What can be improved for season 2?

[Farscape One]

I actually thought casting Bakula was one of the strongest moves for ENTERPRISE. He was well suited for the role, which in some ways is a mirror of his QUANTUM LEAP days.

ENTERPRISE had its flaws, but the casting and portayal for Archer is not one of them.

Consider the era of that series... humans have barely left Earth, space was REALLY vast as it was largely unexplored, and Starfleet was a young pup. Archer reflected that. It brought a sense of realism to the show. He helped bring that sense of wonder during the first couple seasons, which was something the franchise was lacking for a long time. Even DS9, by far my favorite series, lacked that quality for the most part.

I would honestly argue that Bakula helped bring the TREK back in STAR TREK.

 

[Tuvix5675]

Considering Starfleet officers in the 24th century were willing to commit genocide, remove entire populations from planets to placate their enemies and be accessories to the murders of foreign politicians, I fail to see how the starfleet portrayed in discovery is any worse. I also fail to see why 24th century starfleet clearly gets a free pass.

Are you making a distinction between Starfleet as an institution, and rogue officers, or the "deep state" of Starfleet: Section 31?

 

[Tuskin38]

Are you making a distinction between Starfleet as an institution, and rogue officers, or the "deep state" of Starfleet: Section 31?

All of what he mentioned was not related to Section 31 or rogue officers.

Starfleet wanted to commit genocide on the Borg in TNG, Starfleet willingly associated with Garak, and authorized Sisko's actions in 'In the Pale Moonlight'. Starfleet/Federation used the cure as leverage to end the Dominion war instead of just giving it to them.

The events in Insurrection were also Starfleet, not just a single rogue Admiral

 

[LJones41]

Since season 2 is right around the corner, I thought I would ask what can be improved for season 2?

Personally, I fear that the show will not be as good as Season 1. I had heard rumors that the show runner wants to make it more of a traditional Trek series. And that's a bad idea to me. That's like tossing away any semblance of originality for the more narrow-minded and rather loud fans to swallow.

Starfleet/Federation used the cure as leverage to end the Dominion war instead of just giving it to them.

Starfleet/Federation was also willing to attempt genocide against the Founders . . . even before the Dominion War had began via Section 31.

And there was the U.S.S. Equinox, who had captured and murdered many members of a Delta Quadrant species in order to use their bodies for fuel.

I think they need to maintain the intensity established in S1, but also pepper in some more fun and adventure.

You mean like . . . "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad"? Exactly how many "fun and adventurous" episodes is Season Two supposed to have with a story arc of roughly 14 episodes?

 

[Vger23]

Personally, I fear that the show will not be as good as Season 1. I had heard rumors that the show runner wants to make it more of a traditional Trek series. And that's a bad idea to me. That's like tossing away any semblance of originality for the more narrow-minded and rather loud fans to swallow.

I agree wholeheartedly. If this starts gravitating toward yet another Voyager (see also: ENT S1-2 and The Orville) it will lose me pretty quick. Its NOT that I don't like those shows, but they've been done. Star Trek needs something different.

 

[Rahul]

The only Trek leads I felt were really miscast as Sonequa, and..... this guy;

Bakula is a talented performer, but not the best fit for the role of a starship captain, and the show suffered for it.

I think Bakula wasn't miscast, as much as he was... mis-written? Is that even a word...?

Like, the only time in the first two seasons he came across as an actual human being that deserved to work in space was in "First Flight", as well as in parts of the premiere two-parter. Anytime else, he was written as being overly aggressive-to-the-point-of-racist against Vulcans, and completely untrained and unprepared (not a "the right stuff" early astronaut, but a doofus employe way over his head). Frankly, NO actor could have pulled that material off without coming across as utterly incompetent.

But then seasons 3 & 4 happened, and he became an actual human being. Flawed, but realistically flawed, grappling with his command, still unexperienced, but aknowledging his lack of experience and making up for it with adaptability and improvisation. As would be expected from an earlier explorer.



So yeah, I think of Sonequa's Burnham currently in a similar manner - in that there is probably a great character in there, but so far, we only saw the season 1-Archer-equivalent of her. Maybe giving her less speeches, and more actual shit to do - but also giving the spotlight to some of the other characters from time to time - would certainly help.

 

[fireproof78]

I think Bakula wasn't miscast, as much as he was... mis-written? Is that even a word...?

If my experience on this board has taught me anything-yes, this is a word.

 

[LJones41]

I agree wholeheartedly. If this starts gravitating toward yet another Voyager(see also: ENT S1-2 and The Orville) it will lose me pretty quick.

I wish I could be happy that you agree with me, but . . . what the fuck are you talking about. Gravitating toward another "Voyager"? What the fuck? I don't recall Season One of "Voyager" being that particularly "original". I was more impressed with the later seasons - aside from Season Six.

So yeah, I think of Sonequa's Burnham currently in a similar manner - in that there is probably a great character in there,

Just what do you mean about "there is a great character in there"? What the fuck is that about? Are you claiming that Michael Burnham was perfect throughout Season One? Oh fuck! Trek fans. So many of you have finally decided that you want your leads to be flawed?

 

[Vger23]

I wish I could be happy that you agree with me, but . . . what the fuck are you talking about. Gravitating toward another "Voyager"? What the fuck? I don't recall Season One of "Voyager" being that particularly "original". I was more impressed with the later seasons - aside from Season Six.



Just what do you mean about "there is a great character in there"? What the fuck is that about? Are you claiming that Michael Burnham was perfect throughout Season One? Oh fuck! Trek fans.

I'm not sure what your problem is. My whole point was that I don't want DSC to go back to what wasn't original. I'm not sure how much more clear I could have been. It's why I said "If it starts gravitating toward being yet anotherVoyager, it will lose me."

So yeah....what the fuck indeed. Seem kinda angry...?

 

[BurnhamAll]

I actually thought casting Bakula was one of the strongest moves for ENTERPRISE. He was well suited for the role, which in some ways is a mirror of his QUANTUM LEAP days.

ENTERPRISE had its flaws, but the casting and portayal for Archer is not one of them.

Consider the era of that series... humans have barely left Earth, space was REALLY vast as it was largely unexplored, and Starfleet was a young pup. Archer reflected that. It brought a sense of realism to the show. He helped bring that sense of wonder during the first couple seasons, which was something the franchise was lacking for a long time. Even DS9, by far my favorite series, lacked that quality for the most part.

I would honestly argue that Bakula helped bring the TREK back in STAR TREK.

I don't want to get too far off topic but I always hated the casting of ENT, particularly Bakula. He is a fantastic actor in more sympathetic roles, but he completely lacks the commanding presence needed for the captain of this kind of starship.

 

[fireproof78]

Just what do you mean about "there is a great character in there"? What the fuck is that about? Are you claiming that Michael Burnham was perfect throughout Season One? Oh fuck! Trek fans. So many of you have finally decided that you want your leads to be flawed?

 

[Tuskin38]

Are you claiming that Michael Burnham was perfect throughout Season One?

It doesn't sound like they were saying that at all.

Or did you mean to say 'wasn't' ?

what the fuck are you talking about. Gravitating toward another "Voyager"? What the fuck? I don't recall Season One of "Voyager" being that particularly "original"

How about you re-read what they said. They said don't want it to become like Voyager

Starfleet/Federation was also willing to attempt genocide against the Founders . . . even before the Dominion War had began via Section 31.

Wrong, Section 31 was acting without orders from the higherups Federation/Starfleet in DS9, they were an independant agency with no oversight.

Yes some elements of the Federation/Starfleet agreed with them, but their actions were not officially sanctioned.

 

[CorporalClegg]

 

[CaptainMurdock]

Gotta love it when civil discussions turn into rage and F bombs getting dropped for seemingly no reason.

 

[XCV330]

I'm not a huge ENT fan, but I never understood the dislike for Archer or for Bakula's portrayal. I quite like both.

Not a huge fan of Archer. "keep the ship running. I'm going to go explain that we're new here, get my ass kicked, and save the day" I think he was muted enough that it let other characters step up and get more spotlight. Reed would have been a flawed, but better captain character. I think Bakula turned in an ok performance. He did what he could do with the role. He did have a few really good episodes, though.

I think Bakula wasn't miscast, as much as he was... mis-written? Is that even a word...?

Like, the only time in the first two seasons he came across as an actual human being that deserved to work in space was in "First Flight", as well as in parts of the premiere two-parter. Anytime else, he was written as being overly aggressive-to-the-point-of-racist against Vulcans, and completely untrained and unprepared (not a "the right stuff" early astronaut, but a doofus employe way over his head). Frankly, NO actor could have pulled that material off without coming across as utterly incompetent.

But then seasons 3 & 4 happened, and he became an actual human being. Flawed, but realistically flawed, grappling with his command, still unexperienced, but aknowledging his lack of experience and making up for it with adaptability and improvisation. As would be expected from an earlier explorer.



So yeah, I think of Sonequa's Burnham currently in a similar manner - in that there is probably a great character in there, but so far, we only saw the season 1-Archer-equivalent of her. Maybe giving her less speeches, and more actual shit to do - but also giving the spotlight to some of the other characters from time to time - would certainly help.

I agree on this

Gotta love it when civil discussions turn into rage and F bombs getting dropped for seemingly no reason.

While they're discussing this and getting angry I'll be sipping jippers on a beach somewhere!

 

[eschaton]

Consider the era of that series... humans have barely left Earth, space was REALLY vast as it was largely unexplored, and Starfleet was a young pup. Archer reflected that. It brought a sense of realism to the show. He helped bring that sense of wonder during the first couple seasons, which was something the franchise was lacking for a long time. Even DS9, by far my favorite series, lacked that quality for the most part.

Yes. this was the showrunner explanation, and it was dumb as hell. There's an easy way to see this. Basically, imagine the absolute best and brightest in leadership in the present day, who have a combination of command training and technological knowhow. Now put him or her on the NX-01 after a training regimen which brings them up to skiff on the technology. Are you honestly going to try and tell me they won't be better than Archer? Of course not. The issue isn't that Archer wasn't Picard. It's that (in the first two seasons) he's portrayed as an incompetent even by modern day standards.

Now, it would be entirely possible that Starfleet would end up vexed by issues they couldn't even have comprehended out in the big black. But in order to do that, you need be a good writer and construct scenarios which would stymie a smart captain. B&B took the lazy route that many a horror movie writer did, and decided to just make the protagonist make dumb decisions the viewer can already tell are bad ideas - like not scanning a planet for a few days before landing, or insulting a member of a newly-contacted race. That basically handles half of the plots from Season 1/2, with the remainder mostly warmed over Voyager plots.

 

[Henoch]

or insulting a member of a newly-contacted race.

I believe Porthos did that...bad dog! My current beagle looks a lot like the female stand in.

Going back to DSC, I also hope they don't go back to warmed over plots of any of the old series.

 

[Vger23]

This whole idea that Star Trek "has to be THIS and has to have THAT" is what murdered the franchise previously. I'm always befuddled that there are still people who want the weekly adventures of the same tired, stale kinds after 50 years.

I love Star Trek, and will never stop watching TOS and TNG and the movies, but nothing about that format or style excites me when I think about the franchise moving forward. It's already all been done, and well.

I mean, look at The Orville. Nearly every single episode is somehow a borrow or a riff on previous franchise episodes. It doesn't mean it's a bad show, but there's not a single, solitary original strand of DNA in it.

I'm forever grateful that this isn't where Star Trek was taken. I couldn't stand it back in 1995...so I sure as hell wouldn't be able to stand it now.

 

[mattman8907]

The run time between episodes. they bounced around ranging from 37 minutes to 49 minutes. pick one standared run time and stay with it. which im hoping will be from the 44 to 49 minute rang cause man it was a bummer to watch an episode and find out it was 30+ minutes.

 

[Tuskin38]

I’m guessing the 30 minute one was made up of extra footage or something