Season 2 an overall improvement?

[Deledrius]

Overall? Yes, it's a big improvement. I'm not sure I feel that it has the tone or intent that I want out of something called Star Trek, but at least this season it's telling a story that's exciting to watch even when they rush over the parts that could be more compelling if given time to breathe. That's a far cry from the utter mess of Season 1, which couldn't decide what story it wanted to tell and so told them all poorly (and neglected or outright spat on aspects of the franchise that I feel are central to its message). I'm enjoying this season, even though there is a part of me reserved in wait after the abuse of the JJ films and Season 1, not sure if I can trust the show to not be tricking me into a false sense of security.

I was disapointed that season 1 was mirror universe and now season 2 is section 31. The two worst plotlines in trek for me.

That's the biggest remaining flaw in Discovery for me now. The showrunners are far too obsessed with playing with fire they can't control and it has the potential to get out of hand all too easily. These are elements which get their gravity from being used sparingly and with deliberation (look at how DS9's overuse of the mirror universe devolved over time, and every appearance of S31 post-DS9). I'd be happy to never see either one again, rather than watch them abuse and contaminate every story.

When it gets as ridiculous as TOS S3 - "Spock's Brain" - let me know (and TOS IS #1 in my book as anyone here can attest). There's plenty in TOS S2 and S3 that make ST: D appear 'Hard' Science Fiction by comparison.

The mycelial network is pseudoscientific nonsense at the same level as that seen in Spock's Brain, and now instead of being a one-off episode easily laughed at or ignored, it's a central conceit of the show on several levels. For some viewers, this is a legitimate threat to suspension of disbelief week after week. "The franchise had lousy science in it fifty years ago" is not a convincing reason to add new mistakes to that pile. Even as of "Saints of Imperfection" the whole extra-dimensional space or whatever it is remains so ill-defined that it's basically a magical place where anything can happen, which has an unfortunate, dulling effect on drama and tension going forward. Unlike warp drive in 99% of Star Trek, how the Spore Drive "works" here has mattered on a story level more often than not, and is now even mattering directly to the lives of the characters. That's a big shift, and it's troubling when it's based not on a speculative-yet-semi-realistic bit of physics (as was the Warp Drive), but instead on the published ravings of a discredited hypothesis from a fringe "scientist" taken to some absurd metaphysical abstraction.

If they don't like the show because of the show itself, that's fair, because at least they're judging the show on its own merits or demerits. If they don't like the show because they can't stop comparing it to other Star Trek, then that's not fair, because that has more to do with them as a viewer than what's actually on screen.

I mean, it's called Star Trek: Discovery. That is literally how an invitation to compare is made.

An original property could make (some of) these mistakes and be given more latitude simply because it has nothing to stand with. The oft-discussed Orville benefits from precisely this effect; when it compares favorably it's a bonus, and when it does not it's no reflection on Star Trek and therefore has more flexibility in that regard. It was an active choice to make this a Star Trek show; they don't get to absolve themselves of that responsibility simply because it's inconvenient. Personally, I would see that name as a challenge to honor it rather than a yoke around my neck.

 

[BillJ]

An original property could make (some of) these mistakes and be given more latitude simply because it has nothing to stand with.

I wouldn't have had this much patience with an original property.

 

[Lord Garth]

I mean, it's called Star Trek: Discovery. That is literally how an invitation to compare is made.

An original property could make (some of) these mistakes and be given more latitude simply because it has nothing to stand with. The oft-discussed Orville benefits from precisely this effect; when it compares favorably it's a bonus, and when it does not it's no reflection on Star Trek and therefore has more flexibility in that regard. It was an active choice to make this a Star Trek show; they don't get to absolve themselves of that responsibility simply because it's inconvenient. Personally, I would see that name as a challenge to honor it rather than a yoke around my neck.

I mean comparison in terms of "They're not making Discovery the same way they used to make (insert Star Trek series here)." And they're not. People need to get used to it. If they can't, that's really their problem, not Discovery's.

TNG was different in execution from TOS. DS9 was different in execution from TNG. DSC is different in execution from most Star Trek except for some parts of DS9. It's no coincidence that a lot of the same people who didn't like DS9 don't like DSC.

As far as The Orville, it's TOS/TNG that looks like TNG, except it's populated with Average Joes and has Dudebro Humor. If you're into buttoned-down TOS/TNG and like Dudebros (or might actually be a Dudebro), then it's natural that it would appeal to those who like that combination of things.

 

[OCD Geek]

I mean comparison in terms of "They're not making Discovery the same way they used to make (insert Star Trek series here)." And they're not. People need to get used to it. If they can't, that's really their problem, not Discovery's.

TNG was different in execution from TOS. DS9 was different from execution TNG. DSC is different in execution from most Star Trek except for some parts of DS9. It's no coincidence that a lot of the same people who didn't like DS9 don't like DSC.

As far as The Orville, it's TOS/TNG that looks like TNG, except it's populated with Average Joes and has Dudebro Humor. If you're into buttoned-down TOS/TNG and like Dudebros (or might actually be a Dudebro), then it's natural that it would appeal to those who like that combination of things.

I love me some dark Star Trek, but I found Season 1 to be way too dark. The dark Trek I love (Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, Deep Space Nine, The Xindi Arc, David Mack's novels) also included a fair amount of optimism and warmth. Season 1 of Discovery was oppressively nihilistic at times, although this season is doing a great job at being darker than most of TOS and TNG while still getting that optimism and warmth in.

As far as The Orville goes, that "Dudebro" humor was toned way down after the first few episodes. The reason I love it is beacuse (like TOS, the Kirk/Spock/McCoy movies and DS9) it's filled to the brim with flawed but heroic characters that I can relate to and want to spend time with. My biggest problem with TNG is that 90% of the time the characters were too damn perfect to relate to. When most of the main cast is more robotic in their perfection than the freaking robot, you might have a relatability problem.

I could relate to Guinan because she was an actual person. I could relate to Data on his quest to be human. And I could relate to Picard, mostly due to him being portrayed by Patrick Stewart. Had a lesser calibur actor been in that role I probably would have found him to be too perfect and relatable too. There are many episodes of Next Gen that I love to death, but Roddenberry's insistence that humans had "evolved to the point where there were no more disagreements" really sucked the relatable humanity out of the room most of the time.

 

[Lord Garth]

I love me some dark Star Trek, but I found Season 1 to be way too dark. The dark Trek I love (Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, Deep Space Nine, The Xindi Arc, David Mack's novels) also included a fair amount of optimism and warmth. Season 1 of Discovery was oppressively nihilistic at times, although this season is doing a great job at being darker than most of TOS and TNG while still getting that optimism and warmth in.

Fair enough. I figured from the start that S1 wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea. S2 is much more of a tonal balance, like you say.

As far as The Orville goes, that "Dudebro" humor was toned way down after the first few episodes. The reason I love it is beacuse (like TOS, the Kirk/Spock/McCoy movies and DS9) it's filled to the brim with flawed but heroic characters that I can relate to and want to spend time with. My biggest problem with TNG is that 90% of the time the characters were too damn perfect to relate to. When most of the main cast is more robotic in their perfection than the freaking robot, you might have a relatability problem.

I've stopped watching The Orville. Not because of "That's it! I'm done with it!" but because I didn't rewatch any of the first season during the year it was off, and I didn't feel like watching any further when it came back. That's what would've happened with DSC too, if it had been another TNG/VOY/Early-ENT.

I could relate to Guinan because she was an actual person. I could relate to Data on his quest to be human. And I could relate to Picard, mostly due to him being portrayed by Patrick Stewart. Had a lesser calibur actor been in that role I probably would have found him to be too perfect and relatable too. There are many episodes of Next Gen that I love to death, but Roddenberry's insistence that humans had "evolved to the point where there were no more disagreements" really sucked the relatable humanity out of the room most of the time.

Guinan's one of my favorite characters on TNG. The El-Aurians seem to be a step above TNG Humans, who have something to prove ("look at how evolved we are!"), whereas she doesn't. That would be one of the perks of being able to live so long and having a society that would gain from the wisdom that could come with it.

I could take or leave Data. I liked him more when I was younger. Today, I get it, he's learning what it means to be human, and learning like those still growing up have to learn. He's less relate-able as time goes on. As opposed to Spock, Worf, Torres, or Burnham, who have to deal with being part of two very different cultures, what that means, and how it effects their lives. Being half-Iranian, half-American, leaves me stuck in the same situation as them. So it's something I can relate to, whether I want to or not. My views on the subject are more like Torres' than Spock's, to be honest.

I like Picard, but I like him more when he's given a challenge that tests his character's conviction instead of when things are too easy for him. But the character himself is fine, once we move passed TNG Season 1. Picard's extreme stances on no provocation and his too-easy readiness to surrender were things I blame more on Gene Roddenberry's super-restrictive edicts during the first season. In later seasons, when a tough situation arises, Picard knows how to deal with it while still keeping his diplomatic philosophy intact.

The Discovery characters do remind me of real people. Stamets feels like a real person. Tilly feels like a real person. Saru feels like a real person. Burnham feels like a real person. I like Burnham as a character, some people don't, but you don't have to like them to have them feel like real people. There are tons of people I don't like. To round it off: Cornwell, Lorca, Pike, and Captain Georgiou feel like real people to me. Emperor Georgiou is intentionally over the top. The theatricality is part of what I like about her, so she's an exception. As a rule, most of the characters on DSC who are in the main cast feel like real people. Culber needs to be fleshed out more. Especially for someone who's in the opening credits. I think we might be getting that soon, based on how out of it he seemed when the Doctor and Stamets were talking to him in "Sound of Thunder".

 

[Alan Roi]

not sure if I can trust the show to not be tricking me into a false sense of security.

So you want any Star Trek you watch to offer you a sense of security? Interesting. But not surprising from someone who loves TNG to death. Not sure that I think that should be the main job of a sci-fi series, even a Star Trek series, where the tag line is 'To Boldly Going Where No One Has Gone Before'.

 

[Tim Thomason]

Unless they totally botch the end stretch (the non-Harberts and Berg episodes have yet to be seen), I'm going to be bold and say this is probably the second best Season 2 of all Star Trek.

My rankings:

1. TOS Season 2 - classic episodes, great implementation of the supporting cast
2. Discovery Season 2 - redemptive season, a la Enterprise Season 4, great cast, and the one story seems to be a good one.
3. DS9 Season 2 - shows more evolution into what DS9 is remembered as, but still a little off in the pre-Dominion, pre-Defiant period.
4. Voyager Season 2 - not bad overall, but pretty run-of-the-mill.
5. TAS Season 2 - too short to judge properly. Regular TAS goofiness with no redeeming standout adventures. Final ep is a disgrace.
6. TNG Season 2 - a bit of a mess, doesn't find its footing until Season 3, but a few gems
7. Enterprise Season 2 - worst season of Enterprise and all of Star Trek really.

 

[Keith1701]

Looking forward to seeing the new season.

 

[Cyrus]

Season 2 of Discovery is the 30th season of Star Trek on TV (for live action series, not including animated or shorts) . And it will be one of its best if they can resolve the season arc in a satisfactory fashion.

 

[Ricky]

I thought Season 1 started... erratically but by it's sixth or seventh episode had at least achieved upwards trajectory. By the end of Season 1 I was fine with Discovery and looked forward to Season 2.

Season 2 has for me surpassed all expectations. It's priority TV for me and I look forward to Friday through the week, not only because it's the weekend, but because there's a new bit of very interesting Star Trek waiting for me.

Then there's more to come. With the Picard series, Section 31 show and animated whatnots plus Season 3 of Discovery coming... I think it's a really exciting time for Star Trek generally and for the first time in years I am excited about Star Trek.

 

[Vger23]

It's so interesting to read everyone's different perspectives.

I like Star Trek: Discovery seemingly for the very reasons most other people dislike it. It's very different in tone, pace, presentation, etc from most all previous Treks. I love Star Trek, but the damn thing was DONE when it finally drew its last painful, tired breath when ENT went off the air. I'm very pleased that the approach to the Star Trek universe the show has taken has been so different, but also linked in so many good ways.

Like @Lord Garth said, if this had been just another TNG/VOY/ENT series, I wouldn't have lasted very long I don't think. At least, not with any kind of interest or passion.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Like @Lord Garth said, if this had been just another TNG/VOY/ENT series, I wouldn't have lasted very long I don't think. At least, not with any kind of interest or passion.

I concur. I lasted exactly 4 episodes before giving up on Enterprise when it was first run. Since then I've re-watched the series twice, giving up on season two a few episodes in both times. If Discovery had been more of the same I wouldn't be here chatting to any of you about it, because i wouldn't be watching it.

What really grinds my gears is how so much of the fanbase has conveniently forgotten the hatred Enterprise received and how everything they want Discovery to be is what killed the franchise in the first place.

 

[Cyrus]

I lasted exactly 4 episodes before giving up on Enterprise when it was first run. Since then I've re-watched the series twice, giving up on season two a few episodes in both times.

I hope you have watched ENT seasons 3 & 4 which are well worth watching (except for the series finale).

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I hope you have watched ENT seasons 3 & 4 which are well worth watching (except for the series finale).

Yeah I have. I actually quite like Season 3 but found Season 4 to be a bit hit or miss. Could have done without the Augment nonsense but i really liked the Vulcan and Terra Prime arcs.

 

[tomalak301]

I forget what I said earlier in this thread, but now that we are half way through, yes I think it is a great improvement. I'm still intrigued by the Red Angel storyline and now that we're going to a familiar planet (Don't want to spoil the last episode) I'm excited for what the second half will bring. My only complaint of Discovery, however, is I wish the series slowed down and gave their characters some development. This is very much a plot based show, yet there have been a couple episodes this season that have been way too frenetic and I feel like I'm missing out on getting to know and like these characters. I'm not talking about the bridge staff, even though I appreciate they've been given a little more to do, but I don't think we've really seen what these characters are like in their personal time. Everything is plot plot plot that I miss the "filler" where we really do get to know who these people are.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I concur. I lasted exactly 4 episodes before giving up on Enterprise when it was first run. Since then I've re-watched the series twice, giving up on season two a few episodes in both times. If Discovery had been more of the same I wouldn't be here chatting to any of you about it, because i wouldn't be watching it.

I share the same sentiment. I gave up on ENTERPRISE after nine episodes. It wouldn't be until years later that I saw reruns of the season four episodes like the Vulcan trilogy that really reignited my interest in the show. Before the first Abrams film came out, I decided to finally watch the whole show, knowing that aside from the finale the last season was worth revisiting. Those first two seasons were such a chore to get through. TNG and VOY had their issues in the first two seasons but there was just something about ENT that felt so lifeless, like the franchise at that point was just going through the motions. If the characters had been written well it might have helped by my goodness, it's no surprise why that show dropped like a brick so fast compared to what came before.

What really grinds my gears is how so much of the fanbase has conveniently forgotten the hatred Enterprise received and how everything they want Discovery to be is what killed the franchise in the first place.

Exactly. I remember the days when pairing names Berman & Braga elicited the scorn of so many fans online. Nicknames like the Killer B's. Now so much of fandom seems to pretend that everything about Trek from 1966 to 2005 was smooth sailing, that it wasn't until the Kelvin films or Discovery that Trek was being "tainted". I personally felt the first season of DISCO was very mixed, but it at least felt like it was trying to do something. Where in the Berman era ENT's first two seasons felt like it was complacent and just business as usual. DISCO is, as sloppy as it may be, at least swinging for the fences.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I share the same sentiment. I gave up on ENTERPRISE after nine episodes. It wouldn't be until years later that I saw reruns of the season four episodes like the Vulcan trilogy that really reignited my interest in the show. Before the first Abrams film came out, I decided to finally watch the whole show, knowing that aside from the finale the last season was worth revisiting. Those first two seasons were such a chore to get through. TNG and VOY had their issues in the first two seasons but there was just something about ENT that felt so lifeless, like the franchise at that point was just going through the motions. If the characters had been written well it might have helped by my goodness, it's no surprise why that show dropped like a brick so fast compared to what came before.


Exactly. I remember the days when pairing names Berman & Braga elicited the scorn of so many fans online. Nicknames like the Killer B's. Now so much of fandom seems to pretend that everything about Trek from 1966 to 2005 was smooth sailing, that it wasn't until the Kelvin films or Discovery that Trek was being "tainted". I personally felt the first season of DISCO was very mixed, but it at least felt like it was trying to do something. Where in the Berman era ENT's first two seasons felt like it was complacent and just business as usual. DISCO is, as sloppy as it may be, at least swinging for the fences.

Yeah, Enterprise just felt tired and I honestly think that was because everyone behind the scenes was pretty tired of Trek by that point. Nemesis felt pretty tired and lifeless too and I remember how the term 'franchise fatigue' was doing the rounds on trek websites and chat rooms. I remember how so many people wanted trek to take a rest and the comparisons to NUBSG when it came out. Now we've got a show that is doing things differently and people still aren't happy and are behaving like a bunch of religious fanatics instead of rational human beings. It's just the reaction to TNG all over again. The more things change, the more they stay the same I guess.

Discovery isn't perfect, but It's the most interesting that Star Trek has been since DS9 went off the air.

 

[cultcross]

I think roughly 40% of any Trek series is decent enough to watch.

While I wouldn't go as low as 40% on every series (I would go lower on some though) I definitely think Star Trek has produced a solid bank of episodes that are OK. Not awful, not great, they just exist. One of the perils of watching a series in first run is that those episodes are the whole focus for a week (or more) and you're pulling them apart, analysing them, debating their good and bad points, and nitpicking. As time goes on though, they fade into background noise and we don't really talk about them or focus on them again. When was the last time we discussed Captain's Holiday, or Prophet Motive? The overall impression of the series isn't really pushed up or down by these episodes unless there are way too many of them. I think that's part of why we tend to look more favourably on the past shows than those running in the present day. There's a perspective gained by the wider view, you forget the little niggles that bothered you week to week and can consider the whole thing.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

While I wouldn't go as low as 40% on every series (I would go lower on some though) I definitely think Star Trek has produced a solid bank of episodes that are OK. Not awful, not great, they just exist. One of the perils of watching a series in first run is that those episodes are the whole focus for a week (or more) and you're pulling them apart, analysing them, debating their good and bad points, and nitpicking. As time goes on though, they fade into background noise and we don't really talk about then or focus on then again. When was the last time we discussed Captain's Holiday, or Prophet Motive? The overall impression of the series isn't really pushed up or down by these episodes unless there are way too many of them. I think that's part of why we tend to look more favourably on the past shows than those running in the present day. There's a perspective gained by the wider view, you forget the little niggles that bothered you week to week and can consider the whole thing.

That’s what I struggled with for ENT on its first run, just waiting for an episode that’s more than just mediocre, and at the same time TNG was airing reruns on Spike TV which was my first opportunity to actually watch the show from start to finish. I was enjoying TNG a lot more, and going back and forth between that and what ENT delivered was like night and day. Even as bad as those season one TNG episodes were it at least felt more vibrant in a sense.

It was clear that by ENT that Berman and pretty much everyone that had been attached since 1987 were too set in their old ways to give Trek a fresh vibe. It wouldn’t get interesting until new writers were brought on board for the third season like Coto, and they should have had done that with the first season. I think the only “fresh face” behind the scenes in the first season was Fred Dekker? Even a lot of the VOY staff didn’t carry over because they were too exhausted.

 

[cultcross]

VOY's best episode was The Caretaker, it went downhill pretty fast from there

If you read the script for Caretaker, and ignore how it was actually directed and played, I think you get a few flashes of what the original idea for Voyager was. Then those scenes play out in the episode and you get... humdrum TNG lite. The best example is the scene where Janeway visits Paris in prison. On paper, it reads quite hard hitting, you imagine quite a dark scene with punchy dialogue. But the filmed version runs like they met at the mall and are chatting. A lot of Paris' early dialogue is like that. Written as a badass rebel, played and directed as a middle aged squash player.