What was your impression of Season 2 overall?
- Thread starter Lord Garth
- Start date
I know you're not talking about me. And I don't think you're a troll. But an interesting observation here. Often I'll hear the complaint "Discovery shouldn't have TOS characters, they should focus on their own characters." Except when they do, those same people will say, "I don't like those characters!" Catch 22.
You want those new characters but then you don't like them. So, now that DSC has been taken out of the 23rd Century, I don't except people who don't like Burnham, Tilly, Saru, Stamets, Culber, Georgiou, and everyone else to suddenly start liking them. Essentially, it's the same as any other series where a viewer doesn't gel with the characters. I do gel with them. So luckily I'm in a different boat.
That being said, I hope those who don't like Discovery but want to like a new Star Trek series get one they like, out of all the ones they're coming out with. When DSC isn't the only game in town anymore, I think it'll get less attention from those who don't like it but are focusing on it because there aren't other new Trek series out there yet.
Your optimism is commendable, but sadly misplaced.
Angry fans who get a series that is more to their liking will not ignore DSC. They will instead fall back on the age-old, tired, cliché approach of endlessly comparing the merits of the series they like to the shortcomings of the one they don't. So, instead of just endlessly complaining, it will be pitting one side against another.
If you're not with us....you're with the TERRORISTS!!!!!1!!1
Because humanity can be so wonderful sometimes.
There was the core of a good story in Season 1 which I could see underneath all the poor execution. It was just buried under so many obvious rewrites by committee that what come out at the end was very muddled.
As to Season 2, it's harder to say, because with the exception of the connection between Michael and Spock - which I think was done pretty well - there really wasn't much about the season which built logically off of what came before. Any other Trek series could have done the Red Angel/Control stuff really - though obviously with slightly different permutations.
I prefer to think of it as operating on the bulletin board equivalent of all-wheel drive. If one outcome doesn't seem to be gaining traction, I'll instantly readjust to dealing with another.
Well being wiped out what appears to be handful of people helps.
I say give us both. Not every character is for everyone. I personally like Pike and Burnham. I think they are both Star Trek-y, whatever that looks like.
I was one who thought it kind of insulting to the writers/actors of DSC that they didn't let them go off and be themselves, but had to -- in a sense -- being in the grownups (the ENT, Pike, Spock) i.e. what we're familiar with and like. In the producers' opinions anyway.
So originally I wanted it to be its own thing as it mainly was in s1. The fact I didn't like the characters is not my fault. I got new characters on ds9 and really liked them. Ditto VOY. Unditto ENT. It depends on the writing and acting.
As I remember DSC1 I reaaaly liked the ambiguity of Lorca. VERY disappointed what happened. I like Saru and the actor. Can't stand Burnham. Tilly got annoying-er somehow and the rest got pretty relegated. The two doctors' love story seemed contrived and not real genuine to me. Stamets got less! interesting somehow. So don't blame me if I don't really care for the characters. I just generally don't. But I have, in other "new" Trek shows and hope to in PIC.
So originally I wanted it to be its own thing as it mainly was in s1. The fact I didn't like the characters is not my fault. I got new characters on ds9 and really liked them. Ditto VOY. Unditto ENT. It depends on the writing and acting.
As I remember DSC1 I reaaaly liked the ambiguity of Lorca. VERY disappointed what happened. I like Saru and the actor. Can't stand Burnham. Tilly got annoying-er somehow and the rest got pretty relegated. The two doctors' love story seemed contrived and not real genuine to me. Stamets got less! interesting somehow. So don't blame me if I don't really care for the characters. I just generally don't. But I have, in other "new" Trek shows and hope to in PIC.
I didn't say it was anyone's "fault". Like or don't like whatever you want. I just said what I think the situation happens to be: the Catch 22 with DSC is when some people say, "They should focus on their own characters! But I don't like those characters!" So now, in Season 3, it will be all characters they don't like in a setting where the Federation isn't exactly what it used to be. So I'm not seeing this combination as something that will somehow make those people like the show better. I could be wrong, but when we get to the discussion threads for the early episodes of this season, I think what I'm saying will bear out.
I'm with you on Lorca. Trek sometimes has this problem where ambiguous characters like Lorca can't just be a "regular" human that acts in a way we aren't used to seeing. He wasn't a "typical" Starfleet captain so he just had to be from the evil mirror universe.
This also applies to Section 31. I've seen discussions about this or that character secretly being in Section 31 because they did something that went against the grain. Riker in "Pegasus" being an example. Admiral Cartwright in TUC being another.
In terms of the core characters through both Seasons 1 and 2, my general thoughts:
Michael:
Was horribly conceived in the first season, with oodles of backstory, but very little idea of her motivation or a coherent character arc. Initially they presented her as a "culturally Vulcan" human who had repressed most of her emotions - arguably due to trauma. They were touching on something interesting here, insofar as she seemed to always believe she was acting logically, even when her underlying motivations were based upon fear/trauma. But about halfway through the first season they seemed to decide that the stoic portrayal didn't fit SMG's acting style, and that was thrown out the window. Any idea of a coherent character arc kinda vanished after they entered the Mirror Universe as well, with the back half of the season more or less "let's torture Michael by having everyone she cares about betray her." In addition, the first season was very muddled on whether we should root for Michael as a symbol of Federation righteousness, or we should see many of the poorly thought-out decisions she made as mistakes.
In the second season though, Michael improved by leaps and bounds. Oddly the greater improvement happened in the back half, when the plot itself starting coming off the rails. The show was finally explicit about many of her traits - her impulsive nature, her messiah complex, her desire to do everything herself - as being personality flaws, with Spock in many cases outwardly reflecting fan critiques of the character from the first season. Once they had a solid idea who Michael was and what made her tick she was much easier to enjoy.
Saru:
While Doug Jones's performance elevated the performance, Saru begins the series as a relatively thin character (no pun intended). Basically he has two traits - he is a "coward," and he is the XO. They did a little bit of interesting work with him early on, but once they go to the MU 90% of his dialogue is just saying things that any First Officer/acting Captain in Starfleet would say, with the remainder jokes about his species getting eaten.
We get more of Saru's backstory than any other non-Michael characters later on, between the short The Brightest Star, and the episodes an Obol for Charon and The Sound of Thunder, which gives him something of a complete arc. However, in some ways after the arc is finished he is a less interesting character than he began as, with the most notable aspect of his personality (his extreme fear) entirely excised. Reportedly the decision to do this was because Kurtzman believed they had "done everything they could with the cowardice." I think this was a dumb idea - imagine if they fucked with the core traits of Data, Worf, Quark, or Odo so early on. That said, it remains to be seen what will happen later on.
Stamets:
Stamets really only has three traits: He's snarky, he's the spore guy, and he's in a gay relationship. That's all there is to him. I suppose they gave him an "arc" of sorts across the two seasons with Culber, but frankly the way they wrote the relationship Culber had more agency and became a more interesting character. Stamets exists to spout technobabble, snark, and (depending upon where you are in the show) either be in a relationship with Culber, mourn the death of Culber, or be emo about Culber not wanting him back. I know it's hard to actually develop secondary characters in these shorter seasons, but I really would have liked if they had done a bit more to flesh him out - as he just comes across as the token gay who also happens to be crazy about spores. In some ways this got worse in the second season, because the addition of new "regulars" like Pike and Spock gave him even less air time.
Tilly:
Tilly has a relatively well-defined personality, although they were a bit inconsistent in how they portrayed her awkwardness in the beginning of season 1, but she provided some needed levity to the show when it was dire and dour, and she worked well in character dynamics with Michael and Stamets - even if she didn't really have anything resembling an arc.
This shifted in the second season. I felt early on her quirkiness felt really out of place, as if she had wandered onto the set from a random sitcom. But what was worse was after her one and only arc of the season - the interactions with May - they basically had no use for her character aside from when Po showed up in the penultimate episode. She was entirely absent from one episode of the season, and in several other episodes she basically just walked in, said a couple of awkward lines and left.
Ash:
I have an online friend who referred to Ash as Captain Blandsome, and honestly it kinda works. He really should have been a much more interesting character than he was, but aside from the brief period where the Voq personality became dominant in the first season (showing Latif can act) he was just there. It didn't help that his main purpose was to be a love interest for Michael, and the two had zero chemistry from the start to the finish. In the second season they made him a Section 31 agent - but his steadfast loyalty to that organization was never properly fleshed out, and just came across as lame. The only time he came across as a genuinely interesting character in the second season was during Point of Light, when we saw him on Kronos - which seems to suggest the problem was Ash was used poorly, rather than being poorly conceived. Doesn't matter anyway, because he's gone.
I'm with you on Lorca. Trek sometimes has this problem where ambiguous characters like Lorca can't just be a "regular" human that acts in a way we aren't used to seeing. He wasn't a "typical" Starfleet captain so he just had to be from the evil mirror universe.
As to Lorca, my preferred way to end his arc would be if he was from the MU, but not a total shitheel - rather a "dark gray" character.
Basically, Lorca is a patriot of the Terran Empire, who begins by being somewhat disgusted with its corruption. When he switches places with PU Lorca, he learns that human supremacy is a waste of valuable talent that the Empire could put to good use. Thus he plots a return and a revolution. He doesn't want to establish a democratic government - he wants to be emperor - but he wants to reform the empire in such a way as to allow non-humans to serve on Empire ships in a manner other than slaves. This helps to explain by the time of Mirror Mirror why MU Spock is apparently openly serving as a free being on the Enterprise.
Then the conflict goes forward between Lorca and MU Georgiou, but Lorca is ultimately the one who wins. Or, even if they must (for plot-contrived reasons) face down Lorca, his fall is not treated as a rah-rah moment, but something far more complicated and muddled.
For me, they were really the only interesting element left by the end of season two.
Good. Glad it clicked for you. And I am glad for a gay couple to be on Trek. They just didn't have (to me) that spark or chemistry; nor did Ash/Burnham.
nuSpock and nuHura seemed to, though I think they abandoned that in Beyond when they went back to the original big 3, relegated Uhura again, though in fairness, she was sort of the token Spock's girlfriend in the first two. So I will say this for DSC, they have a strong female lead with agency. Just no charm, ha ha.
nuSpock and nuHura seemed to, though I think they abandoned that in Beyond when they went back to the original big 3, relegated Uhura again, though in fairness, she was sort of the token Spock's girlfriend in the first two. So I will say this for DSC, they have a strong female lead with agency. Just no charm, ha ha.
G
Gonzo
Guest
The Klingons were much better in S2, less clunky dialogue that went on forever and an actual D7 instead of a placeholder model.
They just need to sort out the BoP now.
The extensive prosthetics didnt help in S1, they got in the way of the dialogue and having the actors facial expressions buried underneath all that rubber didnt help either, they toned it down in S2.
I would have been fine if they had just given us ToS Klingons and used the genetic changes they made to themselves during Enterprise to explain it away, it would have been a lot easier on the actors and makeup departments.
Psst - Different show (aka - "Section 31") that's suposedly supposed to start filming of it's first season after they wrap principal filming of ST: D Season 3.
Burnham and the focus on her is boring, I already said Saru was good, Pike, I want to know more about the Discovery crew. Everything related to Burnham is boring as fuck.
Which is how I perceived her from the beginning. I love her for the fact that she is deeply flawed, but that her awareness of those flaws is part of her growth.
