What would you like to see change for season 2?

[Jayson1]

You know I think they might need to create a few more standing sets when I think about it. You will need a main engineering room. I would love to see them create something massive like the promenade on DS9 but not sure what kind of set would call for something that big. If the show is going to be doing more science stuff how about a recreation deck? You have all sorts of stuff their from a bowling alley to a gym to a libary.


Jason

 

[NaughtyTrekkie]

change starfleet uniforms

 

[Terok Nor]

Far less Klingons.
Kill Burnham.
More stand-alone episodes.

 

[eschaton]

You know I think they might need to create a few more standing sets when I think about it. You will need a main engineering room. I would love to see them create something massive like the promenade on DS9 but not sure what kind of set would call for something that big. If the show is going to be doing more science stuff how about a recreation deck? You have all sorts of stuff their from a bowling alley to a gym to a library.

It would be nice to start to see the inside of starbases (beyond a few cramped meeting rooms) on a regular basis. It wouldn't even have to always be the same starbase - they could redress the set depending upon which one it is, considering it's likely they were built to routine specifications.

 

[Lezta]

Show a real D7.

Put some bloody hair on the Klingons. (and show some smooth heads too, whilst their at it.)

Show the Enterprise with Cage inspired uniforms and looking sets. (bonus points for having Discovery and everyone else switch to them at some point in the future)

Better defined crew and roles. What exactly is Stamets job? Is he Chief Engineer? Let's have a Chief Engineer. Give us an actual CMO not just some lackey. Trek is traditionally about the senior staff.

Make the show an ensemble. Not every episode needs to focus on Michael. Let the other characters get their moments to shine.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

Better writers.

No mystery box shenigans.

Less focus on Michael Burnham, more focus on other characters.

Make Michael Burnham less smug and annoying.

Don't start at the end, then write your stories to meet whatever you planned for the end. Begin at the beginning and plan the journey to the end, with stated objectives.

 

[Ovation]

Make the show an ensemble.

Yuck. That’s just a recipe for diluting stories to make sure “everyone gets a turn”. Perhaps the single most appealing aspect of TOS is that it is decidedly NOT “an ensemble”.

An occasional story where a secondary character gets a bit more exposure? Ok. But regular visits with Ensign Cyborg and Lt. Eyebrow? No thanks.

 

[Long Syntax]

Yuck. That’s just a recipe for diluting stories to make sure “everyone gets a turn”. Perhaps the single most appealing aspect of TOS is that it is decidedly NOT “an ensemble”.

An occasional story where a secondary character gets a bit more exposure? Ok. But regular visits with Ensign Cyborg and Lt. Eyebrow? No thanks.

I somewhat agree with you here, but would amend to say, rather than ensemble, a set of core actors, maybe three?, and then supporting cast, rather than one core actor and everyone else the supporting cast. Having an ensemble where everyone gets equal time would be as sucky as Burnham being the core focus of the plot.

 

[eschaton]

I somewhat agree with you here, but would amend to say, rather than ensemble, a set of core actors, maybe three?, and then supporting cast, rather than one core actor and everyone else the supporting cast. Having an ensemble where everyone gets equal time would be as sucky as Burnham being the core focus of the plot.

Not a single Trek show has been a true ensemble. Even on DS9, Sisko gets a plurality of lines across the series as a whole.

That said, I much preferred the DS9 format because of the freedom it gave the writers to develop virtually anyone -even recurring characters - in a given episode. For example, one of my favorite Season 7 episodes - It's Only A Paper Moon - starred two recurring characters (Nog and Vic Fontaine) with the main cast reduced to bit parts for the week. It helped to give the series more of a "big quadrant" feel, and allowed the writers to examine the Federation through many highly divergent points of view across the seven seasons.

 

[Long Syntax]

Not a single Trek show has been a true ensemble. Even on DS9, Sisko gets a plurality of lines across the series as a whole.

That said, I much preferred the DS9 format because of the freedom it gave the writers to develop virtually anyone -even recurring characters - in a given episode. For example, one of my favorite Season 7 episodes - It's Only A Paper Moon - starred two recurring characters (Nog and Vic Fontaine) with the main cast reduced to bit parts for the week. It helped to give the series more of a "big quadrant" feel, and allowed the writers to examine the Federation through many highly divergent points of view across the seven seasons.

I really enjoyed DS9 and episodes Vic Fontaine appeared in. DS9 did a lot of things right in the way they structured the series. They had season arcs but within them there were episodes that could be considered fully stand alone. I've always enjoyed Trek that would occasionally step away from the formulaic Star Trek of the season and explore a cast member or two and explore them individually. As you mention, Paper Moon being one of them, or TNG's Inner Light (a big fan favorite) which takes place almost entirely off of ENT-D. These (among others) are moments where the audience connects with a character. Looking at it a different way, maybe I just have trouble connecting to characters that service only the season long plot.

 

[eschaton]

I really enjoyed DS9 and episodes Vic Fontaine appeared in. DS9 did a lot of things right in the way they structured the series. They had season arcs but within them there were episodes that could be considered fully stand alone. I've always enjoyed Trek that would occasionally step away from the formulaic Star Trek of the season and explore a cast member or two and explore them individually. As you mention, Paper Moon being one of them, or TNG's Inner Light (a big fan favorite) which takes place almost entirely off of ENT-D. These (among others) are moments where the audience connects with a character. Looking at it a different way, maybe I just have trouble connecting to characters that service only the season long plot.

Basically, DS9 had three kind of episodes. Well over half of the show was "character Trek." Generally these episodes focused on one character, but depending upon the presence of an A/B plot structure or whether they were examining the relationships between characters, they could focus on as many as four. Episodes without character focus were generally the big action pieces which moved along the Dominion War - although they could also include many of DS9's successful comedy episodes. Very few episodes compared with the other series dealt with an "anomaly of the week" and those were mostly disposed of later in the series.

In general, I think you could have seen the embryonic beginnings of this breakdown in Discovery. Act 1 was mostly arc, but it also had character stories largely unrelated to the arc - such as Burnham dealing with her feelings about Sarek, Saru on Pahvo, and seeing Lorca imprsoned and interacting with Admiral Cornwell. Arguably Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad was meant as a comedy episode, but I don't think they played up the humor quite enough in that case. Still, Discovery could do worse than this three-way breakdown. As long as it stays out of the VOY/ENT trap of having a fake crisis each week which doesn't tell us anything new about the characters, I think it will work out okay.

 

[Jayson1]

One issue with the show is that with Lorca gone were is the internal conflict going to come from? This is one of the reasons I disliked some of the crew gelling as a family stuff at the end except maybe the scene were lots of character go and eat with Tyler. I am kind of nervous that the show is going to embrace the TNG style of the characters always getting along with each other because the writers think that is what Trek is about. It's the same mistake "Supergirl" makes. Everyone is nice and friendly and everyone is basically the same on all social or political issues. I loved how on DS9 you had Kira who was a former terrorist and Odo didn't always believe in the way Starfleet does things and ODO and Quark were always trying to basically Troll each other. Where is the drama and character conflict going to come from?
The show needs a asshole character or a loose cannon. Also it might be good if the villian is part of the ship dynamic instead of being off on some other ship or location doing his or her own thing. One good thing on DS9 was that Dukat had personal realtionships with the people on DS9 such as Kira and Sisko. One thing I wouldn't mind though is if they did a "Lost" or "Walking Dead" thing were you have the crew spread out in different locations during the season to help give the show some scope. I guess that is also a "Game of Thrones" thing as well. Maybe have Burnham,Tilly and villian on Vulcan for several episodes. Have new captain, Saru and Stamets doing stuff on the ship. Toss in a episode or two that comes from a outside perspective. You could do one episode that is all about Georgiou,KIlly and Mudd doing some crime capper and you doin't even see the main cast but maybe the crime has some connection to the bigger arc and even though you just did a standalone episode it still feels kind of important to the big picture.

Jason

 

[eschaton]

One issue with the show is that with Lorca gone were is the internal conflict going to come from? This is one of the reasons I disliked some of the crew gelling as a family stuff at the end except maybe the scene were lots of character go and eat with Tyler. I am kind of nervous that the show is going to embrace the TNG style of the characters always getting along with each other because the writers think that is what Trek is about. It's the same mistake "Supergirl" makes. Everyone is nice and friendly and everyone is basically the same on all social or political issues. I loved how on DS9 you had Kira who was a former terrorist and Odo didn't always believe in the way Starfleet does things and ODO and Quark were always trying to basically Troll each other. Where is the drama and character conflict going to come from?
The show needs a asshole character or a loose cannon. Also it might be good if the villian is part of the ship dynamic instead of being off on some other ship or location doing his or her own thing. One good thing on DS9 was that Dukat had personal realtionships with the people on DS9 such as Kira and Sisko. One thing I wouldn't mind though is if they did a "Lost" or "Walking Dead" thing were you have the crew spread out in different locations during the season to help give the show some scope. I guess that is also a "Game of Thrones" thing as well. Maybe have Burnham,Tilly and villian on Vulcan for several episodes. Have new captain, Saru and Stamets doing stuff on the ship. Toss in a episode or two that comes from a outside perspective. You could do one episode that is all about Georgiou,KIlly and Mudd doing some crime capper and you doin't even see the main cast but maybe the crime has some connection to the bigger arc and even though you just did a standalone episode it still feels kind of important to the big picture.

I dunno. The conflict worked on DS9 because there were people coming from very different cultural backgrounds, with half of the main cast not even members of the Federation. People weren't getting in fights because they were petty dicks, they were getting in fights because they had substantive disagreements about their beliefs about what was important.

On the other hand, although I really like The Expanse, one thing that the TV series added was needless conflict between the main characters. In the book, the main crew of the Roci all start out as friends who have known each other for years, and (aside from Holden and Naomi relationship drama) they all get along well. This works fine, because the conflict is introduced from from the outside. The decision of the series to have them start out as strangers, distrusting one another, and in some cases literally coming close to blows, just seems like silly melodrama which isn't needed to tell the story in front of them.

Or hell, take a Trek example - Enterprise. Although often knocked as a Voyager clone, one way in which Enterprise was more "modern" was the characters were flawed, and got into fights. T'Pol in particular was a dick to almost everyone at the beginning of the show. However, seeing the crew of the NX-01 being dicks didn't really make the show more interesting - it just made the characters less likable.

I guess the point I'm getting at is character conflict is fine, as long as it's substantive. If the show is just creating drama for the sake of being dramatic, I think I'll pass.

 

[lawman]

Yuck. That’s just a recipe for diluting stories to make sure “everyone gets a turn”. Perhaps the single most appealing aspect of TOS is that it is decidedly NOT “an ensemble”.

An occasional story where a secondary character gets a bit more exposure? Ok. But regular visits with Ensign Cyborg and Lt. Eyebrow? No thanks.

Huh. I couldn't disagree more. Most of my favorite TV shows over the years have been the ones that developed a strong ensemble cast... whether comedies (M*A*S*H, WKRP, Friends, Sports Night, Community) or dramas (LA Law, Picket Fences, Northern Exposure, West Wing, The Wire) or SF/genre shows (Babylon 5, DS9, Buffy, Firefly, Lost, nuBSG, Game of Thrones).

A robust ensemble allows a much more interesting mix of stories and character interactions, with less predictability. It's also more adaptable than a concept where all the focus is on just a single hero or a limited set of characters (e.g., a triad dynamic like Kirk-Spock-McCoy is magic when it happens, but you can't plan for something to work that well, you can only count your lucky stars when it does).

Of course it all depends on strong writing and acting, and it can also be done badly (as you describe), but that's basically true of any kind of show. And I'm not saying the background characters DSC has now necessarily have the makings of a great ensemble... but there's nothing stopping the show from introducing new characters.

 

[Jayson1]

I dunno. The conflict worked on DS9 because there were people coming from very different cultural backgrounds, with half of the main cast not even members of the Federation. People weren't getting in fights because they were petty dicks, they were getting in fights because they had substantive disagreements about their beliefs about what was important.

On the other hand, although I really like The Expanse, one thing that the TV series added was needless conflict between the main characters. In the book, the main crew of the Roci all start out as friends who have known each other for years, and (aside from Holden and Naomi relationship drama) they all get along well. This works fine, because the conflict is introduced from from the outside. The decision of the series to have them start out as strangers, distrusting one another, and in some cases literally coming close to blows, just seems like silly melodrama which isn't needed to tell the story in front of them.

Or hell, take a Trek example - Enterprise. Although often knocked as a Voyager clone, one way in which Enterprise was more "modern" was the characters were flawed, and got into fights. T'Pol in particular was a dick to almost everyone at the beginning of the show. However, seeing the crew of the NX-01 being dicks didn't really make the show more interesting - it just made the characters less likable.

I guess the point I'm getting at is character conflict is fine, as long as it's substantive. If the show is just creating drama for the sake of being dramatic, I think I'll pass.

I see your point about different cultures creating conflict because everyone has different backgrounds but I also think human personality causes conflict. One thing I like about Stamets is the guy is just a moody kind of guy who isn't always good with people. I would like to find out why he is like that but I do think in the end personality clashes is were most good conflict comes from. You do have conflict of high minded idea's which comes to play a lot in Trek but sometimes I just like the idea that someone is cocky and someone is shy and those personality traits create conflict. The writers do have to be honest with who their characters are. One good example might be someone not finding Tilly's jokey stuff amusing now that she is on a command track. Stamets might actually might not be a good chief engineer if that is the job he gets because he will have personal under him and he is basically being a bad boss even if he is smart enough to do the job. I'm sure their are many more examples you can work with.

Jason

 

[Verteron]

People in this thread: I suggest turning the show in to TOS/TNG/DS9/VGR/ENT!!

I suggest: not.

 

[Paradise City]

People in this thread: I suggest turning the show in to TOS/TNG/DS9/VGR/ENT!!

I dunno if making Michael Burnham less smug really qualifies as that.

 

[Jayson1]

The show is already a mixture of all those shows. It's got the bad looking Klingons and Spock like character in Saru from TOS It's a little preachy and the characters are little to poltical correct on all issues like TNG and it's got the strong black lead who ends up not being as interesting as the rest of the cast like DS9 and it's got the lazy plotting and ability to only show a surface interest in continuity of Voyager and the somewhat contemporary style of language from Enterprise. Lets not forget it's got the over use of flashy tech of the Kelvin Universe along with it's kind of "what is going on" type feeling with how fast people just become important members of the bridge crew that seems to defy all logic.

Jason

 

[Paradise City]

The show is already a mixture of all those shows. It's got the bad looking Klingons and Spock like character in Saru from TOS It's a little preachy and the characters are little to poltical correct on all issues like TNG and it's got the strong black lead who ends up not being as interesting as the rest of the cast like DS9 and it's got the lazy plotting and ability to only show a surface interest in continuity of Voyager and the somewhat contemporary style of language from Enterprise. Lets not forget it's got the over use of flashy tech of the Kelvin Universe along with it's kind of "what is going on" type feeling with how fast people just become important members of the bridge crew that seems to defy all logic.

Jason

Yeah, it seems to be a very crowded composite of all of Trek rather than something that adds something genuinely new or defies something that went on before. Perhaps they put it more on an adult footing but there's adult bits n' pieces that have permeated Trek to date -- more than one might think. The Ferengi oo-mox thing for example, lol.

Of course all exploration space drama are going to follow some kind of general template.

I think the general concept as to what lay behind the first season is as strong as anything. It's just the execution over the arc was totally bungled. The Burnham character, who is supposed to drive the show, totally misfires. She's invincible, she's the only one that speechifies and the big relationship she has is as wooden as anything. And if it wasn't for the relief of Lorca (who they promptly squandered), she'd hog the limelight with almost everyone else as morally neutral, two dimensional bit-players struggling for screen time. Voq/T'rell thing was almost totally mismanaged. That was an uninteresting muddle.

And of course, the big problem is that they lack any sense of televisual time management. I get it that it is a legitimate challenge to achieve the equilibrium between meeting deadlines and giving the plot threads their due. But other series do a good job with this -- so that expertise is out there.

That's the stuff they need to remedy imo.

 

[Jayson1]

To me the show works but it works in they way "Voyager" works in that you have some fun characters and some neat scenes and a very good episode from time to time but it is lacking something to make it feel special or unique. You got lots of stuff to work with to make it a very good show even great if SMG improves as a actor or even if they improve how they write the character. Look at David Borenez from "Buffy." He was almost nothing but a love hunk for Buffy who was only interesting that one time he turned into Angelus. I thought he was going to bomb on his own show but he improved just enough and he had great writers and one of the all-time best in Whedon and all of sudden "Angel" becomes a very good to great show. SMG and Burnham can be improved though i'm not sure if the current writers can do it. I really wish Fuller could come back.

Jason