What was your impression of Season 2 overall?

That is the impression yes, however that could have been due to drama behind the scenes we just dont know for sure.

It would be good to find out what the original plan was for the show before it all went tits up, then we would have a baseline to start from, without that its anyones guess.

 

The original plan was to have each story be a season long, have it be an anthology with a different crew, and they would go from the TOS Era to the TNG Era and then to The Future. Looks like they've bypassed the TNG Era and shot straight for The Future instead.

Once the idea of switching ships and crews every season was vetoed, so too went out whatever the "original plan" was. I'm going to guess the Spore Drive would've been the through-line on the show. It would be developed and abandoned in the TOS Era, research on it would pick up again post-NEM, and who knows about The Future.

I remember, during the first season, they said it would be eventually explained how DSC links up to TOS. That was probably thought up after Bryan Fuller left and fan concerns started coming in. If it was decided to address it, but still stick with the same ship and crew, then it makes sense to assume they didn't want to cram all that into the first season, and saved it for the second.

So I'm guessing from the third season on, DSC will be the show Michelle Paradise inherited, that's already been taken out of the TOS Era, and she'll be able to develop essentially a revamped series around the USS Discovery, who's left on the ship, and whoever is in the 33rd Century.

The fact that Michael Burnham has Gabrielle Burnham possibly waiting for her in The Future means that Burnham will be interacting with her biological family again, instead of her foster family, which means that we'll see a Burnham without any type of connection to Spock's Family. It re-frames her character.

The time-setting really changes a lot. It fundamentally alters the show. All you have left are the characters, free from the setting they originated from, so we get to see them outside of that context. And having one showrunner from start to finish will make a difference too.

Pike's thumbnail description of each of the bridge crew when he said goodbye in "Such Sweet Sorrow", in an episode where Michelle Paradise also has writing credit, was probably her way of leaving a rough thumbnail of who these characters will be that she develops in the third season. Because very little was done with the bridge crew during the first two seasons, she can put more of her stamp on them than she can with Burnham, Saru, Tilly, Stamets, Culber, and Georgiou.

Tying back to the original topic of what I thought about Season 2 overall, I think that it was a transition season from Old Disco to New Disco. Both within the story itself and unintentionally behind-the-scenes. Who knows what Old Disco would've turned out to be like. New Disco can forge its own path without having to work around what someone else had in mind or addressing uproars about it being a prequel. I think the overall thrust -- that eventually came to be -- was Alex Kurtzman and Michelle Paradise wanted to get to the point where they had their own show instead of just something they inherited from Bryan Fuller, Aaron Harberts, and Gretchen Berg. Now they have it. Let's see what they do with it.

 

^^^
That WAS Bryan Fuller's original pitch yes; but the CBS Execs shot that premise down before they greenlit what would become the 'Star Trek Discovery' we know now.

 

I think she'll still have occasional chats with Sarek's "katric echo" when the need arises.

 

i've been casually rewatching season 2 before my subscription ends next week and i'm struck by two things:

1. this season actually has some rewatch value, which i did not think season 1 had at all and considered that to be a major drawback of the series in general. the first 7 or 8 episodes of season 2 are all fairly self contained and not entirely contingent on the red angel arc to be entertaining. i can see myself casually turning on new eden or an obol for charon in the future in the same way i can just turn on any number of episodes from the other series, something i have quite literally never done with disco season 1 episodes.

2. ...that being said... the back half of the season slips into the more drawn out, serialized storytelling a la season 1. that wouldn't be a detractor as the season is structured well enough to feel like it escalated from a slower start with standalone episodes to a sprint to the climax, except that it also brought with it the melodramatic tone from season 1. there's hardly an episode in the latter half of season 2 that doesn't torture michael burnham emotionally and while we all know she's a badass space hero, we've seen her put through the wringer a few too many times in this series' short life and it just really hurts the character. she's tough as nails but breaks down in tears every other episode and it's not a knock on a female character for actually showing her emotions, but a knock on the writers for thinking the only way to give her depth is to deeply wound her over and over and over again.

that aside, i think season 2 is really strong and visually stunning and i can't wait to see more of the adventures of captain pike and the enterprise as promised by that ending where we follow him and not the discovery crew. amiright???

 

^Yeah, Edith Keeler can't (or shouldn't) die every week.

 

I can see this point, and I'm sure I'm pretty alone in this opinion but watching Michael go through her hurts and the pain draws me in more to her, if that makes sense. I certainly don't want her to experience that, but I can certainly understand and connect with her in that way.

I'm sure it's unusual.

 

I don't think you're alone. That sort of thing is the bread and butter of soap operas, and those kept a lot of people tuning in for a long time.

 

I suppose, though I certainly do not enjoy soap operas. But, I guess I can see the connection.

 

The revived Doctor Who has been all about the Big Emotional Moments, too, and many in the fanbase reacted badly when they scaled it back in the latest season. So I don't mean to suggest it's just soap operas -- just that it's a time-tested technique.

 

i just think sonequa martin green plays michael with such innate empathy and strength, the writers need to trust her performance without having to wrap her up in the plot to create drama and then tear down to make her resonate. i love michael, but it has little to do with the writers or the conflicts they create and more with the performance.

plus (and i don't want to get too crazy here) i am not sure what the constant barrage of hurt the creators direct towards michael says about black women in the future. with michael as a touchstone for women and people of color and minorities, it's almost as if discovery is saying they still won't catch a break by the 23rd century.

 

Again, fair point, but when I see soap operas I'm like "Eh..." vs. things like Doctor Who which has some truly interesting moments with the emotions.

I can see that but on the other hand the idea of martyrdom and suffering hero has been a part of Western mythos for a long time, so it doesn't strike as being pointed directly at her as minority but that there are challenges as part of future humanity.

 

totally fair and i phrased that to sound like the writers are deliberately doing it because she's a minority and that is not at all what i think. i just think it's a side effect of making the show focused on a single character (not matter the gender or ethnicity) and their chosen brand of drama.

i guess i prefer my drama to be law & order rather than law & order: SVU.

 

And I'm the opposite.

 

After a promising beginning, it really went downhill. I wonder if the original idea was any better?

 

Holy shit do I HATED that part of nuWho!
Like, I started out genuinely liking 'Rose' as a character. But as of now - whenever I she appears on screen, I get the urgent need to turn the show on mute, start tabbing on my phone, or get some food in the kitchen. Because -holy shit- did the writers exaggerate it! Everytime she appears, any story, plot or adventure stops, and the next 5 minutes are nothing but her and the doctor cry-snotting ALL their emotions out because of some vague, bad CGI-glowy thing dramatically stopping them from seeing each other.... barf.

The one time I was genuinely surprised was in the 50 years celebration, when she wasn't playing herself, and everything was gracefully understated. That was really good.

Probably don't need to mention that I'm not overly fond of this approach to "characterisation" on DIS, too....

 

Don't hold back...tell us how you really feel

 

I binged the first seven modern seasons of Doctor Who in 2013, and I think "Such Sweet Sorrow" feels like it was influenced by it. It feels like the end of a season of DW, down to the huge epic battle and Discovery ending up permanently in another time, not being able to return. Michael Burnham is like Amy Pond. She can't ever go back to her own time.

 

Well technically she can. They have time tech at that point of time.

 

I thought the second season was stupid. It was hard to sit through it. I have no interest in the characters, the story line, and it's not in line with star trek continuity. There's nothing left to hold onto after that.