Originally posted by Kazenji
I liked the first season, Not sure what drugs the critics are on over at RT's to give it a low score.
I'd guess a combination of anti Macfarlene bias (He insets such in his writing enough, where you can conclude he's pigeonholed in Hollywood), and the fact the Orville came out around the same time as Discovery, which has big money behind it.
Some might even see The Orville as existing specifically to sabotage that show, along with subscription rates of a rival network, E.g. "Why pay for Trek, when you can watch our Trek inspired show for free?"
Originally posted by riv6672
And the answer was, because the actual Trek show was awful, while the inspired show was just that, inspired.
And I agree. 👆
I'm just saying, some of these critics might see the tactic of releasing a competing show against a rival networks product that it needs as a cash cow for a premium channel as "underhanded".
Combine that with a total disrespect for Seth, and the attitude sums up like this:
"They're letting that clown make his farce of a vanity project just to hurt their competitors! F that, 7% on rotten tomatoes.
I probably should watch it, just to say I did.. For about a minute."
Originally posted by cdtm
And I agree. 👆I'm just saying, some of these critics might see the tactic of releasing a competing show against a rival networks product that it needs as a cash cow for a premium channel as "underhanded"
But it could have sort of been coincidence, though, right? Seth has probably wanted to do the Orville for quite some time I would think..