Fans are partly to blame, but also corporate ownership. We're way past the days of singular visions -- it's all calculated to maximize audience and revenue. Storytelling by committee and tickbox. As much as I might fault the writers, I am empathetic that it must be quite a challenge to tell big, compelling, season-long stories while working in the corporate salt mine. That said, I'm completely unsurprised that CBS is willing to retool Discovery to appeal to fan sensibilities, considering CBS is dependent on fans (and fans almost exclusively) to keep its streaming service afloat. I'm assuming the corporate Prime Directive is, "Don't alienate the Trekkies, because we need them for now." Anyway ... Stuff I liked: 1. The season was much less ugly in spirit than the first. Seems odd to congratulate a show on its lack of gratuitous rape scenes, but that was the bar season one set. 2. The character work was improved -- still too much reliance on big tears for my tastes, but Pike, Saru and Burnham all had compelling storylines. I'll cut the season-long arc some slack if the character work is interesting along the way. 3. Even some of the stupider stuff was lifted by the performances. I'm sorry Admiral Cornwell went out like that, but Jayne Brook did a good job with the material. I will miss the actress. She elevated what she was given. 4. The showrunners seemed to have learned from their season one mistakes. I appreciated that. I didn't have much hope for Discovery after season one, but I feel much more positive now, even after the finale crashed and burned. Stuff I didn't like: 1. I'd just as soon never see Ash Tyler again. 2. I'm already tired of the season-long arc that is tied up neatly at the end. 3. If they can't pull off the season-long arcs, maybe try something more semi-episodic. Do what works for the show, not just what's popular in Hollywood at the moment. 4. The emphasis on bombast is really killing the storytelling. The conflict between Leland and Pike early on, for example, was much more interesting to me than the pew pew pew they cleared the decks for.
Agreed...unfortunate but true. 1. I liked Ash in S1, but this was an example of a character whose arc was really "complete" as of "Will You Take My Hand?" and he probably should not have been returned in anything other than a quick "check in " capacity. 2. I think if it's done in a more compelling fashion, it can work. 3. Agree...Mandalorian used this concept very well. It was episodic with a lighter arc sort of tying the adventures together. It worked well. 4. Agree. You can only save all sentient life in the multiverse so many times before it becomes a snooze fest. I'd rather see a smaller, simpler story in S3.
When all is said and done, I really appreciated the Mandalorian Approach. Of course I've always liked the episodic/arc approach of things like DS9, Farscape, and to a smaller extent Babylon 5, but I think there needs to be middle ground. It's why I don't like the idea of Filler. Depending on how the show goes, those "filler" episodes are character development episodes, were we spend some of that downtime with our characters and find out more about them. One thing I didn't mention in my "Like" part of my post, I loved If Memory Serves. It's my favorite episode of Discovery because it was an amazing follow up to The Cage. It also was very contemplative with Pike, Burnham and Spock. I really wish we had more episodes like that and New Eden, and I'm hoping in Picard we do have a more contemplative approach to the series.
Agree on almost all counts. It's a big miss not to slow down and spend more time with the characters in DSC, as the cast is really phenomenal and should be viewed as a huge strength to leverage. I'm hoping that S3's shift facilitates smaller stories and more focus on the great cast and characters they have.
I treat Discovery as exactly that. A third, separate timeline from JJverse and Prime, regardless of how TPTB describe it. I enjoyed the 2nd season. My appreciation for it is in no way lessened or diminished by these issues.
I treat DiscoVerse as occuring in a separate timeline than Prime or JJverse. That seems like the easiest way to reconcile what we have seen.
So much for that. I'm not going to finish out the 2010s arguing about canon, because that's not what I want to do, so instead I'll say Happy New Year's to everyone! Whatever you think of the show or Star Trek in general. Later on, at some point, no doubt, we'll be keep talking about how much a show from the '20s should be like a show from the '60s. By the way, I love being able to use a sentence like that now.
It didn't even register to me right away that you were referring to the 2020s. My mind instantly went to the 1920s and I thought, "But, there was no TV----ohhhhhh."
Pike was great. I don’t think any other captain had such a strong opening season. He was wise and competent, without being perfect. The acting was on point. Sonequa Martin-Green in particular put in a fantastic performance. I liked what they did with Pike, Number One and the Enterprise. Yes, it’s fan service, but it’s surprisingly well-developed fan service. I could stand to see a lot more of this Enterprise crew. Saru got a lot of development. He's shaping up to be one of Trek’s best aliens. Visuals: the entire series just looks gorgeous. - So much melodrama. Why do these competent Starfleet officers have emotional breakdowns every five minutes? Weak dialogue. Tons of technobabble and way too many references. Everyone's quoting literature and well-known scientific theorems all the time because pop culture references are hip nowadays. Hamlet. Hell yeah. There’s also a lot more focus on snappy, cool or humorous one-liners. I suspect these were written specifically with trailers and previews in mind, but within the context of the full episode they usually don’t make any sense or cause a huge tonal shift. Unevenly-used cast. Only Burnham, Saru and Stamets are used properly. Reno has potential, but is underused. Tilly is just there for wacky one-liners now. Poor Culber gets nothing to work with except relationship drama, the definition of a character defined by his sexuality. Detmer, Owosekun, Rhys and Bryce are still just … there. Instead, the series has spent a lot of time developing characters, only to ditch them. L'Rell, Tyler, Georgiou, Pike, Lorca, Airiam, Spock ... Every major plot in the series so far has been directly related to Burnham on a personal level. She wasn’t just at the right place at the right time - the plots were either directly caused by her or revolved around her. Every major hero and villain is obsessed with Burnham specifically. I have no problem with Burnham being very competent, since most Starfleet officers are, but they need to slow down with all the personal stakes. Just create a problem and have the characters deal with it. The season arc felt too long and too over-the-top. It’s obvious they added more and more mysteries to pad out the story. This in turn leads to plot holes because the story just becomes too convoluted. I would’ve preferred to see two main story arcs (like in season 1), with all of the unnecessary bits cut out.
That was actually the impression I got. The monks know when someone is coming for the crystals so no one ever succeeds in getting them.
It’s funny how it looks like the best thing about the season was a recurring character. That should say a lot. The best thing about Discovery were things not related to Discovery.
Who is the "recurring character" that was not related to Discovery that you are declaring "the best thing?" If it's Pike, he's not a recurring character. Anson Mount was a main cast member of Season 2.
I meant Pike is a recurring character because they brought him in for one season and probably won’t use him again. Pike, and none of the main cast of Discovery except for Saru, were the only things I liked. Lots of people wanted a Pike show after his appearance. I know there are several that would prefer that instead of a season 3 of Discovery.
Wow....the opinions of "several!" But Pike wasn't a recurring character. By very definition, he was a main cast member of Season 2.