Seasons 1-2 or 3-4?

[Locutus of Bored]

How is it an “unfair question?” You can prefer a particular era while acknowledging that both have their pros and cons - alternatively, you can like them both equally which is also an option.

It's not. It's a perfectly fair and valid question and the season is 90% done so you can certainly make a judgement call on your general enjoyment of the past two seasons versus the first two. It's not as if our polling is super serious business and we have to see every last moment before rendering judgment.

 

[Lord Garth]

Unless the last two episodes of the fourth season do something totally wacky crazy, I have a pretty good idea of where I'll place it.

 

[Orac]

Season 3-4. Captain Burnham is the shit.

 

[gweeps]

Haven't started Season 4 yet.

Still don't quite understand how Burnham deserves to be Captain, but hey this isn't your typical Star Trek show, so I'll go with it.

 

[fireproof78]

Still don't quite understand how Burnham deserves to be Captain

As much as I like Burnham, as much as I know this was always her trajectory, I still struggle with Captain Burnham at this point. I think the end of the series, or final season would have been more appropriate.

 

[Jadeb]

I thought season one was terrible, other than Lorca (ultimately wasted) and the Mudd episode. The first half of season two was probably my favorite of all they’ve done so far, but then the story fell off a cliff. Three and four have both been ... OK. But I really like a lot of the new characters and I like that it’s no longer a prequel. So I give the edge to three and four.

 

[Uhura's Song]

For me, I have liked the first half of the seasons much better than the finishes. They have not come close to sticking the landing yet.

S2 had the strongest first half and the weakest ending. S3 had the weakest start. S4 has been good. The new President is fantastic, hope they don't kill her off like Cornwell.

I like Booker & Butnham better broken up. Gray gotten basically written off after reintegration. Trek does not really do relationships well (Kira/Odo the exception). But I think Stamets/Culber is the stringest on the show, with maybe Saru joining in.

 

[fireproof78]

Trek does not really do relationships well

Indeed. As much as I like Book as a character, relationships are not for me in Trek.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

I thought season one was terrible, other than Lorca (ultimately wasted) and the Mudd episode. The first half of season two was probably my favorite of all they’ve done so far, but then the story fell off a cliff. Three and four have both been ... OK. But I really like a lot of the new characters

I had to check and see that this wasn't my own post.

I really miss the darker vibe to the first season and the mirror plot and Burnham's silly mutineer arc really killed what could have been a great show. Season 2 had a similar issue with Control and Xora coming out of nowhere and upending the story. But I don't think 1 and 2 can be lumped together other than the time they are set as they feel pretty different overall.

3and 4 are very similar and both have that's sort of ok but nothing special vide of some of the weaker seasons of TNG/DS9/Voyager

 

[Rahul]

I haven't watched season 3 & 4 (only 1 & 2) - so I'm NOT taking about quality or character development here:

That being said: Season 1 & 2.
By a mile.

1000 years is just too far away in the Trek universe for everything still being essentially identical. The "programmable matter" is just a less efficient hologram! The 23rd century "red angel suit" is still the most advanced piece of tech in the entirety of Star Trek!

Star Wars is a pretty stable/cyclical universe. A thousand year gap there makes sense. In Star Trek - it's WAY out of line and actually super depressing that humanity will develop backwards again and all progress stall for a thousand years. That's very antithetical to Star Trek's core message.

 

[eschaton]

IMHO there's sort of a tradeoff between them which makes it hard to judge. 3-4 are I think objectively speaking better executed, but they are also in a certain sense unambitious and "beige" feeling.

Going into more detail:

Season 1: A high-concept idea that failed in execution by the end of the season. So much of the season was poorly executed, from the space battles which never actually let you see the ships properly to a supposedly "epic" war against the Klingons which basically just showed four named Klingon characters. There was some promise with how they ended Part 1 (I liked Michael's arc up to this point), but the MU outing was too long/self-indulgent, and they totally ruined Lorca with the execution of the MU "twist." Then they speedran through the final two episodes, with what was clearly the most underwhelming (and nonsensical) finale in Trek history. It's also worth noting the supporting characters had literally no role other than to talk to Michael and to tech the tech to plot the plot.

Season 2: The first half of the season was a big, big step up from Season 1. Pike was a great addition, the shift away from full serialization to semi-episodic worked well for the series, and some effort was made to flesh out supporting characters like Saru. However, the wheels came off soon after If Memory Serves. It seems clear to me what happened is they pulped the original plans for the season after firing Berg/Harberts as showrunners, which meant they had had to come up with the Control arc more-or-less out of nowhere. They did the best they could stitching things up, but The Red Angel/Perpetual Infinity - which should be the climax of the season - are mostly nonsensical exposition which tries to tell you that a square was round all along. The only good element is because they fell flat on their face before the very end of the season it rallied a bit for Such Sweet Sorrow, which - although mawkish with too many overly-long, sentimental departures - was still the best ending of a Discovery season to date.

Season 3: A largely competently done, if somewhat generic set of classic Trek adventures. There's no hiding how underbaked the 32nd century setting is in the series - it might as well be Voyager Season 8 - but the season tells a coherent, if not compelling, story from start to finish. There is a much stronger focus on character than in the earlier seasons as well, with supporting characters (including former bridge furniture) given a chance to have some sense of existing beyond the needs of the plot. The ending of the season was underwhelming to say the least, but it wasn't nonsensical, just a damp squib.

Season 4: So far, kind of similar to Season 3? I'm a bit frustrated with the much lower energy level, the focus on therapy talk by basically all of the characters, and how every character is pretty much written identically now. The pace of the story is flagging in the back half of the season as well. We'll see how the finale works out. I expect to get exactly what I expect, if that makes any sense - I don't foresee anything fantastic happening out of left field, but I also don't expect the whole arc to come crashing down in a maze of dangling plot threads - if only because there's really only been 2-3 threads all season.

 

[Vger23]

I like them all, but relative to each other, I prefer S1 and S2 by a wide margin. It's not even close.

S1 and S2 had a firm link to my favorite Trek era, which is the 23rd Century. It did some interesting (and admittedly uneven / controversial) exploring of that era and legacy characters that I thought was fun and engaging...even if it was at times flawed or uneven. But, most importantly, it was DIFFERENT in tone and presentation from the bulk of other Star Trek shows, which is what I appreciated most. It's one of the reasons DS9 is my top non-TOS show...it grew the franchise into a different and unexplored direction (in terms of setting, themes, tone, format...everything).

DSC S3 and S4 have become sort of more generic "Star Trek," except in a setting so far removed from the rest of the universe (the 32nd Century or whenever the heck it takes place), that it's really lost a lot of its punch.

Additionally, the supporting characters and actors from S1 and S2 were vastly superior to S3 and S4.

S1 and S2 had Lorca, Pike, Spock, Number One, Tyler/Voq, L'Rell, Georgiou, and Cornwell in terms of characters I found fascinating and engaging. It had a good focus and arc for Culber who, aside from being one of my favorite characters and actors, seemingly has less interesting stuff to do even though he is now "main cast" and not a supporting player,

S3 and S4 has Book and Tarka. That's about it. Osyraa was a dull antagonist (I actually found Leland and "Control" more compelling). Adira is a poor Tilly replacement who is painfully one-dimensional, especially given the potential with this character. Gray was also a complete bust-- just a waste of a good idea for a character. I love Admiral Vance, but he's be reduced to a pop-in character in favor of the far less-interesting Federation President.

Also, S1 and S2 seemed to have more organic things for the main characters to do. Saru had a true arc. Stamets had a very clear purpose and arc. Tilly was well-developed and a great foil for Burnham. In S3 and S4, those characters seem to be less-and-less organic in terms of their utility and involvement in the story. Saru is kind of a generic "alien first officer guy" now. Stamets has lost his prickly nature and is no longer nearly as integral as the mushroom expert, so he's just a generic "science technobabble problem solver guy." Culber has become Troi, except without the empathic powers. And, as much as it pains me to say, the "coworker therapy" others have criticized just doesn't work for me either. It's over-done and it seems forced and (again, here's that word / phrase) not organic to the story. And, Tilly is GONE...with no fanfare...which is a HUGE loss to the chemistry of that group.

So...yeah...I miss S1 and S2 a lot. Yes, they had warts, but everything about it was exciting and gripping. S3 and S4 are fun and I still watch it excitedly every week...but the excitement level is down.

 

[Vger23]

Indeed. As much as I like Book as a character, relationships are not for me in Trek.

I think amongst the many, many relationships depicted in Star Trek, there are a small handful that are done quite well.

Culber / Stamets (which has unfortunately been somewhat de-emphasized)
Keiko / Miles
Kira / Odo (not great, but cute)
Sisko / Yates

(Interesting how 3-of-4 are all features of DS9).

I think Book / Burnham is one of the most annoying. In fact, I think the idea that Burnham has had a love interest present in every season of DSC is a huge mistake.

 

[fireproof78]

3and 4 are very similar and both have that's sort of ok but nothing special vide of some of the weaker seasons of TNG/DS9/Voyager

IMHO there's sort of a tradeoff between them which makes it hard to judge. 3-4 are I think objectively speaking better executed, but they are also in a certain sense unambitious and "beige" feeling.

S3 and S4 are fun and I still watch it excitedly every week

It's fascinating to read the comments above. I agree that DSC has moved towards TNG style but I thought that was what Trek fans wanted? That instead of the action style pew-pew it was slowed down, more talking, more crew interaction. But now, Season 2 is more exciting?

 

[Vger23]

It's fascinating to read the comments above. I agree that DSC has moved towards TNG style but I thought that was what Trek fans wanted? That instead of the action style pew-pew it was slowed down, more talking, more crew interaction. But now, Season 2 is more exciting?

Well, I always like pew-pew action/adventure Trek...and TNG has really lost its luster for me in recent years. In fact, I'm finding a VOY run-through far more engaging then the slog I went on just to get through the last 2 seasons of TNG. I'd rather see action and adventure in Star Trek than 45 min of sipping tea in a conference room.

I do think that S2 (in particular) was admittedly a little too "breakneck paced" for me....but I found the story, setting and characters far more engaging...

 

[fireproof78]

Well, I always like pew-pew action/adventure Trek...and TNG has really lost its luster for me in recent years. In fact, I'm finding a VOY run-through far more engaging then the slog I went on just to get through the last 2 seasons of TNG. I'd rather see action and adventure in Star Trek than 45 min of sipping tea in a conference room.

I do think that S2 (in particular) was admittedly a little too "breakneck paced" for me....but I found the story, setting and characters far more engaging...

Hmmm...sounds like Discovery hasn't hit the Golilocks zone. Fascinating.

 

[Vger23]

Hmmm...sounds like Discovery hasn't hit the Golilocks zone. Fascinating.

I think it's hard to do, to be honest...and perhaps unfairly so. The more Trek marches on, the higher the expectaions seem to go, and the more divergent the opinions of what it "should be" seem to be. That's pretty tough space to navigate in for any production.

I like DSC more than the bulk of the franchise (only DS9 and TOS are "better" in my opinion). But I think that there's the "subjective" side of that assessment (my emotions and just pure "joy" I get out of watching), and there's an "objective" side of that assessment (my ability to see the various flaws or unevenness that exists) as well. Both are important to acknowledge...although at the end of the day, all I really care about is "do I enjoy watching it"...and the answer there is always a resounding "YES!"

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

My problem with season 4 isn't that there's too much crew interaction, it's that I'm not getting anything out of it, for all the reasons that have been discussed a hundred times already. I'm craving some proper discussions! I want to see them hanging out and behaving like normal people! The pacing wouldn't feel so slow if their conversations weren't so dry and repetitive.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

It's fascinating to read the comments above. I agree that DSC has moved towards TNG style but I thought that was what Trek fans wanted? That instead of the action style pew-pew it was slowed down, more talking, more crew interaction. But now, Season 2 is more exciting?

You misunderstood me. I was not making any sort of comment on the tone or style in relation to season 3/4 being similar to TNG/DS9/VOY. I was only comparing the average quality of those seasons which all left me with a "meh" sort of impression.

 

[eschaton]

It's fascinating to read the comments above. I agree that DSC has moved towards TNG style but I thought that was what Trek fans wanted? That instead of the action style pew-pew it was slowed down, more talking, more crew interaction. But now, Season 2 is more exciting?

It's just IMHO, but I think part of the issue is one aspect of Berman Trek they have largely avoided a lack of storytelling versatility. That's one way that Season 1 is actually very similar to Season 4 - Michael is still the lead in ways Picard never was, and the show is really only interested in telling one kind of story - with one frame of reference - per season.

I'm coming around to the idea that while every Trek series should have its own voice - and distinct characters - we simply shouldn't have the actual tone of each show/season hyper focused. We need a breather where we have stories told from the POV of others besides the lead, or a comedic episode in the middle of heavy drama. That sort of thing.