There are hardly any risks taken from the writers or producers. And the constant pandering to the fans seldom makes for good TV.
And yes, it is a lot more episodic than S1, which in this day and age should be a disqualifier for any decent show.
Tomato, tomahto. What you see as "risks taken" in S1, I see as "pulling dumb plot contrivances out of their ass," and what you see as "pandering to the fans" in S2, I see as "remembering the deep heritage of Trek material and themes available to build on."
As for serialization, while many of my favorite shows are serialized, that's not true of all of them, and they don't all approach story arcs in the same way. Saying a show
must be serialized to be decent is ridiculous; creativity shouldn't be slave to any particular format.
Why not have a trek meets game of thrones?
Something more action packed, more blood/gore, more horror etc etc, see where i am going with this.
I love
Game of Thrones. Interestingly, though, the aspects of it you call out (the action, blood, gore, horror) are usually my
least favorite aspects of the show. What I really love about it is the slow-build plot development; the complex, psychologically rich characterization; the intricate political maneuvering. Sadly, most of these aspects have diminished considerably and been supplanted by more of the aspects you hail since the showrunners moved past GRRM's published material and started exerting more control over the tone of the show.
So, honestly, I'd love to see a Trek show done with the sophistication of
Game of Thrones. (Or even the sophistication of
Babylon 5.) I just think doing that right would involve raising the IQ level of the writing,
not displaying more viscera on screen.