You suggest having the Orion Syndicate as the main antagonist. --> Strike One. You basically want Shran as Captain. Who's basically Weyoun as an Andorian. Nothing wrong with the character but he's not a Captain. --> Strike Two. You don't want Burnham as the main character. The whole point of the series is that its central focus is from a point of view other than the Captain's. --> Strike Three. ONE OUT You want Culber gone. --> Strike One. You don't want any previous aliens AT ALL. But seem to be okay with the Orion Syndicate? --> Strike Two. Detmer as a Security Chief when she's been flying since she was 12? That's like giving Tuvok's job to Tom Paris. --> Strike Three. TWO OUTS Jet Reno is more qualified to be Chief Engineer than Stamets, yet you want her to be his assistant. I call sexism. And... --> Strike One. You want Owosekun off the show so she can be developed on a Pike Series but can't be bothered to want to do that here? Did you forget that Pike already has his own crew on the Enterprise that could be developed there? --> Strike Two. "The new chief medical officer is a Vulcan male who clashes with Burnham over her (perceived) appropriation of Vulcan culture. This, coupled with the conflict with Spock/Sarek causes her to re-evaluate how see acts, prompting her to be more human and a little less pretentious. " In other words: you want to drop the idea that Burnham was raised by Vulcans and turn her into Just Another Human and have this new Vulcan put her in her place. --> Strike Three. THREE OUTS = GAME OVER.
I'm not saying that Discovery should be focus-group driven, I'm saying that being completely unhindered is rarely good for a creative project. Look at any smash-hit author once they "stopped being edited." Likewise, virtually everything I dislike about Discovery season 2 is "bending to fan responses;" overly-plotty episodes, continuous referencing and remixing, turning Spock into Poochie (whenever Spock isn't in an episode, all the other characters should be asking "Where's Spock?"), lip-service being paid to Trek concepts without thinking things through, forcing the recurring cast more towards the front artificially rather than giving them material that lets them shine. About the only thing that's I dislike about this season that isn't a monkey's-paw reaction to superficial fannish complaints about season one on twitter and reddit and here is how weirdly over-directed the episodes have become, with five or six show-off scene transitions per episode, and space inexplicably becoming bright white instead of black when viewed through windows on-set. Because of all the behind-the-scenes turmoil, it's hard to tell if these are because of the preferences of the newer showrunners that have cycled in, or if they're responding to the low-hanging fruit of criticism by saying "General Order One" a lot and making characters get along for the sake of getting along rather than having individual personalities because season one was "too dark" and they took it as "people sniped too much." I can't even begin to fathom the reasoning behind Saru's retooling and retconning the Kelpian concept. Imagine if "Amok Time" ended with Spock, having gone through Pon Farr, no longer having to control his emotions, and becoming just like everyone else on the ship, but for the ears.
I wandered in there thinking this might be a thoughtful and objective thread about further "continuous improvements" the show would/could make as it heads into season 3. I must be whacked out on PCP or something.
That's making a whole lot of assumptions based on anecdotal evidence and using correlation in place of causality. And no, not close to most authors who become successful turn into a Steven King or GRR Martin. The fact that you can't fathom characters evolving throughout a series might be part this.
You haven't been around here long enough. Let me dig up a good one. EDIT: Here! This one is a classic.
Oh, that was as delicious as a plate of Kelpien tendrils smothered in Habanero sauce. PS. I was a regular on IGN when the first season's reviews rolled out. Honestly, that was pretty tame by comparison, but did offer a nice hit or two.
Whoops, my thoughts must've moved faster than my fingers. I could've sworn I included a part where I said that "because of all the behind-the-scenes turmoil, it's hard to tell if these [changes to DSC] are because of the preferences of the newer showrunners that have cycled in, or if they're responding to... [fannish] criticism" and not definitively asserted that my interpretation was factual. Clearly if I had, you wouldn't be responding to my post with stuff I'd already said. Saru's personality literally shriveling up and falling off is not what I'd call "character evolution." In contrast, Spock actually did develop a more nuanced, healthy relationship with his emotions over time that was motivated by events he went through and his responses to them, in the first movie. Then he died, and did it again, but funny, in the fourth movie. In neither case did he wake up one day, and go, "Hey, I have the opposite personality now, just like in that one episode of the first season, but permanently this time!" Which reminds me, "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" would be an example of a good way of rehashing a Trek concept with a fresh spin, by which I mean Spock's storyline in "This Side of Paradise," as opposed to "An Obol for Charon," which just put "Disaster," "Nothing Human," "Babel," "Twisted," and "Amok Time" into a blender and plucked out scenes, subplots, and concepts without playing out any of them. When I said I was afraid after Star Trek Into Darkness that the franchise's future would be continuously cycling through remaking its own greatest hits over and over again forever like the Batman movies, this is so much worse than what I was imagining.
When my Dad hit is fifties, he started saying he didn't enjoy TV much anymore because he'd recognize a plot or plot fragments when he saw them and didn't feel it offered anything anymore. I don't suffer from this experience because I know there are not an infinite number of plots out there and placing ideas in different ways, shapes and forms and in different contexts actually does produce new experiences, if you are willing to live in the now and not live in the past. It's like reading the comments on Magic To Make The Sanest Man Go Mad and finding so many people unable to think of the episode other than it was a ripoff of Cause and Effect. Its so limiting, because they could only see the plot device(s) and not the actual story. Obviously you are stuck where my Dad got stuck. Sorry to hear that.
I'm really happy with the second season so far. I pretty much hated the two main arcs of the first season (though I liked the characters enough to stay). But this second season IMO offers a whole lot of what I want from Star Trek. Of course it isn't perfect - but now it's very much the type of show I exactly like! Of course I want to see further improvements for season 3. The one major thing I can think of is - less fan-wank. I adore Anson Mount's Pike. You know what I would have liked even more? Anson Mount as an original character. I couldn't give a crap about season 2's Spock, pre-reboot-quel Enterprise, Talosians, Burnhams soap opera involving Sarek and Amanda, "Nr. One" making cameos.... That shit is tedious. But I genuinely love it when the show does new and exciting things, like the Ba'Ul/Kelpian-relationship, the journey into the mycelial network, or even only neat twists on more known stories (like the "New Eden" colony, or a simple rescue-mission in the pilot). To be fair though - "Magic to make.." was a rip-off of "Cause and Effect". That's because the plot device was the story, and "Magic" pretty much was "everything you remember of Cause and Effect, with nothing memorable added". What the episode needed, was something that clearly seperated it from the original - and if it was only NOT setting the explosion of the main ship as an arbitrary end-point of every loop.
Wow, incredible! I must've skipped my coffee, today, because once again I was absolutely, morally certain that I began that thought with an example of how even a superficially similar premise could be adapted to different characters in order to provide a new, fresh experience, and then contrasted it with how an overly-referential plot was constructed to provide a Star Trek veneer over an underdeveloped and half-assed script. How is it I keep not writing things I'm sure I've written? Also, you keep making unfounded assumptions about my opinions and personality. "Oh, look, this guy is too old enjoy life now, because he thinks DSC season two is leaning too hard on crowd-pleasing fluff." Granted, the board search link on my profile only gives you my last two hundred posts, but I assure you, even a moderate amount of internet-stalking should reveal I'm still capable of liking things and am not waiting for death to liberate me from my ennui. Or you could just debate the post, not the poster.
Except it wasn't. And, IMHO, it did separate itself from the previous story, because of who the main protagonists of the story were, and what they were willing to go through to get what they wanted, and what the measure of victory needed to be in order for the protagonist to get what he wanted. Cause and Effect was a nuts and bolts story, effective but literally nothing more than we have a problem lets solve it. Magic was a character story, not about we have a problem, what does the problem mean to the characters at odds and how does it both develop and build insight on who they are. Comparing the two eps is like comparing a game of checkers with a game of 3D Chess. You are confusing the set dressing with story.
Your complaint is that you've watched an ep where you recognized you've seen things before. We all get to an age where we've watched so much that everything looks familiar, because it is. The question I ask myself is what do I with it when I encounter this. And can something still be satisfying if its familiar. Elements of stories get recycled all the time. Is this good? bad? IMO, Its neither. .It means I have to start thinking about what I am watching differently than when I saw these elements pulled together for the first time.
Look, nobody fucking cares about the nuances and subtle changes in your story, if the main emotional climaxes and plot points are the exact same ones. If you're story ends with Kirk and Spock holding their hands on glass, swearing on their friendship while one of them dies because he sacrificed himself in the core engine chamber of the ship to save the crew - EVERYONE is going to focus on that part. And if that part has nothing new to add - everyone will see nothing but a shallow rip-off in your work. Even if the little things leading up to that moment were a tiny bit different. In the same way, as a professional writer, you simply can't do a time-loop episode that ends with the Enterprise getting destroyed after each iteration, and the characters slowly progressing each loop to stop that, without being compared to "Cause and Effect". And if you do - you better have something to show for. And now, this is also not comparable to "the Naked Now" and "The Naked Time" - which was an even closer remake. But that actually was a "character-focused" episode (even if a dumb one) - because there the main premise was: "Characters, but acting wild". In this case, simply having other characters already adss more difference to the stories. But both "Magic" and "Cause" were mainly plot-driven episodes. The roles of Burnham nad Stamets could have been played by literally any other character on the show, and nothing would have changed. In such a case, the rip-off becomes much more groan-inducing.
Actually there is no way anyone else on the ship could have played those roles because of the condition of Stamets and Burnham's emotional situation. And if you cannot see that then you did have no idea what you were watching. Did you even wonder why it was titled the way it was? Or do you dismiss that as well as mere window dressing - a title which means nothing, just looks pretty? Because that is absolutely not the case.
Again: Nobody cares if you change some tiny details, if the main plot points are still the same. It's admirable they tried to at least superficially connect the plot more to their main characters (and if they hadn't, this episode wouldn't have been one of the fan-favourites of season 1). But it doesn't change these things from being only marginal changes in an otherwise directly lifted plot.