The writing is the biggest problem with this show. And in that respect it reminds me of the first seasons of shows such as Lost in Space and Another Life. Far to many plotlines crammed into the first season and trying to hard to delineate the character of the various people in the show. A great example is the character of Naomi and her extreme awkward verbosity and another is Lt Lane. The obvious telegraphing is a distinct mark of a junior writers hired on a trim budget.
Equally at fault is the director and showrunners for allowing this to happen. Its there job to put a stop to it and inject some pace and maturity. Again I think we are witnessing inexperience.
The final aspect that will grate on anyone with even a modicum of scientific knowledge is the many, many, many mistakes in basic science, which result in some gaping plotholes.
But there are positives. I am in the final 3 episodes of the season and there is a glimmer that the rush to cram every episode is ever so slightly dissipating. The sets and special effects are all first rate. There remains a tendency tendency to put the very lovely Tiana Upcheva (Eva the chief engineer) in skimpy tops but despite that I do believe we have seen some modest improvements in fleshing out the characters (very modest). The acting is actually generally reasonably good given how poor some of the material has been. They are not wooden and I think there is actually good talent in the actors. The weakest link in the acting crew might actually be Christie Burke who really does not seem to have much dimension or range as an actor but perhaps it is the material.
I am currently about to commence episode 9 of the first season (of 12). Given the improvements I have seen (very gradual but there are some) I am going to watch the final 3 and hope for the best.
My words to the writers and showrunners - not every moment has to be a crisis. There can be victories in positive stories as well as crisis stories. An episode does not need to be jammed to the hilt to be dramatic. One or two major themes per episode is fine - it does not have to be twenty. Refrain from introducing wildcards every episode. Sometimes it is ok to focus on the grand journey and their moments in it instead of making every moment the journey.
Equally at fault is the director and showrunners for allowing this to happen. Its there job to put a stop to it and inject some pace and maturity. Again I think we are witnessing inexperience.
The final aspect that will grate on anyone with even a modicum of scientific knowledge is the many, many, many mistakes in basic science, which result in some gaping plotholes.
But there are positives. I am in the final 3 episodes of the season and there is a glimmer that the rush to cram every episode is ever so slightly dissipating. The sets and special effects are all first rate. There remains a tendency tendency to put the very lovely Tiana Upcheva (Eva the chief engineer) in skimpy tops but despite that I do believe we have seen some modest improvements in fleshing out the characters (very modest). The acting is actually generally reasonably good given how poor some of the material has been. They are not wooden and I think there is actually good talent in the actors. The weakest link in the acting crew might actually be Christie Burke who really does not seem to have much dimension or range as an actor but perhaps it is the material.
I am currently about to commence episode 9 of the first season (of 12). Given the improvements I have seen (very gradual but there are some) I am going to watch the final 3 and hope for the best.
My words to the writers and showrunners - not every moment has to be a crisis. There can be victories in positive stories as well as crisis stories. An episode does not need to be jammed to the hilt to be dramatic. One or two major themes per episode is fine - it does not have to be twenty. Refrain from introducing wildcards every episode. Sometimes it is ok to focus on the grand journey and their moments in it instead of making every moment the journey.
Tell Your Friends