What was your impression of Season 2 overall?

[Nenya]

who said death is permanent in star trek? since everyone's complaint last year was that discovery unceremoniously offed a gay character, the producers had been pretty unsubtly indicating culber would be back from the get go.

That went out the door with:
TOS S1 - "Shore Leave" when Dr. McCoy was killed by a Knight on horseback with a Lance - then the body removed without anyone noticing and McCoy coming back 100% at the end of the episode. (circa 1966)

TOS S2 - "The Changeling" - Scotty was dead, McCoy pronounced him dead, and NOMAD brought him back. (circa. 1967)

The feature film - "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock" (circa 1984)

Welcome to Star Trek.

I'm pretty sure we were sold on the idea that this Star Trek wouldn't be afraid to kill people and keep them dead. Which it kinda did with Landry but was quickly abandoned.

 

[Jadeb]

I’d expect something different from modern serialized drama than a piece of ‘60s whimsy like “Shore Leave,” but the decision to fridge half of Trek’s first significant gay couple was so awful that I will overlook the decision to undo it.

 

[fireproof78]

My one complaint: Who the hell decided it was a good idea to bring Cubert back from the dead? I hate that. What happened to "death is serious and should be permanent"?

Star Trek has pretty much given up on it, including with Discovery. So, Discovery is following the grand Star Trek tradition of ignoring people dying.

 

[Jadeb]

Star Trek has pretty much given up on it, including with Discovery. So, Discovery is following the grand Star Trek tradition of ignoring people dying.

I really hope they don’t. That’s one change I think is very important in terms of modernizing the franchise.

 

[fireproof78]

I really hope they don’t. That’s one change I think is very important in terms of modernizing the franchise.

I agree, but I doubt it will happen.

 

[Amasov]

Double-Post. Anyone who knows me knows I thought this out. So you probably want to see where I put everything in the cycle I just posted. Here you go.

Previous Cycle:
"I want it back!" --> The 1970s.
"It's back!" --> The releases of TMP and TWOK. It took both those films.
"We need more!" --> After TWOK's release but before TNG's premiere.
"That's just about right!" --> When TNG was on TV and TOS movies were still in theaters.
"There's a ton now!" --> When DS9 premiered and overlapped with TNG.
"There's too much!" --> When TNG immediately went to movies and VOY premiered.
"They're doing another one?!" --> When ENT premiered.
"When will it end already?" --> After Nemesis bombed and UPN threatened to cancel ENT.
"It's finally over. I'll always remember the good stuff." --> After ENT ended.
"I kind of miss it." --> From 2006 on. Since CBS and Paramount split, I'll only be looking at the TV end since Star Trek's return to the Big Screen was announced pretty quickly after this point.
"When will it come back?" --> After the 2009 film was released, this was when people started seriously wondering when not if Star Trek would return to TV.

Current Cycle:
"I want it back!" --> Star Trek being released on Netflix in 2011 and the re-mastering of TNG starting in 2012 is what got the ball rolling.
"It's back!" --> The premiere of Discovery.
"We need more!" --> With shorter seasons meant longer gaps that Short Treks will only fill up so much.
"That's just about right!" --> Once we have both Discovery and Picard.
"There's a ton now!" --> Once the rest of what's currently down the pipeline is out.

So that's my take on The Franchise from about 1970 to 2021-ish.

This is pretty spot on. But if I could just add a little bit! I think the minor difference on the TV end is I don't think we'll have overlapping shows as far as when the seasons are released. I think one will end and another will start not long after since we aren't in the 22-26 episodes a season anymore. So while it may seem like oversaturation, I don't think anything will be airing at the same time. I could be wrong, though.

Plus I'd like to also factor in that we're in a different world now. Entertainment and how it's ingested is so fractured now an IP could have eight shows on a streaming platform somewhere and it could go totally unnoticed if you're not subscribed to it.

 

[eschaton]

I agree, but I doubt it will happen.

I feel like killing fan favorites permanently really only happens when it's either a show based upon an existing body of work or there's a very strong showrunner with a set path for the show. Otherwise the pressure on the writers to give the fans more of what they already love is just too great.

 

[fireproof78]

I feel like killing fan favorites permanently really only happens when it's either a show based upon an existing body of work or there's a very strong showrunner with a set path for the show. Otherwise the pressure on the writers to give the fans more of what they already love is just too great.

Pretty much. And it sucks, but that's the world we are at.

 

[Alan Roi]

Pretty much. And it sucks, but that's the world we are at.

That's the world we've always been at.

 

[ATimson]

This isn't a criticism of the show, it's a criticism of the genre. It's criticizing a novel for not being a collection of short stories.

But CBS isn't releasing the show like a novel, like Netflix does; they're releasing it as a series of short stories. So the criticism is completely reasonable.

 

[DarthTimon]

I thought it was a creeper heat. I loved Season 1 and didn't feel there was a need for a revamp but the further Season 2 went along, the more I liked it. This was probably more of a season for Saru than it was for Burnham.

Saru grew into Command and shedding fear was both something that I thought was great for him but also kept me on my toes wondering if he'd do something too foolhardy without any type of fear holding him back.

Burnham spent a lot of the season reacting to what was going on around her. She becomes more pro-active when she looks for Spock in "Light and Shadows" and really starts making things happen once she draws out her birth mother to rescue her in "The Red Angel".

I was hoping for a better-matched rivalry between Leland and Georgiou on the Section 31 front. Control taking over Leland was the best thing that happened to him, from a dramatic standpoint.

And Pike made for a great Anti-Lorca. He feels like his own Captain instead of just another Kirk. Nice touch bringing out his religious upbringing, from that line from "The Cage" about Pike being taught about Hell and then showing the illusion of him burning there. They didn't go as far with the religious angle as I thought they would but they did pursue faith. Now -- unless Pike is in a situation where he's saving cadets -- he has faith that no matter what situation he's in, he'll come out of it intact. That gives him a type of courage that others wouldn't have.

At first I thought they cranked Tilly to an 11, and they did, but it became more understandable in retrospect once it was revealed that it was all because of the green spore and "May" reaching out to her.

With Stamets and Culber, to be succinct, I'm glad they explored Culber feeling so disoriented both in the Mycellial Network and out of it, not understanding his sense of being any longer at all. He needed space and Stamets wasn't going to let him have that space since he was so glad he was back and wanted to be around him all the time. I thought both points of view made sense.

Not too much on the Klingons. I figured that L'Rell would be challenged, so I'm glad someone tried to. And I'm glad that the Federation -- through Section 31 -- would want to do anything it can to make sure L'Rell stays in power. Had Discovery stayed in the 23rd Century, I would've expected the other shoe to drop eventually. I can't imagine L'Rell would still be Chancellor by the time of "Errand of Mercy" (TOS), when it looks like war might break out again.

Spock seemed really frosty at first but I'm glad it didn't take long for he and Burnham to work through there differences because seeing them constantly be stand-offish to one another would've gotten old after a while since I didn't end up taking either of their sides, because I like them both.

Tyler really grew into the role of being a Section 31 operative. He took to them hook, line, and sinker. Except he seems a little too sure of his convictions to be the Head of Section 31. That organization seems to almost demand you have a lot of moral flexibility. That isn't Tyler. And he's not a pragmatist. He seems like an odd duck for his position. Maybe Starfleet only wants him in charge of Section 31 so they have someone who'd think closer to them than someone like Leland or Sloan.

Even though I wish we saw more of Number One, I think we saw the Enterprise just enough. If it were in every episode, it wouldn't have felt like special, like when it actually finally did make its reappearance. Kudos to the creative team for only revealing the Enterprise bit by bit instead of all at once.

And nice to see Amanda take charge, standing up to Sarek, calling him out on his bullshit, and knowing how to put Burnham in her place when she wanted to search for Spock (pun intended).

Cornwell, as far as I'm concerned, is Star Trek's best Admiral since Ross. She's right in the thick of things, knows when something is up, and can make the tough calls. What more could you want from an Admiral?

I can agree with every word! In fact, I can't think of a way to add to or expand upon what you said!

 

[fireproof78]

That's the world we've always been at.

We have a quicker way of seeing that world now.

 

[Alan Roi]

But CBS isn't releasing the show like a novel, like Netflix does; they're releasing it as a series of short stories. So the criticism is completely reasonable.

Except the critique isn't about how the show is released but how much content it offers over the course of each individual chapter and how that chapter is structured (and its not even about Disco anyway, its a critique of the Mandalorian for its glacial pacing, something Disco does not suffer from, I might add). I get it. Some people rate a show's artistic merits whether or not it has a story that can be wrapped up in a bow each and every 45 minute chunk that's served, and whether or not that hews to different way stories can be structured. But if it isn't and doesn't and isn't even intended to, how does it make any sense to apply that critique and have it be anything more than just insisting short stories have greater artistic merit than novels?

 

[eschaton]

Except the critique isn't about how the show is released but how much content it offers over the course of each individual chapter and how that chapter is structured (and its not even about Disco anyway, its a critique of the Mandalorian for its glacial pacing, something Disco does not suffer from, I might add). I get it. Some people rate a show's artistic merits whether or not it has a story that can be wrapped up in a bow each and every 45 minute chunk that's served, and whether or not that hews to different way stories can be structured. But if it isn't and doesn't and isn't even intended to, how does it make any sense to apply that critique and have it be anything more than just insisting short stories have greater artistic merit than novels?

I don't think anyone has really argued that episodic TV is inherently a higher art form than serialized TV. Some people have argued that it's been really, really overdone though, since almost all dramatic (and even some comedic) television is serialized now.

I think it's also pretty fair to say that if you're doing serialization without either a "net" (e.g., an established and completed series of books to work from) or with a very solid plan for a multi-year arc, you're not going to end up with "peak TV" level quality, because there's fundamentally no difference between winging it with an episodic show from week to week and winging it with a serialized plot from week to week (and season to season).

 

[Alan Roi]

I don't think anyone has really argued that episodic TV is inherently a higher art form than serialized TV. Some people have argued that it's been really, really overdone though, since almost all dramatic (and even some comedic) television is serialized now.

I think it's also pretty fair to say that if you're doing serialization without either a "net" (e.g., an established and completed series of books to work from) or with a very solid plan for a multi-year arc, you're not going to end up with "peak TV" level quality, because there's fundamentally no difference between winging it with an episodic show from week to week and winging it with a serialized plot from week to week (and season to season).

I'm not convinced, with all I've watched that what you say guarantees "peak TV" quality or not. Fact is a television has too many moving parts and too many things going on that cannot be anticipated to guarantee that say a 5 year plan will produce better art than a series of one year plans.

 

[eschaton]

I'm not convinced, with all I've watched that what you say guarantees "peak TV" quality or not. Fact is a television has too many moving parts and too many things going on that cannot be anticipated to guarantee that say a 5 year plan will produce better art than a series of one year plans.

Winging it is winging it though. It's not like writing a novel. I mean, when you write long-form fiction, sometimes the story evolves in a direction you don't intend, but you can always go back and fix the beginning in a later edit to align better with the ending. That's really not a possibility with TV, because there's the big sunk cost involved in scenes which have already been shot. And we know for both seasons of Discovery they were still writing episodes for the end of the season while they were filming episodes for the beginning of the season, meaning they didn't have the luxury of fixing the beginning to align better with the ending.

 

[Lord Garth]

This is pretty spot on. But if I could just add a little bit! I think the minor difference on the TV end is I don't think we'll have overlapping shows as far as when the seasons are released. I think one will end and another will start not long after since we aren't in the 22-26 episodes a season anymore. So while it may seem like oversaturation, I don't think anything will be airing at the same time. I could be wrong, though.

I don't think it'll be over-saturation either. I think new content all year round but never overlapping with each other would only qualify as "There's a ton now!" instead of "There's too much!"

Plus I'd like to also factor in that we're in a different world now. Entertainment and how it's ingested is so fractured now an IP could have eight shows on a streaming platform somewhere and it could go totally unnoticed if you're not subscribed to it.

There's another thing too. It's hard to tell what general consensus is. Everyone has always had an opinion but now we have YouTube and algorithms on the Internet that will give you news and information that you agree with, so it's all confirmation bias. One of the advantages of TrekBBS is that you get all kinds of opinions at the same time instead of hearing or reading just the ones you agree with.

But we're all still only a vocal minority and somewhere like YouTube just amplifies it further. Numbers don't lie, but CBSAA doesn't make its numbers available. Neither does somewhere like Netflix. So the way I'm going to gauge when the general feeling has reached "They're doing another one?!" is when CBSAA is ramping down the Star Trek content instead of up. Talk is cheap, actions are what matters. CBSAA's actions. So that'll be my way of filtering out all the noise to see what's really going on.

 

[Alan Roi]

Winging it is winging it though. It's not like writing a novel. I mean, when you write long-form fiction, sometimes the story evolves in a direction you don't intend, but you can always go back and fix the beginning in a later edit to align better with the ending. That's really not a possibility with TV, because there's the big sunk cost involved in scenes which have already been shot. And we know for both seasons of Discovery they were still writing episodes for the end of the season while they were filming episodes for the beginning of the season, meaning they didn't have the luxury of fixing the beginning to align better with the ending.

This sounds like you're still buying into the idea that both seasons ended wildly different from were they were conceived when the seasons started, and there's really zero evidence of that and even some proof that refutes such claims. and makes little sense as you so succinctly point out, sunk cost where you can't throw out sets, costuming, FX willy nilly and costing your production in big overruns. So at worst there's been some tinkering along the way each season but not wholesale changes.

And any decent writer, or group of writers, and AFAIC Discos writers are decent enough, don't need to change the beginnings if later stuff alters where you're going. You write a decent start, throw in some mystery and put in enough callbacks at the end to make it work. Not rocket surgery in this genre.

There is another reason there are problems with setting a TV show in stone for a 5 year arc or similar. Because, as almost every producer finds out, most of those shows whose showrunners do set that up last 1,2 or 3 seasons, leaving all your major payoffs in the garbage bin. I've seen enough of that to say, no thanks.

 

[DarKush]

I guess this is the best thread to voice my thoughts on Season 2, since I recently watched it on Blu-Ray. Overall I thought it was in many ways a step forward while also taking steps back.

They improved when it came to character development, adding new layers to Burnham's character while also developing other members of the crew/cast, and shifting the show more to resemble the ensemble feel of the other Trek series, particularly the Berman era. I liked when Pike had everyone say their names and we got to see more of the bridge crew, etc. show more personality. (The downside is that it felt a bit rushed, or forced since many of these characters were blank slates last year and it was hard for me to buy their close friendships this year. It felt like CBS/Kurtzman heard some fan complaints and just jumped to sort of creating an ensemble, family-like crew instead of showing us how they got there; and this was apparent the most with the death of Airiam; a well-made/well-acted episode, but it left me a bit cold because I didn't know enough about this character ahead of time to really care that much about her sacrifice/loss, and how much it affected the crew. They almost gave her a Wrath of Khan Spock send off, or even a Worf Season 4 finale send off and it didn't work for me). I didn't quite buy that all of the bridge crew would willingly leave the 23rd century behind for each other. I wish one or two didn't.

I also felt they rushed Emperor Georgiou's character arc as well, turning her more sympathetic to Michael, making her more of an antihero (I can see why they would do that, to make it easier for her to be the lead of the Section 31 series) but it felt like it was happening too fast to me. I did enjoy how Stamets and Culber's relationship was handled; I thought it was interesting to have Culber be almost a new person and has to approach his marriage, feelings, for Stamets through that new experience. I wasn't a fan of Tilly and her ghost friend and how they got to the new Culber however, and I was also iffy on Jet Reno. Sometimes I thought the character was a breath of fresh air, other times I thought she was too abrasive and insubordinate. I did find it weird though that Reno was gone for a good part of the series after her introduction and then pops back up.

I enjoyed Anson Mount's Pike quite a bit. He was a great antidote to Lorca's command style, though at times I felt he was too deferential and allowed crew members to interrupt him. I think they made him a bit too accommodating at times. I liked the Section 31/Control big bad plot. And I enjoyed how Leland wasn't completely depicted as bad. I'm not a fan though of Section 31 being so well-known (but I chalk that up to Kurtzman and how they were depicted in Into Darkness). I liked the choice for Number One, but they didn't do much with the character.

The production values remain top notch. Each episode was cinematic. My only quibble was when they had the nanites attacking Burnham. That looked surprisingly cheap and I wasn't sure what they were going for there. I was okay with the Discovery Enterprise, and the new take on the TOS uniforms grew more and more on me.

When it came to taking steps back, I felt the writing wasn't as tight as the first season, the arc (s) weren't as strong. I thought the mystery surrounding Spock wasn't that compelling, and the show spent time building up this great betrayal of Spock by Michael, but when we get that scene, it was underwhelming. It was just kid Michael being very mean to kid Spock. How that would hurt him so deeply for years just didn't make sense to me. So I was iffy with how the Spock-Burnham relationship was depicted, though I thought Sonequa Martin-Green and Ethan Peck worked well together. I did find it weird that they had Sarek and Amanda come see only Burnham before she made the big time jump, and then the show had to twist itself a bit to keep them from seeing Spock while they were there; I can see Sarek not speaking to him, but not Amanda, especially after what she did during the season.

I also thought the Red Angel twist with Burnham's mom wasn't bad; though I wish there had been more of a mention of her father. I did think the actress playing Gabrielle Burnham was a good fit. She resembled Martin-Green.

I didn't care for a lot of the Klingon stuff. One of the few times I don't think the show's designs worked well was when it came to Klingon architecture. I did appreciate that the Klingons have hair again and also the inclusion of the D7. I still wish here that they would show different kinds of Klingons. We are too close now to TOS to ignore the smooth-head Klingons. To me, Tyler is too human looking (being a human explains that of course) to be a stand-in for them. I'm also not a fan of how Discovery has their Klingons pronounce "Qo'noS" and "Kahless".

I think the second season got better once we got to Control and the mystery of the Red Angel was solved. The first half meandered a bit, as if the writers were trying to find their place.

I liked how the second season ended, and the catapulting of Discovery into the future and how it's fate has been covered up, which neatly explains why Spock or no one else ever mentioned them. I wonder now though if the ship will remain in the future. I hope so because it opens the door for them to tell all kinds of stories, to go all kinds of places without worrying about continuity. The downside is that the Tyler/L'Rell-Section 31/Klingon storyline won't be resolved, unless that's for the Section 31, or fingers-crossed Pike series.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm also not a fan of how Discovery has their Klingons pronounce "Qo'noS" and "Kahless".

I love that. It's very Sean Connery and I love the idea of accented Klingon.