Burnham Burritos barbs burn brightly. Break bread, buddies!
What would you like to see change for season 2?
- Thread starter eschaton
- Start date
Burnham gets turned into a Burrito and Tilly's green spore is the key to turning her back to normal. 
I'd like them to spend some more time off the ship, or at least stop using the same sets over and over again in such obvious ways. I know redressing sets is a staple in Trek, but the sets on DSC are VERY identifiable. It feels like they're always walking through the same 10 feet of hallway every scene. TNG had some variation in the way they configured the hallways and crew quarters which made it less noticeable in my opinion. But we've seen that set they use for crew quarters and sickbay reconfigured in so many ways without actually looking at all that different over and over again, especially given how sterile the set design (while still cool looking with nice lines) is compared to TNG which had a lot of personal touches and plants and whatnot. And as cool as that shot in Despite Yourself when Burnham beams off DSC into the Shenzhou transporter room was, it really highlights how many of the sets had been repurposed.
And more personal/official logs! It would be nice if the rest of what I am assuming the senior staff get more prominent roles, at least to where they're like the recurring characters of DS9. With that, I'm also dying for a conference room scene. I know some people hate them, but I just want one meeting around a table where they discuss their options. Just one...
And more personal/official logs! It would be nice if the rest of what I am assuming the senior staff get more prominent roles, at least to where they're like the recurring characters of DS9. With that, I'm also dying for a conference room scene. I know some people hate them, but I just want one meeting around a table where they discuss their options. Just one...
Last edited:
Yeah, for a season supposedly about Micheal Burnham, I still don't feel like I have a solid idea who she is as a person. In Act 1, she had a pretty good character arc, but her characterization was sort of all over the map, vacillating back and forth between an attempt at Vulcan reserve and seeming like a pretty normal person. Act 2 was basically "Burnham Must Suffer." It frankly wasn't interesting to see Burnham get emotionally tortured between getting nearly killed by Voq, betrayed by Lorca, and jerked around by MU Georgiou. I didn't think it told me much about her except that she cries a lot and has a hard time being objective about things.
This is a great point, and I've said similar things myself. They told this story as if they had no idea if they were ever going to get a second season and had to shoot their entire wad at once. Honestly it was scripted more like an extended action movie than modern drama, with everything pulled too tightly and "extraneous" dialogue not relating to the plot or the protagonist cut to a minimum.
As I've said before, Game of Thrones in its first season - with roughly the same budget and run time - provided full character development for 19 main cast members and a fair number of guest characters. This was possible because many of the episodes had relatively little in the way of plot or action, but lots of scenes with the characters talking to one another. I'm not saying that Discovery needs a main cast the size of Game of Thrones or even DS9, but there clearly is the air time available to tell compelling stories about the entire cast and then some.
One problem with this is if Discovery was this amazing ship that saved the day so many times, it should be mentioned just as much as Kirk's Enterprise in the later series.
That was one of my favorite moments of the series. Not only because it was legit "Piller filler" which showed she was more than a character archetype, but also because it was one of the few times the show actually had a bit of a sense of humor.
I think people need to let this line of reasoning go. New history is being added and going forward it would be mentioned in other shows and offerings. Just because the idea of Discovery didn't exist in the past decades doesn't mean it shouldn't and can't be allowed to do amazing things now. If a in-universe answer is needed how about this. Not everyone talks about every bit of history, especially if it doesn't pertain to what they're doing in the moment. We normally see very tiny parts of the lives of one set of crew at a time in an organization that has thousands of members that are are among a population of billions several times over.
How often does Kirk and crew really get referenced in TNG, DS9, Voyager? Not at a lot from what I remember. I think it was once in Voyager. I don't remember any references to be honest in DS9. TNG likely had the most and even then maybe not as much as one would think. How about the Enterprise B and C. We know they existed and very likely did important things. Does because we never hear about them mean new stories about them couldn't be made? Ever since Generations I've wanted to see more of the B and her crew.
Trials and Tribbleations, Crossover
Plus subtler references like the Khitomer Accords.But your point stands - references to Kirk and co in later series are minimal and generally there as nostalgia for us, rather than useful plot devices for the characters. Besides, there is a lot that happens in TOS and the movies that should be world changing, but never gets referenced again. The absence of explicit Discovery references later on is hardly a handicap. Plus there's the self evident fact that you can't reference a TV show that hasn't been made yet. Hence why DSC has lots of ENT references and TNG did not.
Be careful asking them to "slow down the plot" - they could take that to mean drag it out like Lost/Walking Dead.
What actually needs to happen is for plots to make sense/be sensible, grounded in real science. They seem to race ahead because no time is given to the viewer to actually think them over. By all means, pause long enough sometimes to allow us to catch up with a character's emotions, and pause to dwell on the beauty of space sometimes. But the speed plot moves at wasn't so much of an issue as how credible said plot was.
When you remove the padding, it was contrived, hence why one might feel "hold on a second, that didn't make sense, slow down". Firefly did more in 14 episodes than most modern shows do in 6 seasons.
My changes would be:
- Go back to Star Trek's humanism, and love for the natural sciences
- Make plots believable, sensible, and interesting
- Make motives credible
- Explore and build the universe more, showing many planets/civilizations, a broad world, and alien life
- If Klingons return, throw some hair/beards on some of them
- If Klingons return, make their ships actually look Klingon
- Do not ape other science fiction for visual design, for Star Trek has it's own strengths and traditions
- Don't break with visual canon for the sake of it, do it judiciously
- Cut out the soap-opera; interpersonal drama shouldn't seem forced/contrived
- Maybe consider some stand-alone episodes with hard science fiction, between arcs?
Like Star Wars, Star Trek lives and dies by it's underlying philosophy, without which it's just a generic space show, and not a cultural touchstone. So maintaining that humanism and love for the sciences is important, even if it's in the background, just informing things subtly, like DS9. Not everyone may agree with the enlightenment, progressivism and modernity, but nobody can deny that a show that has a clear and unflinching idea driving it, is more compelling than one that does not, hence the popularity of Star Wars's gospel with the masses.
EDIT: Incidentally, the spore drive wasn't liked because it violated one of Trek's cardinal virtues; travel should take time, like The Lord of the Rings, Star Trek establishes exotic distance through effort required to get there.... the tendency in modern sci-fi toward "jump drives", instantaneous travel, make a galaxy feel small. Respectfully, the sooner it is forgotten the better. Warp drive is iconic.
What actually needs to happen is for plots to make sense/be sensible, grounded in real science. They seem to race ahead because no time is given to the viewer to actually think them over. By all means, pause long enough sometimes to allow us to catch up with a character's emotions, and pause to dwell on the beauty of space sometimes. But the speed plot moves at wasn't so much of an issue as how credible said plot was.
When you remove the padding, it was contrived, hence why one might feel "hold on a second, that didn't make sense, slow down". Firefly did more in 14 episodes than most modern shows do in 6 seasons.
My changes would be:
- Go back to Star Trek's humanism, and love for the natural sciences
- Make plots believable, sensible, and interesting
- Make motives credible
- Explore and build the universe more, showing many planets/civilizations, a broad world, and alien life
- If Klingons return, throw some hair/beards on some of them
- If Klingons return, make their ships actually look Klingon
- Do not ape other science fiction for visual design, for Star Trek has it's own strengths and traditions
- Don't break with visual canon for the sake of it, do it judiciously
- Cut out the soap-opera; interpersonal drama shouldn't seem forced/contrived
- Maybe consider some stand-alone episodes with hard science fiction, between arcs?
Like Star Wars, Star Trek lives and dies by it's underlying philosophy, without which it's just a generic space show, and not a cultural touchstone. So maintaining that humanism and love for the sciences is important, even if it's in the background, just informing things subtly, like DS9. Not everyone may agree with the enlightenment, progressivism and modernity, but nobody can deny that a show that has a clear and unflinching idea driving it, is more compelling than one that does not, hence the popularity of Star Wars's gospel with the masses.
EDIT: Incidentally, the spore drive wasn't liked because it violated one of Trek's cardinal virtues; travel should take time, like The Lord of the Rings, Star Trek establishes exotic distance through effort required to get there.... the tendency in modern sci-fi toward "jump drives", instantaneous travel, make a galaxy feel small. Respectfully, the sooner it is forgotten the better. Warp drive is iconic.
Last edited:
There were numerous references to TOS in TNG, DS9, and Voyager. There were also numerous references to the TOS movies.
I did manage to watch the last few episodes, and if TPTB want me to watch the new season, the following will be necessary:
1. NO KLINGONS. Period. Zip. ZERO. If I want to watch Doctor Who-style villains, I'll watch Doctor Who. I don't need to be annoyed by ssslllloooowwww-speaking fake-looking "Klingons" with silly subtitles that have people so busy reading that they're not actually watching the show.
2. I hate the opening. Honestly, Star Trek should have some kind of stars in the opening sequence, instead of revolting red-and-yellow drawings.
3. Stop telling the audience how wonderful, smart, and brilliant Burnham is. That just makes her seem like a Mary Sue character. Show her being wonderful, smart, and brilliant - and in ways other than kicking and punching other characters.
4. Either rewrite Sarek or hire a better actor. Get rid of this magic phone-a-friend telepathy thing he and Michael have. It's still ridiculous how chummy he is with her, but won't speak to his own son.
Agreed, the opening is awful.
I think we wanted something in the traditional Star Trek style of DS9/Voyager, that was a bit more majestic than recent 3-second TV credit sequences, or at least artistic and of the quality of say Westworld, and what we got, looks suprisingly bad.... almost like one of these renaissance compilations of Leonardo Da Vinci's drawings.... except without anything meaningful at all, just random floating Klingon blades and a flower.
Someone said they changed VFX companies at the last minute.
I wonder if that had something to do with it?
Her dreary narration and speeches don't help either.
“We” didn’t all want any such thing. Those openings are boring, not “majestic” (of course, note I don’t presume to speak for anyone other than myself on this point).
Overall, the only changes I’d like to see are minor. A few more visits to other planets, some other areas of the ship, no “multiverse extinction level” threats.
What I don’t want to see is anything that smacks of “more like TNG-era” Trek. There’s already PLENTY of that to watch.
The main part of the theme reminds me of a commercial for an investment firm. I can't remember which one because I don't pay much heed to commercials in general.
As far as the visuals, Orphan Black had a strange opening thing which didn't do much for me, but the show was outstanding.
Now this could be a great 3 episode arc. Freaking spore network becomes the threat, retaliates and puts a whoopin' on the Quadrant for violating it then the Federation figures out how to communicate and "get along" with it - which means not violating it anymore. Feels Trekky to me.
Star Trek has always been speed by plot, on tv and in the movies. How long does it take from Earth to Vulcan?
TMP 4 days, ENT a few hours, ST09 10 minutes? As for Bajor to Earth seems Bajor is not far away after all.
Too TNG-ish.
Trials and Tribbleations, Crossover
Pretty sure there is an episode where a bomb involving protomatter is almost sent into Bajor's sun.
My big issue with the spore drive is it's basically "god mode." It allows travel not just through space, but through time, and to alternate universes. This means it's a far too convenient dues ex machina for the writers, and it needs to die as quickly as possible before more damage is done to the timeline and canon.
Indeed. I really don't want this to go into a "purge the writer's room" discussion, but if the writer's room doesn't have the chops to write genuine soaring oratory and monologue, they should stick to more naturalistic dialogue.
Similar threads
