of its best episodes ever. It really makes you think about what Star Trek is teaching us, and what ways that franchise could do either better or simply do differently. That is a valuable experience for me. *****.

I will not say that this is the episode of The Orville that lost me. What I will say is that I will be viewing all episodes past it with a bit of a jaundiced and skeptical eye.

I mentioned in last week's review how the show seems to be playing Devil's Advocate against Federation values from Star Trek. I like that. But I think they went too far here.

The ethical controversy they set up wasn't actually a controversy. Or at least it wouldn't have been on Star Trek. You might get a douchey admiral or Commodore here and there which would be just fine with building that Doomsday weapon, but not a single crew member on the first four Star Trek series would ever endorse something like that. It would be considered unambiguously wrong. I appreciate the fact that The Orville's humans are more realistic than Star Trek's because they give them facets Star Trek characters aren't allowed to have like hatred and bigotry. But you can be a realistic and flawed person and still know that there is no justification for genocide for any reason. Even using the weapon as a deterrent is a bad idea. And even if a d-bag admiral on Star Trek sanctioned the creation of such a weapon, the crews on Star Trek wouldn't be freaking incompetent enough to lose it, much less on Day One.

Also, Deep Space Nine, the BEST Star Trek show, was great because of the swiftly shifting political winds. I think The Orville having the Krill and Maclon form an alliance followed by the Union making peace with the Kalon is just pushing the idea too far, too fast. That's not appropriate.

Charly's sacrifice was not sad to me. It was the logical endpoint of any character growth she could have made. Her sacrificing her life to save the lives of the species she hated because that was her mission is where the character should have ended up. And frankly, if she hadn't died after some of the despicable things she said here, I never would have forgiven her anyways. Her arc is not just a redemption arc for her. It's a redemption arc for anyone whose prejudice negatively effects their judgment. Her sacrifice being the catalyst for the Kalon changing their minds about organics feels right too.

I did not expect Perry to be that dumb. When Halsey describes him as an antiprogressive element on the Council I thought that was another failing of the show because I never got that idea from him before.

Speaking of dumb, the Maclon allied with the Krill at the worst possible time. Even a month earlier they could have boasted some serious juice with that. I think the thing that disgusts me the most about the Maclon is the fact that their political instincts are unerringly terrible. That's good for the Union, but it pisses me off that Bortus and Clyden had to put up with that nonsense for so long.

Ed calling Speria contemptible in regards to blackmailing him with their daughter is exactly right.

The episode ended well and came to the right conclusion. What I don't like is that the right conclusion was ever in question. That's not how Star Trek would do it, and in this specific instance, The Orville failing that specific moral is something I think is an actual flaw in the show. **1/2.