What was your impression of Season 2 overall?

[plynch]

No one has ever described either show as "grim dark."

Rahul did, above. "I don't dislike DS9. Quite the opposite. I just don't have any passion for anything other than the recurring characters, whatsoever. Even though at the same time, I absolutely adore everything about the very similar nuBSG, from the same creative team. Because on BSG, they were able to focus on this type of story. In Trek, the wackyness of the overall universe always was in stark contrast to the GRIMDARK [emphasis mine] time they were aiming for. (Same for DIS, season 1)."

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Rahul did, above. "I don't dislike DS9. Quite the opposite. I just don't have any passion for anything other than the recurring characters, whatsoever. Even though at the same time, I absolutely adore everything about the very similar nuBSG, from the same creative team. Because on BSG, they were able to focus on this type of story. In Trek, the wackyness of the overall universe always was in stark contrast to the GRIMDARK [emphasis mine] time they were aiming for. (Same for DIS, season 1)."

He's wrong too. Neither show has anything grim dark about them. They are nothing like 40K.

 

[fireproof78]

"Grim dark" is an odd description to me. Maybe it's dark in comparison to other Trek, but not by a whole lot. And certainly not grimdark.

 

[eschaton]

I'll defend the Xindi-arc, because, all flaws side, it was a very solid, well planned, well structured arc, that had both a ticking clock AND a good mystery component that was hinted at from the very beginning and made sense in the resolution.

They also made the clever thing of adding a time-travel component to fit into canon. Sure, we know Earth won't get destroyed, as much as it wouldn't get destroyed in "Best of both worlds". But technically, it was still possible. Which makes all the difference for the stakes of a story. And we didn't know that the whole Expanse itself would have been gone by the end, but it was a natural conclusion of the arc, and not felt like a tacked on side-jump to calm down fans.

Also, it was set a 100 years before Kirk, and followed by a much bigger, much more costly war (the Romulan one), so it makes sense it wouldn't have been dropped casually into every conversation 100 years later, the same way we don't talk a lot about WWI, and focus more on WWII.

Aside from that, it had really solid character arcs planned out, for ALL major characters (except Mayweather...), and really did follow through on them and had lasting changes and consequences, that were informed by the events preceding them.

To be quite frank - I think DIS could learn a great deal from ENT season 3 and 4, as far as consistent planning, character and plot arcs and following through on themes is concerned.

To be clear, my problem with ENT's third season wasn't that it wasn't a well-constructed arc. It was fairly well executed, though it still felt like a DS9 knockoff in some ways, and was oddly unfinished (the Xindi weapon/homeworld never getting a name for example).

My problem with it was it really wasn't fitting with the idea of a Star Trek prequel. It told a save-the-Earth story which frankly any Star Trek could have told, and created a new antagonist/anomaly/assault on Earth that had never, even once, been heard of before. They could have easily worked some of the same ideas into starting the Romulan War a bit earlier and saved themselves a lot of headaches.

I'd honestly say that Discovery's second season works much better as a Trek prequel than Enterprise did until the fourth season.

All the TOS episodes were of the short-story variety they stopped at the 50 minute mark. As we all know short stories work very differently than novels. You don't get the Council of Elrond showing up in a Tolkien short for the same reason, because there isn't enough rooom to handle the scope. Novels allow for a substantially greater degree of scope and stakes. Discovery stories stop at the 800 minute mark. It hardly has an effect on Star Trek as a whole to build the stakes to match the size of the narrative and not descale an 800 minute story to what TNG used to make their filler eps out of. It is a different approach, and if you don't like it, that what happens with 50+ year old franchises who actually change with the times to stay alive. Some died in the wool advocates for old style storytelling get left behind. Back in the 80s I wasn't too pleased with the TNG story Relics that had vast potential to be much greater but was shoved into a bland filler episode with an embarassing stunt cameo. It wasn't for me. It happens. Other people like that episode, though.

I really have an issue with the formulation that in SF a long-form story must involve an existential threat to everything. I really liked the "galactic mystery" vibe we were getting from the start of Season 2, and I was really, really let down when they dragged Control into it and made it "all life in the Galaxy must die."

 

[Alan Roi]

I really have an issue with the formulation that in SF a long-form story must involve an existential threat to everything. I really liked the "galactic mystery" vibe we were getting from the start of Season 2, and I was really, really let down when they dragged Control into it and made it "all life in the Galaxy must die."

I understand that must is not a synonym for can. IMO, there's more to an 800 minute story than the ultimate stakes.

 

[SolarisOne]

Star Trek's take on the Terminator franchise. An overall inane take, I may add. The characters carried the season--the plot was only marginally better than season one, which isn't a very high bar.

 

[Rahul]

Rahul did, above. "I don't dislike DS9. Quite the opposite. I just don't have any passion for anything other than the recurring characters, whatsoever. Even though at the same time, I absolutely adore everything about the very similar nuBSG, from the same creative team. Because on BSG, they were able to focus on this type of story. In Trek, the wackyness of the overall universe always was in stark contrast to the GRIMDARK [emphasis mine] time they were aiming for. (Same for DIS, season 1)."

Wet have a quote-function around here...

And just in case you missed it: DS9 wasn't "grimdark". But it's obvious the writers wanted it to be at times. But failed. Because of the inherit wackyness of the show. Just to spell out about the what you just quoted...

 

[Rahul]

To be clear, my problem with ENT's third season wasn't that it wasn't a well-constructed arc. It was fairly well executed, though it still felt like a DS9 knockoff in some ways, and was oddly unfinished (the Xindi weapon/homeworld never getting a name for example).

My problem with it was it really wasn't fitting with the idea of a Star Trek prequel. It told a save-the-Earth story which frankly any Star Trek could have told, and created a new antagonist/anomaly/assault on Earth that had never, even once, been heard of before. They could have easily worked some of the same ideas into starting the Romulan War a bit earlier and saved themselves a lot of headaches.

I'd honestly say that Discovery's second season works much better as a Trek prequel than Enterprise did until the fourth season.



I really have an issue with the formulation that in SF a long-form story must involve an existential threat to everything. I really liked the "galactic mystery" vibe we were getting from the start of Season 2, and I was really, really let down when they dragged Control into it and made it "all life in the Galaxy must die."

Agree to disagree. I hate it when prequels feel the need to only ever revisit old content, never adding new one.

Yes, the Xindi arc could have been told in other shows. But not the way it was. The whole "one ship" thing would be gone.

They also did it right that the Xindi were far away from the Federation. In season 4, they were at home. That's were they met all the familiar species. That makes sense in a series that was originally built around exploration: have the familiar thing at home, and the unknown thing far away from home. That works even for a prequel.

DIS always stays with familiar species and familiar plots, no matter weather they travel 1000 years into the future, alternate universes, or can mushroom jump anywhere anytime in the whole universe. We only ever see familiar faces and plots. IMO that's not how a prequel (sequel/in-between-quel) is supposed to operate.

 

[Alan Roi]

DIS always stays with familiar species and familiar plots, no matter weather they travel 1000 years into the future, alternate universes, or can mushroom jump anywhere anytime in the whole universe. We only ever see familiar faces and plots. IMO that's not how a prequel (sequel/in-between-quel) is supposed to operate.

There were plenty of new faces and novel plots and new twists abounding in Disco from minute one. More than you would expect from a series in a franchise already has 600+ episodes.

 

[plynch]

Wet have a quote-function around here...

And just in case you missed it: DS9 wasn't "grimdark". But it's obvious the writers wanted it to be at times. But failed. Because of the inherit wackyness of the show. Just to spell out about the what you just "quoted"...

Dude, why the snark? Having been here over a decade, yes, I am aware there is a quote function. There was too much I would have had to delete to get what I wanted.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Let's be clear: grimdark, based around concepts from the Warhammer 40K universe, is not simply relentlessly violent, it is relentlessly hopeless, relentlessly unsentimental, relentlessly authoritarian ... . The fact that there were three weddings in DS9 should be enough to prove it was not grimdark, let alone hanging out at Vic's, falling in love, playing baseball, putting on a fantasy heist, actually ending the war.

DS9 was bittersweet and sometimes cynical. That's very far from grimdark.

 

[eschaton]

I understand that must is not a synonym for can. IMO, there's more to an 800 minute story than the ultimate stakes.

The highest stakes in a story are personal, not epic. There is no higher stake than personal oblivion for us as individuals. It's the whole reason why heroic sacrifice is one of the oldest tropes - probably going back to our earliest mythology. Plus the fact that most of us - when facing down certain death on one side, and saving many lives on the other - are cowards and would blink in the face of danger.

Unfortunately, the modern need for character continuance for franchise purposes means that playing realsies with character death - particularly popular character death - seldom happens. Even Game of Thones - which was supposedly notorious for "anyone can die" backed away from this more and more as it diverged from the books.

Yes, the Xindi arc could have been told in other shows. But not the way it was. The whole "one ship" thing would be gone.

Voyager?

DS9 was bittersweet and sometimes cynical. That's very far from grimdark.

I agree. I'd also say that after Ira Steven Behr was handed the reins in Season 3 DS9 got much less dark overall. The first two seasons were pretty heavily dour in tone overall when they weren't doing stories which were TNG leftover scripts hastily rewritten, with only a few counter-examples (Blood Oath). As the show went on, of course the Domnion War heated up, but Ira brought a TOS-like sense of camp to the show. The Ferengi episodes, most of the MU episodes, Our Man Bashir, In The Cards, Trials and Tribble-ations...the list goes on and on. As a result, I think DS9 was the most varied Trek show in terms of tone overall.

 

[fireproof78]

DIS always stays with familiar species and familiar plots

They actually didn't as much as it constantly purported about, at least in Season1. Saru being the chief example. Even with Pike and Spock they still explored different facets with the spore drive, as well as a new species in the Ba'ul and their relationship with the Kelpians.

I certainly think they can fall in to the prequel trap of utilizing familiar elements, but there is still a lot of variety too.

 

[Amasov]

I'll defend the Xindi-arc, because, all flaws side, it was a very solid, well planned, well structured arc, that had both a ticking clock AND a good mystery component that was hinted at from the very beginning and made sense in the resolution.

They also made the clever thing of adding a time-travel component to fit into canon. Sure, we know Earth won't get destroyed, as much as it wouldn't get destroyed in "Best of both worlds". But technically, it was still possible. Which makes all the difference for the stakes of a story. And we didn't know that the whole Expanse itself would have been gone by the end, but it was a natural conclusion of the arc, and not felt like a tacked on side-jump to calm down fans.

Also, it was set a 100 years before Kirk, and followed by a much bigger, much more costly war (the Romulan one), so it makes sense it wouldn't have been dropped casually into every conversation 100 years later, the same way we don't talk a lot about WWI, and focus more on WWII.

Aside from that, it had really solid character arcs planned out, for ALL major characters (except Mayweather...), and really did follow through on them and had lasting changes and consequences, that were informed by the events preceding them.

To be quite frank - I think DIS could learn a great deal from ENT season 3 and 4, as far as consistent planning, character and plot arcs and following through on themes is concerned.

Honestly, I think it would've made more sense if the Xindi arc was the Romulan War; or at least the start of it. Because we knew so little about this conflict, there was plenty of room for the writers to play in plus it would've fallen more easily into canon. We don't know what became of the Xindi and I have serious doubts they will make an appearance in any of the current or future shows. I was absolutely floored when they were referenced in Star Trek Beyond.

 

[Amasov]

You're assuming I think the Xindi arc was a good idea. It wasn't at all, at least if you care about canon. You shouldn't have a widely-known crisis threatening Earth in a prequel.

Nope, I wasn't assuming that; was just making a comparison. But, I do agree with you.

 

[Rahul]

I really have an issue with the formulation that in SF a long-form story must involve an existential threat to everything. I really liked the "galactic mystery" vibe we were getting from the start of Season 2, and I was really, really let down when they dragged Control into it and made it "all life in the Galaxy must die."

THIS.
So very much.

Voyager?

No, Voyager was a lost ship trying to get home. The whole "war on terrorism"-angle would be lost.

Dude, why the snark? Having been here over a decade, yes, I am aware there is a quote function. There was too much I would have had to delete to get what I wanted.

I'm genuinely sorry, re-reading my text it came across way harsher than it sounded in my head when writing it.

Let's be clear: grimdark, based around concepts from the Warhammer 40K universe, is not simply relentlessly violent, it is relentlessly hopeless, relentlessly unsentimental, relentlessly authoritarian ... . The fact that there were three weddings in DS9 should be enough to prove it was not grimdark, let alone hanging out at Vic's, falling in love, playing baseball, putting on a fantasy heist, actually ending the war.

DS9 was bittersweet and sometimes cynical. That's very far from grimdark.

I think this whole discussion "is DS9 grimdark" doesn't mean anything anyway, since we're all having different baselines. Of course DS9 is far, far, far away from something like "Warhammer40k".

But let's be clear - for a live action show, DS9 is extremely authoritarian and often promoting right-wing worldviews when dealing about foreign policy.

There does not exist anything like "soft power" in the DS9 universe, everything is a harsh, brutal zero sum game, where the stronger side wins, and the military solution is the right one, no matter the problem. Even when it comes to tangential stuff like starship design. In this regard, it's much closer to American military shows than previous Star Trek. Maybe I shouldn't have said "DS9 wanted to be grimdark". That's too ambigous. Let me re-phrase that to "DS9 wanted to be military SF". But never was - because it was trapped inside the larger, wacky, pulpy Star Trek universe.

 

[fireproof78]

and the military solution is the right one

Must have watched a much different show. Just because the solution was successful doesn't make it right.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

But let's be clear - for a live action show, DS9 is extremely authoritarian and often promoting right-wing worldviews when dealing about foreign policy.

There does not exist anything like "soft power" in the DS9 universe, everything is a harsh, brutal zero sum game, where the stronger side wins, and the military solution is the right one, no matter the problem. Even when it comes to tangential stuff like starship design. In this regard, it's much closer to American military shows than previous Star Trek. Maybe I shouldn't have said "DS9 wanted to be grimdark". That's too ambigous. Let me re-phrase that to "DS9 wanted to be military SF". But never was - because it was trapped inside the larger, wacky, pulpy Star Trek universe.

I think we watched different shows. The DS9 I saw did indeed contain some of these elements, but neither portrayed them as correct nor the only way, at least not on the whole, and certainly not moreso than the average live action adventure show, or even other Treks.

Must be some kind of mirror...

 

[Alan Roi]

The highest stakes in a story are personal, not epic. There is no higher stake than personal oblivion for us as individuals. It's the whole reason why heroic sacrifice is one of the oldest tropes - probably going back to our earliest mythology. Plus the fact that most of us - when facing down certain death on one side, and saving many lives on the other - are cowards and would blink in the face of danger.

Unfortunately, the modern need for character continuance for franchise purposes means that playing realsies with character death - particularly popular character death - seldom happens. Even Game of Thones - which was supposedly notorious for "anyone can die" backed away from this more and more as it diverged from the books.

The highest stakes of a story are set by the narrative and can be personal stakes but that has never been the only way a story can be written, despite your continuing insistence. As I have often said, there is more than one way any kind of story and that includes Star Trek stories. I agree that stories are about people, but there are many ways the concept of 'people' can be approached.

Also, there is nothing 'modern' about giving popular characters plot armor. Such behavior in storytelling and the receiving of storytelling is as old as human beings have been making up stories. There is no more creative high ground to be achieved in choosing one path or the other.

 

[Rahul]

I think we watched different shows. The DS9 I saw did indeed contain some of these elements, but neither portrayed them as correct nor the only way, at least not on the whole, and certainly not moreso than the average live action adventure show, or even other Treks.

Must be some kind of mirror...

I think DS9 is extremely weird in this regard... for a Trek show. Because it really struggles with its identity there. But that's my personal view.

In the same way that I like Donners' Superman movie for the bright, optimistic adventure it is. And I like Amazon's "the Boys" for brutally deconstructing the genre. And at the same time, I think Zach Snyder's "Man of Steel" was waaay too cynical and dark - even though it's super bright compared to "The boys". I still think it's "too grimdark" to be a proper Superman story.

DS9 being the Man of Steel in this analogy, which is too dark to be Superman (TOS, TNG, VOY,...), but too bright to be BSG or Starship Troopers (or Batman).

With the difference of course that DS9 has amazing characters, is generally very well done, and very entertaining.