What was your impression of Season 2 overall?

[eschaton]

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...

To my mind, the most important thing to remember regarding DS9 - which set it really, really far apart from the other shows - is just because a main character says something doesn't mean we're supposed to think it's right. So while TNG would have Picard stand up there and pontificate about why thing X was bad and make it very very clear what message we were supposed to draw, DS9 would present all sides of the issue, and make it very clear that it wasn't going to come down to a pat answer - that we were going to have to end each episode and think about what it really had to say. Thus Kira's religiosity, Odo's authoritarian nature, or Quark's capitalism aren't meant as stand ins for the writer's ideology - they just stand by themselves as reflections of the character, with the writers trying to do their own POV as much justice as possible, rather than strawmanning them.

 

[Amasov]

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.

I don't know. If the same thing were done on the other shows, it would still be "one ship" since each series wants to portray its hero ship as the most important ship in the galaxy.

 

[fireproof78]

just because a main character says something doesn't mean we're supposed to think it's right.

I love this about DS9. I honestly think audience members tend to put too much weight behind "protagonist=right" when that isn't always the case. That's why I like DSC as well. I don't need TV shows to tell me what's right.

 

[Rahul]

To my mind, the most important thing to remember regarding DS9 - which set it really, really far apart from the other shows - is just because a main character says something doesn't mean we're supposed to think it's right. So while TNG would have Picard stand up there and pontificate about why thing X was bad and make it very very clear what message we were supposed to draw, DS9 would present all sides of the issue, and make it very clear that it wasn't going to come down to a pat answer - that we were going to have to end each episode and think about what it really had to say. Thus Kira's religiosity, Odo's authoritarian nature, or Quark's capitalism aren't meant as stand ins for the writer's ideology - they just stand by themselves as reflections of the character, with the writers trying to do their own POV as much justice as possible, rather than strawmanning them.

I'm not so sure about that. Because very often, the characters do some very wrong things (using WMDs on civilians, committing murder to cover up a conspiracy,...). Then the show presents that as "morally ambigous" - in the sense that the viewer should draw their own conclusions. But then the storyline completely justifies the actions of the characters and presents them not only as the correct, but only correct approach. (The same way DIS preaches against genocide, and yet the immediate threat of Klingon genocide is the only thing that actually ends the war in the last second).

Thus when the characters portray their "ambigous" characteristics (Odo's authoritarianism, Sisko's war crimes), it's most of the times equally blunt as Picard's famous speeches, just with the added coolness factor of doing something forbidden.

But if you, as a viewer, disagree with these extremes (which I often did), you're not only disagreeing with the characters (which would be fine), but very explicitly with the showrunners as well. Because they never disagreed with their own characters too much, no matter how far they went with them.

And that's not even getting into all the times the writers drank their own cool-aid and very openly believed the stuff they wrote, aka that you can't have an Utopia without a "necessary" evil like S31.

 

[fireproof78]

The same way DIS preaches against genocide, and yet the immediate threat of Klingon genocide is the only thing that actually ends the war in the last second

Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make it morally acceptable nor does it make the audience agree with it. If that's the stipulation then how many people agree with Robin Hood and his theft, or "Breaking Bad" and his drug running or Batman and his vigilantism?

But if you, as a viewer, disagree with these extremes (which I often did), you're not only disagreeing with the characters (which would be fine), but very explicitly with the showrunners as well. Because they never disagreed with their own characters too much, no matter how far they went with them.

What's wrong with disagreeing with the showrunners? I didn't always agree with GR but that doesn't make TOS less entertaining for me.

 

[eschaton]

I'm not so sure about that. Because very often, the characters do some very wrong things (using WMDs on civilians, committing murder to cover up a conspiracy,...). Then the show presents that as "morally ambigous" - in the sense that the viewer should draw their own conclusions. But then the storyline completely justifies the actions of the characters and presents them not only as the correct, but only correct approach. (The same way DIS preaches against genocide, and yet the immediate threat of Klingon genocide is the only thing that actually ends the war in the last second).

Thus when the characters portray their "ambigous" characteristics (Odo's authoritarianism, Sisko's war crimes), it's most of the times equally blunt as Picard's famous speeches, just with the added coolness factor of doing something forbidden.

But if you, as a viewer, disagree with these extremes (which I often did), you're not only disagreeing with the characters (which would be fine), but very explicitly with the showrunners as well. Because they never disagreed with their own characters too much, no matter how far they went with them.

And that's not even getting into all the times the writers drank their own cool-aid and very openly believed the stuff they wrote, aka that you can't have an Utopia without a "necessary" evil like S31.

If you're talking about For the Uniform, I think the show is pretty goddamned clear we're supposed to find Sisko's actions appalling. His feud with Eddington is presented in a very personal manner, and the episode seems to suggest personal vengeance was to a great extent his true motivation. I'm not saying that the episode was flawless - and Sisko's actions should have had more repercussions down the line - but we really were not meant to feel "rah rah Sisko" at the end.

In the Pale Moonlight is another thing entirely. It's widely considered to be one of the best episodes in Trek history because of the layers it has. On one hand, one could view it as a meditation on whether the ends justify the means, because - as Garak says - a few dead people balanced out against all the lives saved by the Romulans entering the war is a pretty good balance. But it's also a tragedy, insofar as we see Sisko descend deeper and deeper into the mire with each bad decision he makes. The important thing at the end is we see that Sisko is still suffering for it. Yes, he did a very bad thing, but he didn't do so with a clean conscience - and it will eat away at him for the rest of his life. The war had many casualties, and one of the greatest was Benjamin Sisko's soul. This is part of why it's a much superior episode to For the Uniform.

Honestly, the post 9/11 vibe of Enterprise's third season - including Archer torturing prisoners for information - was way more fucking disturbing to me.

 

[plynch]

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

No problem. Be well.

 

[Alan Roi]

And that's not even getting into all the times the writers drank their own cool-aid and very openly believed the stuff they wrote, aka that you can't have an Utopia without a "necessary" evil like S31.

When people start going to significant lengths to justify their less than aboveboard existence or behavior, I take that as an obvious clue to not believe what I'm being told by a show. You seriously don't? IMO, its when character's don't bother to say anything to justify their difficult to justify behavior that I view the writers as drinking their kool-aide.

PS. In the TOS era which Disco slightly predates, The Federation isn't a Utopia, no one ever refers to it as even remotely such, and every time a Utopia is encountered, it's viewed as highly suspect if not straight out unnatural and to be set back on its proper path.

 

[SolarisOne]

it's viewed as highly suspect if not straight out unnatural and to be set back on its proper path.

Picard would have a fit over this. He'd say something like "The Prime Directive is the bedrock upon which the Federation's interaction with other cultures rests. <insert overlong speech here.>"

 

[fireproof78]

PS. In the TOS era which Disco slightly predates, The Federation isn't a Utopia, no one ever refers to it as even remotely such, and every time a Utopia is encountered, it's viewed as highly suspect if not straight out unnatural and to be set back on its proper path.

This is much is true. Even Spock notes the possibility of individuals being uncomfortable with some of the more manufactured environments. We have an episode where a Federation advisor ends up replicating Nazi Germany in a very painful way. You have psychological experimentation that ends up causing more damage. Multiple intergalactic powers threatening war-Romulans, Klingons, Tholians, Gorn.

And, yet, somehow, the idea of a clandestine wet works agency is unimaginable?

 

[JamesRye]

My impression of DSC Season 2 is that:
1. The creators really wanted a tonal shift from Season 1. The colour palette is warmer, it's a little less over-wrought and Pike is a breath of fresh air.
2. The story is extremely convoluted and tonally off. I mean that red angel suit is just weird magic (like the spore drive). There's lots of logic gaps and lazy story telling. The bit where Cornwall sacrifices herself is - unfortunately - laughable. As are scenes like the turbo lift exteriors and Section 31 badges and Control being ultimately destroyed by..........magnets. Tonally, it's also way off. You have a genocidal Empress who is now somehow working for Starfleet (how, why?) and the actress acts like she's in Batman 66. Then you have Burnham, who's acting like everything is deadly serious and important and there are these deep emotional scenes she has where she says how much she loves people (don't tell - show, earn it).
3. There's a lot of 'fan service' in both positive (The dude that plays Spock is great and so is Pike) and negative ways. The creators really tie themselves in knots trying to fit into what came before.
4. DSC season 2 really is Science Fantasy - but then Star Trek had been going that way for a while. Watch The Expanse if you want realistic SF (it is amazing).
5. The series looks incredible, better VFX than a lot of movies. But some of the direction is distracting.

It's a weird show for me to watch. I like it, but it doesn't fit into the previously established continuity properly. This would be less of a problem if the overall story made a lick of sense. I also feel that it's a bit like Enterprise in that you have some really good actors, but they don't feel relaxed (Scott Bakula is a talented man, but as Archer, he was badly miscast). Line deliveries are somehow tense and stilted. If you go back and watch Patrick Stewart in Season 1 of TNG, his line deliveries are awkward too, I don't think he settled nicely until season 2/3. If you do go back and watch season 1 then check out how totally lost poor Denise Crosby is in Hide and Q.

I want to love this show, but it's too fantastical at times and it often feels rushed (like Game of Thrones' last two seasons). It needs to bring the drama down a notch or two, lets see the crew solve problems together and build a sense of reality back up. I mean, you could imagine serving on The Enterprise, or living on DS9. But what would it be like to live on Discovery (frenetic, dizzying and emotional probably)?

 

[Noname Given]

4. DSC season 2 really is Science Fantasy - but then Star Trek had been going that way for a while...

Yeah, since September 8, 1966 (Sorry, but at NO TIME has Star Trek even been near to being 'Hard' science fiction.)

 

[Alan Roi]

4. DSC season 2 really is Science Fantasy - but then Star Trek had been going that way for a while. Watch The Expanse if you want realistic SF (it is amazing).

The Expanse is just as guilty as Disco in numerous ways where it comes to magic technology. Most especially is the central mcguffin of the series, the protomolecule which produces all sorts of tech as magic effects, along with even some Earth technology, such as the tech as magic bracelets which cure fatal doses of radiation poisoning in minutes.

 

[fireproof78]

But what would it be like to live on Discovery (frenetic, dizzying and emotional probably)?

Yeah, probably. But then, most starships end up in ridiculous situations that would probably traumatize the crew forever and that's just week to week.

 

[Alan Roi]

Picard would have a fit over this. He'd say something like "The Prime Directive is the bedrock upon which the Federation's interaction with other cultures exists. <insert overlong speech here.>"

Until Wesley did something stupid that broke a law and Picard had to step in and save his life. And then that speech would be about how there's something wrong with the Utopia and it's most basic tenets have to be changed irrevocably.

 

[Jadeb]

You have a genocidal Empress who is now somehow working for Starfleet (how, why?) and the actress acts like she's in Batman 66. Then you have Burnham, who's acting like everything is deadly serious and important and there are these deep emotional scenes she has where she says how much she loves people (don't tell - show, earn it).

I agree with your whole post, but this is the best description of the Empress I’ve ever read. It’s bizarre that she and big tears Burnham are in the same show.

 

[fireproof78]

I agree with your whole post, but this is the best description of the Empress I’ve ever read. It’s bizarre that she and big tears Burnham are in the same show.

Art imitates life.

 

[plynch]

 

[eschaton]

I agree with your whole post, but this is the best description of the Empress I’ve ever read. It’s bizarre that she and big tears Burnham are in the same show.

And then you add TIlly into the mix, who in the second season felt like she wandered in off of Big Bang Theory.

 

[Norsehound]

On the whole of it, disappointment.

New Eden had me interested because it set the tone of the show, apparently, as a mystery of science vs faith, but more in the way of exploring which one was right rather than saying one was superior to the other. You have a possibly malevolent being constructed in the shape of a religious icon- yet it must use science to do what it does. Pike's background about his parents felt to me like a clue about what the show was about. Pike, and the crew, would reconcile science vs faith to solving the puzzle.

But the left-turn of suddenly giving us a hostile A.I. as our antagonist, and abandoning the philosophical questions hinted at in New Eden, left me with whiplash. I feel the show got dumber in a way, and when it seemed clear the show was going to be going into the far future- instead of fleshing out a period of trek that needs more screen time, I started to check out. I finished the show to see if they wouldn't go into the future... but...

I admit it's a little hard for me to work up interest to watch Season 3. In some way shape or form I may check it out just to see what it's about, but little beyond the 2290s has interested me in trek history and I don't think S3 is going to be any different. Especially if the show is quick to abandon interesting premises for another clone-yet-not-clone of the Borg. If I watched, I'd be holding my breath for the crew to return to their proper time period and probably end up disappointed again.