What can be improved for season 2?

[Awesome Possum]

I'd like to see some more episodes about exploring a planet. It can connect to the larger plot in some way, but I would like to see them handle alien planets with different environments and lifeforms with the special effects we've seen so far. The planet with the intelligent spores would be a great jumping off point. Some classic tropes like the spores making a crewmember crazy with the twist that they just convinced him instead of altering his mind and it tied into the larger Klingon war plot and gave us some focus on Saru. I do feel it placed at an odd place in his arc, but it did show how the effects of the pilot had affected him and helped him comes to terms with it and his relationship with Burnham.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Are you making a distinction between Starfleet as an institution, and rogue officers, or the "deep state" of Starfleet: Section 31?

Admiral Nechayev ordered Picard to commit genocide against the borg should the opportunity present itself and later wanted him to forcefully remove people from their homes. Pretty sure both those actions had the blessing of Starfleet Command and the Federation Council. Captain Sisko was complicit in the murder of a Romulan senator and basically ordered Gowron's death to invoke a regime change in the Klingon Empire. No Section 31 involved in any of those actions.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Gotta love it when civil discussions turn into rage and F bombs getting dropped for seemingly no reason.

It's basically the internets version of when you just wanted to fart but it turns out to be a shart.

 

[Succubint]

I agree with those who asked for more time per episode as a possible improvement. No need to edit it down to 42-45 mins. I get that they don't want to add 'filler' (god, I despise that term, it's so over-used) for its own sake and possibly mess up the pacing. But more time to breathe between action scenes or plot twists, and more time to get some character beats/development would be a good thing, I think.

 

[Rahul]

Yes. this was the showrunner explanation, and it was dumb as hell. There's an easy way to see this. Basically, imagine the absolute best and brightest in leadership in the present day, who have a combination of command training and technological knowhow. Now put him or her on the NX-01 after a training regimen which brings them up to skiff on the technology. Are you honestly going to try and tell me they won't be better than Archer? Of course not. The issue isn't that Archer wasn't Picard. It's that (in the first two seasons) he's portrayed as an incompetent even by modern day standards.

I think the problem wasn't him being a flawed or incompeten in some regards. It was that the writers didn't even seem to notice his behaviour was unacceptable!

As a good counter-point, look at "First Flight": In this, Archer is brash, brazen, over-confident, and lacking fine-tuned social skills. But at the same time, he was also an amazing pilot, and an expert in knowing both his ship and the complex warp technology! That was a well-rounded character - I could believe this guy sitting in the cockpit of an experimental starship.

In the same way, had "main"-Archer have the same character flaws (lack of fine-tuned leadership skills, comparatively little basic nowledge of the universe based on human's little experience, a little predjudice - all that would have been fine, if it was also made clear that was the best and ONLY one to command this experimental vessel - that only HE wa well versed enough in ALL the technologies on the ship and the theoretical backgrounds of the warp drive, that Starfleet considered him the best choice to basically not blow up this ship accidentally. But that all his other flaws were serious deficiencies that he would have had to work on. Hell, that would have been a great character arc.

Instead, he portrayed all these flaws, but the writing made it appear as if he was in the right all along. That he was a dick to Vulcans, but hey, they kinda' deserved it anyway, and Archer turned out to be right about it! That was simply bad writing.

 

[eschaton]

I think the problem wasn't him being a flawed or incompeten in some regards. It was that the writers didn't even seem to notice his behaviour was unacceptable!

As a good counter-point, look at "First Flight": In this, Archer is brash, brazen, over-confident, and lacking fine-tuned social skills. But at the same time, he was also an amazing pilot, and an expert in knowing both his ship and the complex warp technology! That was a well-rounded character - I could believe this guy sitting in the cockpit of an experimental starship.

In the same way, had "main"-Archer have the same character flaws (lack of fine-tuned leadership skills, comparatively little basic nowledge of the universe based on human's little experience, a little predjudice - all that would have been fine, if it was also made clear that was the best and ONLY one to command this experimental vessel - that only HE wa well versed enough in ALL the technologies on the ship and the theoretical backgrounds of the warp drive, that Starfleet considered him the best choice to basically not blow up this ship accidentally. But that all his other flaws were serious deficiencies that he would have had to work on. Hell, that would have been a great character arc.

Instead, he portrayed all these flaws, but the writing made it appear as if he was in the right all along. That he was a dick to Vulcans, but hey, they kinda' deserved it anyway, and Archer turned out to be right about it! That was simply bad writing.

I mean, this was an issue that VOY suffered from as well. Even TNG to some extent. For some odd reason the studio was insistent that the characters (particularly the captains) must always be framed as being in the right by the end of the episode. However, they weren't particularly concerned with why they were right. So there were many episodes which started out with an interesting conflict that was completely sabotaged by a hasty rewrite in the final act.

As you said, DIS seemed to suffer from this to some extent as well. Opinions of course differ about Micheal's arc, but at the very least they could have created much clearer culpability regarding Micheal - having her not just blamed for mutiny and starting the war, but actually doing so. But they seemingly walked it back - perhaps with a hasty rewrite. And the closing of Season 1 also didn't really feel like an "earned" redemption, insofar as a narrative which really wasn't present through most of the series (Burnham being an anti-Klingon warmonger) was thrust forward, when the much more central narrative (Burnham being an impulsive person given to rash decisions based upon often faulty gut instincts) was entirely discarded. The season ended with Burnham being "right" because someone demanded it did - not because she had learned anything.

 

[Tuvix5675]

This whole idea that Star Trek "has to be THIS and has to have THAT" is what murdered the franchise previously. I'm always befuddled that there are still people who want the weekly adventures of the same tired, stale kinds after 50 years.

I love Star Trek, and will never stop watching TOS and TNG and the movies, but nothing about that format or style excites me when I think about the franchise moving forward. It's already all been done, and well.

I mean, look at The Orville. Nearly every single episode is somehow a borrow or a riff on previous franchise episodes. It doesn't mean it's a bad show, but there's not a single, solitary original strand of DNA in it.

I'm forever grateful that this isn't where Star Trek was taken. I couldn't stand it back in 1995...so I sure as hell wouldn't be able to stand it now.

It's like comfort food. Fans are used to Trek being a certain way, they have expectations, you can't blame them-they were trained that way. As for change, any change isn't good. I like the new Voltron on Netflix, I also grew up on the original and didn't think they could improve upon it, but they did. I think its all a matter of execution, Discovery is getting some things right, but not others. CBS definitely needs to step up its game, but the series as is did boast CBS subscriptions, and was estimated to be the most streamed series.

 

[Jadeb]

I think its all a matter of execution, Discovery is getting some things right, but not others.

This. I'm all in favor of moving to serialized storytelling, but I'm not in favor of bad Star Trek, whatever its form.

 

[fireproof78]

It's like comfort food. Fans are used to Trek being a certain way, they have expectations, you can't blame them-they were trained that way. As for change, any change isn't good. I like the new Voltron on Netflix, I also grew up on the original and didn't think they could improve upon it, but they did. I think its all a matter of execution, Discovery is getting some things right, but not others. CBS definitely needs to step up its game, but the series as is did boast CBS subscriptions, and was estimated to be the most streamed series.

So, when should Trek change? If Trek fans are trained this way then by and large Star Trek may not change because fans expect it to be a certain way.

 

[BurnhamAll]

This whole idea that Star Trek "has to be THIS and has to have THAT" is what murdered the franchise previously. I'm always befuddled that there are still people who want the weekly adventures of the same tired, stale kinds after 50 years.

I love Star Trek, and will never stop watching TOS and TNG and the movies, but nothing about that format or style excites me when I think about the franchise moving forward. It's already all been done, and well.

I mean, look at The Orville. Nearly every single episode is somehow a borrow or a riff on previous franchise episodes. It doesn't mean it's a bad show, but there's not a single, solitary original strand of DNA in it.

I'm forever grateful that this isn't where Star Trek was taken. I couldn't stand it back in 1995...so I sure as hell wouldn't be able to stand it now.

If CBS produced more of 90s Trek I would watch and I would enjoy it. But nothing about it would excite me, nor would I find it particularly compelling TV. This is why they won't do that. There's not a big enough audience for it.

 

[BurnhamAll]

This. I'm all in favor of moving to serialized storytelling, but I'm not in favor of bad Star Trek, whatever its form.

Agreed. As long as Discovery continues what it does right, and fixes what they don't, we're in for some very special TV.

 

[BurnhamAll]

The run time between episodes. they bounced around ranging from 37 minutes to 49 minutes. pick one standared run time and stay with it. which im hoping will be from the 44 to 49 minute rang cause man it was a bummer to watch an episode and find out it was 30+ minutes.

Disagree with this on a very fundamental level. I actually dislike that they seem to have a standardized run time of between 48-55 minutes.

I am a strong believer in using streaming to it's fullest potential, which is the ability to tell the best story you can, without worrying about run times. If the best way to tell a specific story is in 32 minutes, great. If it takes 88 minutes, also great.

 

[XCV330]

The run time between episodes. they bounced around ranging from 37 minutes to 49 minutes. pick one standared run time and stay with it. which im hoping will be from the 44 to 49 minute rang cause man it was a bummer to watch an episode and find out it was 30+ minutes.

I'd rather they not be held to a strict time limit. Quality over Quantity. Give me Calypso or The Escape Artist over a (pick random unloved ST episode from any series)

 

[Rahul]

@BurnhamAll: Just a friendly FYI - moderators here do not like more than two posts of the same person in a row - they will usually tell you to use the multi-quote function, and package all your comments into one, larger comment.

Now, nornally I wouldn't care about that enough to tell people this - but I'm shamelessly using this as an excuse to talk to you directly and tell you how friggin' much I love your username!
Damn. Well done! Welcome to the forum!

 

[BurnhamAll]

@BurnhamAll: Just a friendly FYI - moderators here do not like more than two posts of the same person in a row - they will usually tell you to use the multi-quote function, and package all your comments into one, larger comment.

Now, nornally I wouldn't care about that enough to tell people this - but I'm shamelessly using this as an excuse to talk to you directly and tell you how friggin' much I love your username!
Damn. Well done! Welcome to the forum!

Thanks, I was not familiar with the multi-quote function. And danke

 

[fireproof78]

@BurnhamAll: Just a friendly FYI - moderators here do not like more than two posts of the same person in a row - they will usually tell you to use the multi-quote function, and package all your comments into one, larger comment.

Now, nornally I wouldn't care about that enough to tell people this - but I'm shamelessly using this as an excuse to talk to you directly and tell you how friggin' much I love your username!
Damn. Well done! Welcome to the forum!

I support this supportive post.

 

[BurnhamAll]

I'd rather they not be held to a strict time limit. Quality over Quantity. Give me Calypso or The Escape Artist over a (pick random unloved ST episode from any series)

If i'm CBS, I say to the producers "Here's [insert budget]. Go make a minimum of 10 episodes, and a minimum of 400 minutes. But there are no limits in terms of episode total or run times."

As for my screenname, i'm just a fan of puns. I'm sure someone's claimed the name "RikersIsland." I was torn between "Burnham All" and "Janeway's Addiction." Picked the more relevant moniker.

 

[Vger23]

If CBS produced more of 90s Trek I would watch and I would enjoy it. But nothing about it would excite me, nor would I find it particularly compelling TV. This is why they won't do that. There's not a big enough audience for it.

I agree. This is how I feel 100%. I certainly don't dislike 90's Trek by any means...but more of that in 2019 would do nothing to excite me or generate any passion. It's The Orville, quite honestly...which I like, but wouldn't notice or care if it just disappeared suddenly.

 

[BurnhamAll]

I agree. This is how I feel 100%. I certainly don't dislike 90's Trek by any means...but more of that in 2019 would do nothing to excite me or generate any passion. It's The Orville, quite honestly...which I like, but wouldn't notice or care if it just disappeared suddenly.

To be perfectly honest, rewatching TNG, DS9, and VOY regularly sates whatever hunger I

 

[BurnhamAll]

...have for 90s Trek.

Where's the edit button??