Spoilers Do you think the original main arc was scrapped once Berg/Harberts left?

[eschaton]

We know that Berg and Harberts were fired when Season 2 was in active production - reportedly after the fifth episode was almost complete. The official reason for their firing was due to verbal abuse of the writing staff, along with production cost overruns in the first episode of the season. They also announced a "planned production hiatus" at the time, and some reports suggested that they were reshooting individual episodes.

Regardless, I should say that while I'm enjoying Season 2 from front to back much better than the first season, it seems in some ways markedly more disjointed - almost two series at once. In the initial interviews, they seemed to indicate that "science vs. faith" was going to be an important element this season. There were certainly hints of that early on, with the "mystery" surrounding the Red Angel, the belief of the New Eden residents the angel was divine, Pike's little comments about religion, etc. This began changing immediately with the sixth episode, where the Red Angel was shown to be someone wearing a "future suit." The following episode, Georgiou drops the fact that Leland was "responsible" for the death of Michael's parents - which seemed random at the time, but actually tied into the series arc. Now the arc is about some sort of war through time being fought between an AI bent on destroying all life and Michael's mom - which is very, very different from where we started.

Indeed, thinking about it now, there is not a single "breadcumb" which was dropped in the first five episodes which in any way hints at where we ended up. This stands in contrast to the first season, where Voq=Ash and MU Lorca hints began dropping right from the start. I'm left with the impression that Berg/Harberts had very, very different plans for the seasonal arc - plans that were mostly scrapped for something that Kurtzman thought better suited Star Trek. Even though I know it would be very unusual in modern TV for an entire arc to be tweaked in that matter on the fly.

Anyway, your thoughts?

 

[Longinus]

It still seems way more coherent to me than the first season.

But if 'science vs. faith' was ever planned, then it is a great thing that it was dropped.

In any case, I'd be really interested in some sort of 'making of' documentary for this series. It seems that there was at least as much drama and unexpected plot twists behind the scenes than there was on the screen.

 

[BillJ]

Scrapped? No. Heavily modified? Yes.

 

[Mudd]

Scrapped? No. Heavily modified? Yes.

Yeah, I guess "scrapped" is an overstatement.

 

[BillJ]

But if 'science vs. faith' was ever planned, then it is a great thing that it was dropped.

I disagree. There's only so many times you can go to the Trek trope well before it becomes a farce of itself.

 

[Lord Garth]

"New Eden" is the main sticking point. What makes Burnham's mother want to go to Mid-21st Century Earth? That implies Burnham's mother wasn't who was originally going to be the Red Angel. So now they have come up with something to fix this. The signals and the vortexes turning time into a blender sending you at any point, as shown in "Light and Shadows", is a possible explanation.

Including Adult Spock is a change for the better. Normally, you'd think Spock would be aboard the Enterprise. To have him conveniently missing when Discovery encounters the Enterprise is too convenient. Alex Kurtzman managed to fix it by having Spock have a mental crisis because of the Red Angels. They reached him like V'Ger did. They made lemonade out of a lemon by not having Spock around. "Oh! He's just on leave." Right...

 

[Longinus]

I disagree. There's only so many times you can go to the Trek trope well before it becomes a farce of itself.

If I want to see Star Trek dealing with 'science vs faith' I can always re-watch 'Who Watches the Watchers'. That's the definitive episode on that subject.

 

[Gonzo]

Yeah there were clearly a change of direction, I don't think it was as great as what happen with season one though.

Some had already been filmed which would have limited the new script writers options moving forward, there were reshoots so clearly something wasn't right, perhaps the private screenings were not going down well with the test audiences and Berg and Herbert's snapped from the pressure.

From what I have seen they have recovered well and toned down the holier than thou rhetoric which is everywhere at the moment and the show is all the better for it.

Talk is cheap at the end of the day.

 

[BillJ]

If I want to see Star Trek dealing with 'science vs faith' I can always re-watch 'Who Watches the Watchers'. That's a definitive episode on that subject.

And we have dozens of definitive episodes about time travel. I'd rather take another crack at science-vs-faith than go to the people mucking about in the timeline story for the umpteenth time.

 

[Longinus]

And we have dozens of definitive episodes about time travel. I'd rather take another crack at science-vs-faith than go to the people mucking about in the timeline story for the umpteenth time.

'Science vs. faith' is a stupid question. The science wins, the end. And no, I don't want to see any other answer for that in Star Trek.

 

[BillJ]

'Science vs. faith' is a stupid question.

I'm not a religious man, and I don't think it is a stupid question.

 

[Longinus]

I'm not a religious man, and I don't think it is a stupid question.

How? What is there to ponder? There has been numerous episodes about Kirk taking down various gods that are duping primitive aliens, and sure, I have nothing against doing that sort of thing again, but I assume this is not what you're thinking.

Half of the DS9 was already Sisko's 'religious' experiences and how he eventually started to irrationally treat the wormhole aliens as some sort of deities and even jumped in the Mount Doom with an evil spellbook for them. That is really not the sort of nonsense I want to see in my Star Trek.

 

[Gonzo]

I'm not a religious man, and I don't think it is a stupid question.

It's not a stupid question at all there just isn't really any viable answer.

They are the ultimate polar opposites and thus mutually exclusive, they cant both be right but they can both be wrong.

The churches gradual change over the decades/century in response to Darwin's Origin of Species is something to behold, with the church attempting to make the Bible and itself compatible with Evolution but it's really just the church making it up as they go along.

What else can they do, the rise of DNA and genetics has made it even more incompatible, hence why most people are firmly in one camp or the other with no man's land in-between.

 

[BillJ]

What else can they do, the rise of DNA and genetics has made it even more incompatible, hence why most people are firmly in one camp or the other with no man's land in-between.

It doesn't mean that stories, which are expressions of our imaginations, can't attempt to bridge that gulf.

 

[jfordny]

I think it was heavily altered, yes. The Red Angel that appeared to Michael in Brother also didn't look human to me. Which is why I thought it would be some new species.

 

[Midquest]

I'm not convinced that there was a major change behind the scenes. They initially described the main theme as faith, including but not limited to science vs. faith. That suggests that the season wouldn't be entirely about faith in a religious sense, and they have continued that theme in recent episodes, particularly via Spock, who more than once has mentioned faith.

 

[Gonzo]

It doesn't mean that stories, which are expressions of our imaginations, can't attempt to bridge that gulf.

Except that the Church continues to state that the Bible is historical fact which directly opposes Scientific/Historical fact.

They cant both be true and imagination has nothing to do with it.
The sun is supposed to be 149.6m km away, I am more than happy to go and measure it but I don't have a tape measure long enough.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

Indeed, thinking about it now, there is not a single "breadcumb" which was dropped in the first five episodes which in any way hints at where we ended up. This stands in contrast to the first season, where Voq=Ash and MU Lorca hints began dropping right from the start. I'm left with the impression that Berg/Harberts had very, very different plans for the seasonal arc - plans that were mostly scrapped for something that Kurtzman thought better suited Star Trek. Even though I know it would be very unusual in modern TV for an entire arc to be tweaked in that matter on the fly.

It's certainly possible that there were big changes in the arc, and that made the revelations less predictable - and isn't that a good thing? It was just about impossible to guess certain things because of the lack of information, so the imagination was left to... imagine. Even if it happened because of a negative situation with Berg and Harberts, it kinda made for a more suspenseful season that ain't over yet.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

'Science vs. faith' is a stupid question. The science wins, the end. And no, I don't want to see any other answer for that in Star Trek.

I agree that science wins, but that's me. On the other hand, the Human Condition in general still argues the question, so I think it seems to be something humans in general take interest in.

I mean, I may not be a particularly religious person, but that doesn't mean I'm absolutely right on the issue. While the rational side of me doesn't think God exists (at least not in the way we normally define God), there still is no way to prove that God doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative. That leaves a little wiggle room for philosophical argument.

I don't mind seeing it further explored in Star Trek if done in an intelligent manner. Star Trek has a long history of exploring this question in the past, and has usually done so intelligently, for the most part.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

What else can they do, the rise of DNA and genetics has made it even more incompatible, hence why most people are firmly in one camp or the other with no man's land in-between.

How exactly do DNA and genetics disprove God? They are complex, elegant, full of function and design. They do not attest to randomness and chaos. Some of the world's leading geneticists believe in God.