Spoilers If you could change one thing about Discovery

Well, we don't know what he did off camera...

 

I would definitely have wanted more scenes of him and Culber for starters.

 

More character development outside of Michael. They have it and S2 was better than S1, but it is not quite up the the DS9 level I have come to expect. Part of this could be my fault because I didn't really care for Tyler so his threads bored me. I can only really think of Tilly and Stamets as 2 friends we learn about without Michael being the focus.

 

I don't really think so. There's looks, and there's aesthetics. Yes, after a production hiatus, every new show or movie would have a different look than from back when they used the same assets. But in general - the aesthetics - is purely the designers choice, and that's where they did IMO their biggest mistake.

Like, JJ Abrams ST09 has many flaws - but nor many people complained about the looks of the movie. Okay, some didn't like the Enterprise design. But apart from that - every piece of production, every prop very well captured the aesthetics of the era that movie is supposed to be set in.

The same way, DIS season 2 managed that actually. The DISCO-prise bridge is a goddamn new looking bridge - but it's aesthetics fit better with the TOS era than everything Discovery. Same for the revised Klingon look in season 2. There is absolutely a way to make a show look like the era it's supposed to be set in, while at the same time NOT looking "retro" but still futuristic.

 

Pike made it clear that the fight in the mess hall was a one time deal!

 

Wrong. Most people hated the look. The brewery engine room, the shuttlebay with the diagonal beams in the way, the lens-flare, the joysticks. And it's no coincidence that most of the same people behind the Kelvin look went on to work on Discovery. That Discovery is even more of a canon violation than Kelvin doesn't mean Kelvin wasn't crap.

 

ESPECIALLY the lens-flare! That really was annoying.

 

Shit, you're right. I accidentally put on my rose-tinted glasses...
Now that you mention it: 1) The lens-flares were way overused, 2) The engine room in "Into Darkness" was better fitting 3) Joysticks are actually a great way to maneover in 3D space (the hate for it in "Insurrection" was unwarranted) 4) The problems with the shuttlebay and brewery was that they had to ridiculously resize the entire ship to make them fit, but then had issues with the texture, because the ship was designed to be half as big aaaaaand I forgot probably the one or the other thing.

But that being said - chalk these ones up as some of the minor ones of the "flaws" I mentioned about ST09 - when Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto walked in their brightly colored shirts, equipped with their shiny equipment, to the friendly hallways of the ship - that image looked very proper "modern TOS". Wheras - up until the finale of season 2 - DIS as a whole simply didn't.

 

Most? Did we do a poll?

Also, Kelvin is not a canon violation, since that whole alternate timeline thing

 

One thing?

Give the lead of the show to someone who doesn't over-ract in every scene she's in.

If I'm allowed a second one...

Enough with the identity politics, please. Watching Such Sweet Sorrow and seeing the Enterprise bridge must have tipped the male:female ratio on the series 20:80. It's just getting ridiculous at this point. The pendulum hasn't just swung too far the other way, it's in the next quadrant. Instead of focusing on Airiam, Detmer, Owo, Nhan and Tilly, why not try developing male bridge officers like Rhys and Bryce. Two seasons in, we know zero about them.

 

Ugghhhhhh. One show. One show out of six has a gender ratio that is not favored male and it's immediately "identity politics have gone too far!!!" . Cool.

Also, that little math exercise only works out by ignoring Pike, Spock, Leland to an extent, Sarek, Tyler, Stamets, and Culber, male characters who all had a notable amount of screen time devoted to them. Certainly much more than, say, Detmer. There are more than enough male characters around, but there's also a lot of female characters, too. And apparently having more than two or three women in the entire main cast vs half a dozen men is a terrible thing that needs course correction.

Edited to add: Oh my God, I can't believe I forgot Saru!

 

I love how back in the days of TNG, DS9 and VOY, there was strict order from above, to have the men-women-ratio be nothing more then 2/3 to 1/3, otherwise (at half/half) - viewers would presume that Trek was a damn, dirty "women's show".

Somehow this comment reminds me of that again...

 

Why is it a concern?

Male actors have already been way overrepresented in Star Trek supporting roles and walk-ons. Didn't see this head-counting going on by the guys then.

 

I would have clarified Micheal's life. I mean how could she leave Spock and still remain under the tutelage of Sarek? Did they have two houses? One with Michael in it and the other with Spock? Somehow that doesn't add up.

 

I'll admit to being completely confused about what he is most the time. The one thing that comes across to me is that he's pretty damned tragic. Not really one or the other, a fake cobbled out of something else, lost identity, lost mission. He annoys me and at the same time breaks my heart.

Oh, heavens. We're in definite danger of acquiring girl-cooties.

 

"Over-ract?" Exactly how is the lead character (or any character) over the Royal Australian Corps of Transport? How exactly is one over Royal Australian Corps of Transport? You're going to have to explain this one.

Only two of those characters have really been focused on, Tilly and Airiam. And Airiam was only focused on in the episode where she was killed off.

They're not in the main cast, so why should we know anything about them?

 

Season 2 had only 2 female main characters, but 5 male ones. That is practically TNG level bad and that is a backwards 80s show. There were also numerous supporting male characters like Spock and Leland. So giving at least here and there some supporting female characters something to do is the least they should have done.

Ideally though they should have started with more female and less male main characters and develop them all properly. Then add a few supporting characters of both genders, but not too many. And let the background people stay in the background. They have done none of this properly and had in the end way more characters with speaking roles than they could handle well.

 

I am guessing but I think you didn't complain in any one of the thousands of times when it was the other way around, IE movies with an almost entirely male cast.