I don't understand critics. This has gotten a 20% score on rotten tomatoes; it's honestly not that bad...

Is this getting shilled for real? Okay, maybe it's better than current year Star Trek, but it's still a lame Seth McFarlane comedy.

...

Top o duh mornin, Seth.

Nevermind, I'm starting to understand the low reviews now. Genuinely surprised at MacFarlane able to write so well. In Star Trek fashion, it used aliens to explore a moral and ethical dilemma on Earth - transgenders. In the episode, one of the lieutenants on the ship is from a race of aliens that is all male, and reproduces through eggs with other males. But trouble ensues when he and his mate give birth to a rare female in their species. They want to give the baby gender reassignment surgery, and the evil cishet humans on the ship don't. The episode:

>Had a sobering final message that it takes more than progressive virtue signalling to change shitty cultures; the authoritarian regime of the planet gives the child the surgery anyways, despite the parents being convinced by a female of the species who was living in exile.

TL;DR, the episode explores social messages in a more nuanced fashion and offers a counter-point to the usual pro-trans crap, and suddenly it gets torched in the reviews. Rly maek me think

Wasn't Cisco the first black lead?

Popular culture didn't exist before 2007 to these people.

you can stop now

Wait why does it get low reviews if its so good?

>(((RT Critics)))
Where have you been recently?

I watched the first 3 episodes and it's about a 6/10 show.
Why is it getting reamed so badly?

Liberals are in a strange place, where they achieved all of their goals decades ago, so now they're inventing things to fight against. For all their talk of peace, they really can't stand not having something to destroy.

what does it mean?

>>>/killyourself/

...

Reminder (this is no way saying that Orville isn't shit too)

It's not that good but you can tell the people who made it grew up watching Star Trek. Unlike the people making Discovery. Say what you want about MacFarlane but you could talk about your favorite Star Trek episodes with the guy. He's a fan.

It's getting shit ratings because the people who watch Star Trek aren't watching and the people watching were expecting Family Guy levels of retard humor.

TBH if you get more excitement over some bullshit from SethMac rather than the Star Trek you are trying to push, you are pretty much fucked.

...

...

...

He may be black, but he's a man. Doesn't fit into the narrative, so he has tom make way. Right side of history and stuff.

Because the Orville was created by MacFarlane. They hate him because his type of humour isn't made for the modern intellectual.

...

That actually does make me think; MacFarlane is the lead and he's white yeah, yeah, half Jewish, I know, and STD's promo is black - I think they are thinking like you are only in reverse - they want to torch it because it doesn't really have a pet minority in the lead role.

Also doesn't that nig in the STD picture have a male name or something?

They probably dislike Orville because it doesn't try to be dark and gritty, plus it's doesn't feel like it's trying to shove politics down your throat even in an episode that's essentially about an alien species wanting to get their baby a sex change.

STD had writers or whatever acting like all its villains should be caricatures of their political opponents and that the races of the characters should matter.

Didn't know he was half Jewish I thought he was irish.

Screenrant is shilling the shit out of the new Star Trek.

Rotten Tomatoes doesn't account for how high or low critics rate something. Only whether the overall review is good or bad. A movie where 80% of critics said "meh" gets a 20, while a movie where 40% said "horrible" and 60% said "great" gets a 60.

They're very easy to predict once you know their true nature. Critics are parasites who network (usually with their (((co-ethnics)))) to get the easiest jobs imaginable, sitting through an entertainment product and writing a short column where they get to tell the 5 people who read it whether the product is good or bad. They are professional shils. They care about only two things: money and Ideology.

The critic will get money no matter what, but he wants to secure his further employment (because he is fundamentally one of the easiest people on the planet to replace). To that end, they serve the interests of their employers, which is promoting their sponsors. There are essentially five media companies that control mass media, but they've got so many subsidiaries that it becomes impossible to keep track of all the incestuous dealing that goes on in the industry. Needless to say there's a lot of mutual backscratching going on.

To the point of Ideology, critics are almost exclusively from heavily urban major metropolitan areas, which benefit themselves in terms of networking, because it tends to be the same kinds of places where their outlet is based. Historically, the Major Metropolitan Area is also one of the only places where work can be so specialized that consuming entertainment products and writing about them could be considered a job that outlets would actually pay money for. Major metropolitan areas are thoroughly liberal as a rule, I would speculate because they attract all stripes of people to them for purely economic reasons, which results in a heavily Balkanized society. In response to the Balkanization, whites overwhelmingly skew towards the most liberal/progressive policy possible to avoid exacerbating the tensions created by close proximity to competing ethnic blocs. As a result any relatively conservative policy adapted by a white person appears to be far more extreme than it actually is, and subconsciously registers to fellow whites to be an attack on the social order itself and registers to dumber minorities as an attempt to promote white people pursuing their own interests rather than adopting ideologies of infinite concessions, which becomes in the minority's minds an attack on their own interests. Unavoidably as a result of the environment where they live, regardless of natural personal inclinations, critics as well as their employers are at least hyper-liberal if they aren't outright True Believers in Communism or some other extreme leftist ideology. The critic can gain social credit as well as promote their career interests if they use their position to agitate for their ruling ideology (which they personally identify with anyway)

I haven't watched Orville, but based on the description of the metaphorical tranny aliens episode(>>902549), it seems to me as though MacFarlane made the mistake of depicting it as though their could be excesses to the promotion of transsexualism to children, which is the current point of agitation for the Aberrational Sexuality Identity Movement. That movement, of course, is the acceptable outlet for Identitarian politics in liberal-dominated areas, so an attack on one aspect of it is viewed by supporters as an attack on all and attacks on it are construed (rightly or wrongly) to be an attack on the identity itself. MacFarlane's critique also seems to somewhat strawman the media consensus on the issue. In the episode, adults are threatening to force surgical gender reassignment upon an anomalous child, where in real life adults are promoting the idea to children who have no way of knowing better then taking steps to encourage that the children continue down that path. I'd argue what happens in real life is far more insidious, disgusting, and evil than the account given by the show, but I'd imagine that the pro-Tranny objection would be that they aren't really forcing reassignment and that they're just trying to make sure the children are the right gender they think they should be before the """transition""" if attempted would cause more mental problems and likely eventual suicide. Of course, there is literally no evidence that undergoing gender re-assignment earlier in life has any positive effect whatsoever on the ability to cope with it, but that's a topic for another time.

Point is, Seth made the mistake of attacking a sacred cow early on and the Critics are going to keep attacking his show to bully him into making propaganda for their ideology. STD also likely has more money behind it as well as is friendlier to the prevailing ideology while being in direct competition to the Orville, so the Critics have every motive to try to tank the Orville. It doesn't help that Seth MacFarlane's name is more reviled than it is beloved because of how cancerous his cartoons were, so it's easy as well as the default (cred-boosting) position for critics to shit on him.

there's an average. RT is still shit though just like any other critic website even metacritic

I can't help but laugh every time I see the acronym for that show. I wonder if any of the producers thought about it before they finalized the name.

And because of that movies tend to have their "scores" inflated. A movie with an average score of 7.5 can have a 90% reception on RT. The opposite happens too: a movie with 5.0 score can have a 25% reception.

This of course fits well in the normie hype culture, where movies are either considered great or shit.

Nobody cares about the average, people look for the %.

Critics and audiences both suck