They both seem just about equal in quality and consistency to me. Some times i can't tell the difference between a first season and a second season episode. Now the third season I can tell the difference.
Is Season 2 supposed to be better than 1?
- Thread starter EnriqueH
- Start date
From what I've seen both here, and talking to other fans, there is no consensus on which season is better, between 1 and 2. The emphasis of the show shifts a bit to include more Spock and a lot more Bones in s2 (possibly at the expense of minor characters) so some of it depends on how much you like those characters.
There is a general consensus, however, that seasons 1 and 2 are far better than 3.
There is a general consensus, however, that seasons 1 and 2 are far better than 3.
Nice try Maurice, but no one can resist to a lovely Tribble.
It's my considered opinion that Season 1 of The Original Series is the best out of all of them. Once they got Spock's look right, the look of the uniforms right and all of that ... there's some really good story telling going on there.
They're a little gamey, but they fry right up if you know how.
The lack of background people is especially noticeable in the third season. It is very obvious at times that the only people on the bridge are the main cast. They didn't even bother sometimes to have the helm or navigation posts filled by an extra if George Takei or Walter Koenig weren't in the scene.
I'd say that 'public consensus' on anything is a bum rap.
I say the most important thing is to form a subjective personal opinion on a subject. What matters the most is what you think of them, not what others may think. 
It's always been something of a pet hate of mine. Like when they commission a compilation of the episodes of a show which have recieved the most plaudits and they label it with 'The Best Of...', it gets me because how can anything be subjectively the best? There's a consensus, but on a personal level I might not like any of these so-called self-proclaimed "best episodes", and a favourite of mine might be missing. So yeah. It kind of touches a nerve with me. I guess I'm just for freedom of choice, rather than necessarily "following a crowd".
Having said all of that, I can however only echo what Nebusj so beautifully said up-thread as being the best reflection of my own take on it: Season 1 has got a strength of story-telling behind it that Season 2 sometimes lacks, but it does pay less attention to the details of building a "universe". Season 2 is really where many of the accepted Star Trek concepts became more solidified and 'cohere', so to speak, and I appreciate that as well.
Last edited:
I'd say that 'public consensus' on anything is a bum rap.
Thank you for saying it!
I used to be the same way hearing about "best" guitarists and things of that sort. It depends on a lot of things. As counter-intuitive as it sounds, a favorite anything is not necessarily the best. There's no "applause meter" standard by which to judge.
That's a great analysis.
For me, part of the charm of season one is that they hadn't worked everything out yet. You expect Spock to nerve pinch a dude but instead he punches him in the face.
You gotta let them render. Low and slow in a crock pot...
Ah, yes, the background people.
Gives the series an epic feel, doesn't it?
That's one of the things I love about Star Trek The Motion Picture. People walking briskly all over the Enterprise as if they've got a ton of stuff to do on the ship. It's like Grand Central Station.
Similar threads
