Props to the OP for at least framing the question in terms of an "antagonist" rather than a "villain"... but I'm in the camp that says you don't really need one.
As Eschaton alluded... who is the antagonist in
Game of Thrones? Who was the antagonist in
The Wire? I mean, I love me some
Buffy and some
Arrow and other genre shows like that, but the notion that each season needs to have a "big bad" to defeat (or an escalating series thereof) is a tired formula that I could do without. If DSC really wants compete in the world of "prestige" TV, and to take advantage of its serialized, streaming format, it needs to move beyond those kind of tropes, and embrace the possibilities of a multifaceted ensemble, with different characters pursuing different motivations, each subjectively perceiving
other different characters as "antagonists."
Hell,
Babylon 5 pretty much did this over 20 years ago. Sure, there were always "the Shadows" lurking in the background, but fundamentally, the show was about a complex ensemble of characters representing different personal, cultural, and political interests, whose agendas toward one another regularly shifted as circumstances changed, with pretty much
everyone seen as antagonistic by
somebody else.
DSC came close to something this sophisticated with at least one character, Lorca, or seemed to... but then pissed it all away. Hopefully, next season it will lean into the possibilities, rather than away from them.
Except you need stakes, a challenge to overcome, a build up to a climax, which is what antagonist provides. ... Unless Discovery can deal with a natural disaster for 13 episodes, you need an antagonist.
I agree you need stakes and challenges. That's not the same thing as saying you need an antagonist
per se. What it means is that you need
competing interests.
Here's an idea. From the very first Trek pilot 53 years ago, all the way up to the very latest episode, we've seen and heard about the Orion Syndicate lurking around the fringes of Federation (and other) space... but we've never really learned anything about it. How about introducing a major Orion trader, or warlord, or what-have-you, and a few of his allies and adversaries and so forth, and have these characters' agendas and actions come into conflict with the
Discovery crew's on multiple planets they're trying to entice into the (now war-weary) Federation? (The
ST:Vanguard series of novels had a subplot that ran along similar lines, mostly to pretty good effect.) It would be a great chance to explore the intricacies of interstellar politics in a way that Trek has seldom attempted in the past (but that has worked well on shows as varied as
B5 and
The Expanse), and would also provide fertile ground for ethical dilemmas and real-world allegories in the classic Trek mold.
Except there are different villain factions and reoccurring antagonists on Game of Thrones, its not a monster of the week style. Marlo Stanfield would have been the main antagonist in the last 2 seasons of the Wire...
FWIW I think
The Wire is arguably the best show in the history of television, but I also think its single weakest point was Marlo. He was the closest that show got to having a "villain," someone who was just irredeemably evil and seemed to have little motivation beyond being that way.
I think you need an ongoing story where the developed exploration and a developed rival to have any impact, what's wrong with the Discovery having to deal with a rival in the exploration and diplomacy game for the whole season?
Yes, a
rival! (Or more than one.) That's what I'm talking about. That's not necessarily the same thing as an antagonist, and it's definitely different from a villain.
And now, on a complete tangent...
Dude its like 90% true. That show wouldn't survive without the comedy.
You really think that? I think the cheap comedy gags are
The Orville's biggest weakness by far, and the more it puts them on a shelf, the better the show gets.
