And even those weren't an every-episode event. Berman Trek loved a good firefight but ENT kept them to a minimum compared to, say, DS9 or even VOY.
Is season 2 an improvement? For me, that's both a yes and a no. My problem with Discovery is I can't stand any of the regular crew members, none of them from Burnham on down. Hell, my favorite from season 1 was Lorca, and look where that got me. LOL I wasn't even planning on watching season 2 until all the talk about Pike, Number One, and Spock started getting heavy. Those guys are the only reason I'm watching, to see what they do with the characters. And for now, it's enough to keep me watching. I fast forward through all the "crew bonding/personal growth" scenes because I just don't care about them. I'm mostly interested in the Enterprise crew and secondly finding out what they are going to reveal with the Red Angel. This last episode on Talos IV was, IMO, the best episode of season 2 following up on a strong episode last week. So I'd say Discovery is better in season 2 than season 1. But if they dismiss the Enterprise folks for another plot line in season 3, I don't know if I'll be back. I hope all yall Big Fans of Discovery keep it up and show CBS there's an audience for Star Trek on TV, because maybe the next series they do I'll like the characters and then I can make all those wonderful fanboy posts there.
Look, I do really like ENT; and never got the fan hate for it. But this was a serious flaw the show had: Episodes that end with a firefight in season 1 alone: Broken Bow, Fight of Flight, The Andorian Incident, Civilisation, Fortunate Son, Cold Front, Silent Enemy, Shadows of P'Jem, Rogue Planet, Aquisition, Detained, Fallen Hero, Desert Crossing, Shockwave part I That's 14 out of 26 episodes. And later seasons amped that up. Season 3 has only one(!) episode without a firefight (Doctor's Order's, not counting Phlox shooting and missing at poor Porthos there), and season 4 only "Deadalus" and "Observer Effect". Now as I said - I really like ENT. And most of the plot don't revolve around each firefight. But ENT was probably the most obnoxious show about including a phaser-fight almost every single episode (contrast to DS9 and VOY, which had bigger, but fewer ones), and which IMO lead to all of them feeling pretty same-y. I'm really glad that DIS stayed away from this model this season, and hope it continues to do so.
Okay, I'll be candid for once. You may be objectively right, but I never perceived it as such. It may just be a case of fan myopia.
Well, nothing to worry about. In fact, on ENT I noticed it more during the first two seasons (where it happened less) than the last two, probably because in S3 & 4 it was always embedded in the larger story-arc going on (and thus felt natural), wheras in seasons 1 & 2 they often encountered some completely new badguys every other week. I really don't mind it btw - I'm not averse to action in Trek! It's an adventure show after all! But I absolutely appreciate it when it's more creative (say, Trip's space-walk from the Columbia to the NX-01, or Archer getting blown out of an airlock) - phaser-fights just run the problem of feeling generic at some point. And I tend to think it usually leads to more interesting writing if "shooting the badguy" is not a solution - episodes like "Cogenitor", "Dear Doctor" or "Unexpected" all had severe conflict and sometimes even straight up bad guys. But these still feel more complex, because "shooting" was not an option at all in any of these cases. Wheras during S3, it was absolutely logical and natural that everytime they met the Xindi there would be shooting - they were in an open conflict after all!
That's all true, and I tend to agree, especially about the quality of the moral-dilemma-centred episodes (I love Cogenitor and Dear Doctor because there are no simple answers and no "blowing up the bad guys" solutions). I suppose I just get a bit defensive when people criticise ENT, even when it's valid. But it's totally legit, and I know that.
"If Memory Serves" is the first episode of the show that actually has me wondering what is going to happen next week.
I do prefer this season's new additions, including Jett, to pretty much anyone from season one. But I'm finding nearly all of the characters better this year, including Burnham and Tilly. The resurrection of Culber is proving more interesting than I expected, and it's giving Stamets (a season one favorite) something to do other than spout technobabble and play a human dilithium crystal. Saru's space puberty is much better than his sensing death shtick, and Doug Jones is great, of course. So I'm gradually investing in the characters now that the writing has improved. That said, I'd be happy for Tyler, Georgiou and L'Rell to fall into a black hole (and take Section 31 with them).
U.S.S. Voyager - waylaid and 'infected' by bad cheese...but the above takes Star Trek to new levels of BS?
"Generic" is exactly the word. A lot of the space battles in early Enterprise and late Voyager were unbelievably perfunctory. "They're charging weapons." Ship shakes. "Shields down to 70%." "Target their weapons." "The enemy ship is disabled." IIRC, there were times they didn't even show any special effects, and just had this bloodless, dull pseudo-action sequence restricted entirely to the bridge. While the Battle of the Binary Stars had the "Endor" problem where there's just too much going on to know who's winning or how one ship can make a difference, the other space battles were usually worth the trouble. Special shout-out to the beginning of the Pavo episode, which had a very well done "cheeseburger" battle for the sake of having a battle, and dishonorable mention to "The Butcher's Knife," which had a fun concept behind Lorca using the ship jumping away to cover his coup-de-grace point-blank torpedo spread, but the staging and VFX didn't communicate the concept. Dialog had the Birds of Prey playing chicken with Discovery, while the effects showed them right on top of the ship circling and diving like seagulls.
The two episodes I've seen are a marginal improvement largely because of Mount, but it's still pretty bad.
Holy shit is that accurate. Yeah, though I definitely didn't had that problem with Endor itself - the large fleet movements were clear, and the fighter-stuff was supposed to be chaotic. So I thought it was a good fit for Star Wars. Wheras Star Trek operates more on capital ship/submarine logic - too big is (at least for me) often stressing disbelief. I think the most "epic" Star Trek battles are actually the ones involving 5-10 ships. They are clear enough to know exactly what happens, big enough that some shit goes down, but also "small" enough that you feel every loss and every turn. In fact, these feel much more energetic, because they fit much better into Star Treks "rules": You see every ship using a wide range of weapons and manoevers, and each of them has powerfull shields, and everytime one goes down, shit gets real. The most laughable Star Trek battles are IMO the large fleet battles from DS9. Hundreds of Capital ships with thousands of people getting one-shotted as canon fodder in the background, and there are always more ships on screen than weapons discharged (should be the other way 'round). Hell, I think last week's "The Orville" only got away with this type of battle (although they were better at showing the massive amount of weapons fire), because it operates on a lesser "realism" standard. My main problem with the DIS' battles were the ship designs (especially the Klingon ones), but overall I think the battles themselves have mostly been an adequate update from the things done in the past.
The writing and the over-reliance on TOS are still major weak points of the show even into season two. Mount does a nice job and seems the most relatable character of the bunch. I'd also like to tip my cap to Peck, he has the no-win scenario of the bunch and has done a capable job. I would really like for season three to take off in its own direction and become its own show.
Again with 50 years of on screen history to draw from, I don't agree. I LOVE that they are using the known history (and established characters of the 23rd century era that many in the audience are interested in and has a prior connection to) to tell NEW and interesting stories that expand on the world many fans already know and love. Foe myself, it's one of the shows strengths and not a weakness at all.
Personally, I can only take so much of being beaten over the head with what came before. I watched "The Adversary" the other day, and it felt so fresh because it was doing its own thing with the Founders and Dominion. And I'm not what you would call a huge DS9 fan. At some point, Micheal Burnham has to be defined by more than who her family is.