Star Trek Discovery ***Season 2*** [** SPOILERS WITHIN **]

Greyjoy

New trailer looks intriguing though with some reservations. Given that this is a prequel series the apocalyptic threat of the 'red angel' seems a bit pointless unless there's time travel shenanigans involved?

AtomicHorror

Greyjoy wrote: »

New trailer looks intriguing though with some reservations. Given that this is a prequel series the apocalyptic threat of the 'red angel' seems a bit pointless unless there's time travel shenanigans involved?

Is it? We'd never heard of the Xindi in TOS or TNG despite them killing 7 million people during the 2150's...

Greyjoy

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Is it? We'd never heard of the Xindi in TOS or TNG despite them killing 7 million people during the 2150's...

The Temporal war in ENT enabled the writers to handwave away issues on why the Xindi were never referenced before. This new threat is that all sentient life in the galaxy will be wiped out - given that Discovery takes place before TOS/TNG we already know that threat won't succeed unless time travel is part of the storyline. Maybe the "Red Angel" has a connection to the 'red anti-matter' from the Abrams film?

On a dramatic level I was hoping the writers would go for a smaller story after the large scale story of the war from S1. Having the 2nd season be yet another threat to the entire Federation feels too repetitive. There's a reason episodes like "Best of Both Worlds" work so well because not every episode had the Enterprise crew dealing with saving the Federation every single week.

Evade

The Xindi attack was overshadowed by a much bigger conflict that took place a few years later, the Earth-Romulan War. It's the same reason you hardly hear about the Spanish-American War because the First World War kicked off 15 years later and was a much bigger deal. Or to put it in a modern context if there's a US-Russia/China/Other modern military War in the next few years people in the future wouldn't hear much about 9/11 and the subsequent conflicts.

AtomicHorror

Double post.

AtomicHorror

Evade wrote: »

The Xindi attack was overshadowed by a much bigger conflict that took place a few years later, the Earth-Romulan War. It's the same reason you hardly hear about the Spanish-American War because the First World War kicked off 15 years later and was a much bigger deal. Or to put it in a modern context if there's a US-Russia/China/Other modern military War in the next few years people in the future wouldn't hear much about 9/11 and the subsequent conflicts.

I don't have an issue with the failure to mention the Xindi- it's a big universe, a lot of bad stuff happens to a lot of people and a lot of time has passed. How many TV shows set in the 2000s never make reference to September 11, or recent wars? How often do we talk about such things when we're dealing with the more interesting parts of real life?

It's grand- another canon point I don't feel needs much or any exposition.

Greyjoy wrote: »

The Temporal war in ENT enabled the writers to handwave away issues on why the Xindi were never referenced before. This new threat is that all sentient life in the galaxy will be wiped out - given that Discovery takes place before TOS/TNG we already know that threat won't succeed unless time travel is part of the storyline.

We always know that threat won't succeed in Star Trek unless time travel is part of the storyline. That kind of threat is placed in a story to motivate the actions of the characters, but the audience is worried about the fate of the characters, not the fate of the world they know will be just fine.

fritzelly

Season extended... by one episode

Not much but I'll take it, gone are the days of TNG season episodes

AtomicHorror

Interesting stuff... most of these details about 1701 have been assumed by the fandom for decades but never actually canonized on screen.

https://trekmovie.com/2018/12/17/watch-sonequa-martin-green-discusses-star-trek-discovery-season-two-see-a-tease-of-the-enterprise/



Can't view the video though.

TheValeyard

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Interesting stuff... most of these details about 1701 have been assumed by the fandom for decades but never actually canonized on screen.

https://trekmovie.com/2018/12/17/watch-sonequa-martin-green-discusses-star-trek-discovery-season-two-see-a-tease-of-the-enterprise/



Can't view the video though.

Other slide also confirmed theory of Robert April as the original Captain.

FutureGuy

FutureGuy wrote: »

I’ll call it now.

I would be stunned if thought hasn’t been given to a new show showing the Pike Enterprise years.

We have a ship and three of its crew on discovery. I would dearly love to see it.

Oh gods YES.

I love (there I said it) Discovery but THAT is the prequel I want, I need...

Evade

Evade wrote: »

Can they make the weird skin colours warpaint while they're at it?

I always found it weird as feck that the Klingons were so homogeneous in their colouring.
A bit of skin tone differences would not go amiss.

AtomicHorror

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I don't have an issue with the failure to mention the Xindi- it's a big universe, a lot of bad stuff happens to a lot of people and a lot of time has passed. How many TV shows set in the 2000s never make reference to September 11, or recent wars? How often do we talk about such things when we're dealing with the more interesting parts of real life?

It's grand- another canon point I don't feel needs much or any exposition.



We always know that threat won't succeed in Star Trek unless time travel is part of the storyline. That kind of threat is placed in a story to motivate the actions of the characters, but the audience is worried about the fate of the characters, not the fate of the world they know will be just fine.

The issue with the Xindi attacking Earth is that Worf specifically pointed out that Earth had never been attacked, when the Dominion attacked.

Evade

Deleted User wrote: »

I always found it weird as feck that the Klingons were so homogeneous in their colouring.
A bit of skin tone differences would not go amiss.

Qo'Nos looks like it's pretty warm all around.

Deleted User wrote: »

The issue with the Xindi attacking Earth is that Worf specifically pointed out that Earth had never been attacked, when the Dominion attacked.

Did he? Sisko said in Homefront that there hadn't been an attack on Earth in about 200 years implying there was one before that, almost certainly referring to the Earth-Romulan War.

Evade

Evade wrote: »

Qo'Nos looks like it's pretty warm all around.



Did he? Sisko said in Homefront that there hadn't been an attack on Earth in about 200 years implying there was one before that, almost certainly referring to the Earth-Romulan War.

Heat is not the key factor in pigment, its UV (as far as I remember). Less of that to higher latitudes.

Even Africa has large variation of skin tone.



Been a few years since I watched it so may be wrong, but seemed that everyone was of the mind that an Earth attack was a unique event
Edit: Quick reading up on it on Mem-Alpha does indicate a 200 year range so you're probably right.
It was Martok, not Worf, who made the comment but it specifically related to the Klingon's not even attempting that. Which is what actually jarred at the end of Discovery, knowing that the Klingon's never actually shot at Earth

pixelburp

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The issue with the Xindi attacking Earth is that Worf specifically pointed out that Earth had never been attacked, when the Dominion attacked.

Isn't that just something you gotta accept with any long running (50 years!) series? Unless you suffocate the writers with canon experts sitting over every script, these passing contradictions are always going to bleed through. What Worf said was perfectly correct, at the time after all...

Evade

Deleted User wrote: »

Heat is not the key factor in pigment, its UV (as far as I remember). Less of that to higher latitudes.

Even Africa has large variation of skin tone.

True but they're aliens so I have no problem with them being a little more homogeneous. That said I'm not against expanding the skintone but I thought the blues, purples, and greys looked bad.

Evade

Evade wrote: »

True but they're aliens so I have no problem with them being a little more homogeneous. That said I'm not against expanding the skintone but I thought the blues, purples, and greys looked bad.

I thought that they looked... well... alien!

Evade

The tones were too Bolean or Andorian and not very Klingon looking to me. Maybe they were trying to evoke the primitive Klingon from Genesis but I doubt it. And before anyone snarks asking which Klingons, the ones that have had about 100 appearances since STIII was released, not including main characters, not the ones that had fewer that 10 appearances across TOS and TAS.

Evade

Evade wrote: »

The tones were too Bolean or Andorian and not very Klingon looking to me. Maybe they were trying to evoke the primitive Klingon from Genesis but I doubt it. And before anyone snarks asking which Klingons, the ones that have had about 100 appearances since STIII was released, not including main characters, not the ones that had fewer that 10 appearances across TOS and TAS.

Yeah it's just one of those ones I accept as a correction. It makes sense to have different skin colours.
I also did not mind that they range from black to purple to be honest.

We have black, brown (several), yellow, tan, white, and pink-ish

Andorians are shown as several, as are Vulcans, Bajorans, Romulans etc.
It was a limit of the prosthetics that would be set in a certain colour and that's it

Anyhoo... Woo only a few weeks

Inviere

Have started a rewatch in preparation for season 2. The first two eps are a bit of a slog, but it really finds its feet from ep3 onwards.

AtomicHorror

Deleted User wrote: »

The issue with the Xindi attacking Earth is that Worf specifically pointed out that Earth had never been attacked, when the Dominion attacked.

Worf's not not immune to error or hyperbole. To be fair to him, it had been well over 200 years and he's not local.

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Other slide also confirmed theory of Robert April as the original Captain.

It's in that picture too- first section, Command History. That one picture's a bit of a gold mine for the likes of Memory Alpha. Of course they won't accept it as canon until the episode 'airs', whatever that even means anymore.

pixelburp

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Anyhoo... Woo only a few weeks

Same. Season 1 was flawed but I enjoyed the ride. I came to Trek after it left TV, and was a bit sniffy about it in general until I gave it a fair crack. Having a new series of a broadly optimistic, aspirational show is a great feeling.

AtomicHorror

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Worf's not not immune to error or hyperbole. To be fair to him, it had been well over 200 years and he's not local.

Minsk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=138gX3wolOo

ElTel

Brilliant show
I couldn't care about continuity but Janeway would be 'aving a cnuption.
Happy!

TheIrishGrover

Season 1 for me:

Good:

• Jason Isaacs. Fantastic actor. NAILED the part.
• Michelle Yeoh as Federation Captain.
• Doug Jones. Best prosthetic actor in the business. Very engaging character.
• Main two Klingons. Fantastic portrayals and loved their use of Klingon.
• The doctor and Engineer. What could have been a "Oh look at how progressive we are" use of Trek's first same-sex couple was treated exactly the same as any other couple. Brilliant.
• Sarek excellent.
• General production values were crazy good.

Meh/Bad:

• Burnham. Great actor. Dull character.
• Tilley. Love the character but is such a redshirt. Surprised she lasted full Season 1. Wouldn't be surprised if she wasn't supposed to but writers kept her on as they knew we were expecting her to die.
• Jason Isaacs' character being from Mirror Universe. Thought he was MUCH more interesting as a Federation Captain who was willing to do what was needed. Lost interest when we found out he was from MU. (Must have shaved off his Goatee )
• Emperor Michelle Yeoh. I think she CHEWED off her own Goatee... After she finished chewing the scenery.
• The original Chief of Security. God I HATE that actor. Hated her in Battlestar Galactica. Hated her here.
• MU in general. Never liked it. Thought it was WAY too campy.
• Killing your Gays.
• All. The.Other.Klingons.Speaking.Klingon.As.A.Series.Of.Individual.Barks.
• Leaving Emperor Yeoh go to pursue her wacky adventures and bring here back in when ratings dip.

Sounds like I didn't like it but I really did. I thought it was excellent and easily the best first series of a Trek show. Very confident. But, and this is only a personal opinion, I just don't like the Mirror Universe. I think it's silly and I lost interest when it turned up in part 2 of season 1.

I really am looking forward to Season 2. Looks very interesting.

EdgeCase

I don't remember the release schedule for older series and I know we all binge watch these days but I do get the sense that TNG episodes must have been produced faster than this. The lag between series 1 and 2 has been huge.

TheIrishGrover

EdgeCase wrote: »

I don't remember the release schedule for older series and I know we all binge watch these days but I do get the sense that TNG episodes must have been produced faster than this. The lag between series 1 and 2 has been huge.

Well, you got to remember that TNG had 25-26 episodes per season. Take out another 8 weeks or so for holiday periods like Christmas and Thanksgiving and Memorial Day etc in the US and you have a 33-34 week period of episodes. So you are really only talking about 4 months or so where you didn't have episodes. Typically during the summer.

Many shows, especially Sci-Fi/Fantasy shows which have a large amount of Post Production/effects work to do, simply cannot do more than 15 or 16 episodes and still maintain the production quality level we expect these days.

I'd rather have 12-16 quality episodes per year than a group of 26 episodes with 6 really great episodes.

Take TNG series 5 just as an example. Great season (Season 3-6 prob my faves).

Season 5. Great season. You had some truly great episodes:
Unification 1 & 2
Darmok
Cause and Effect
The Outcast
And of course, best of the lot, The Inner Light.

That's 6 outstanding episodes. Then a couple of decent ones like
The Perfect Mate
Conundrum
I, Borg (The last decent Borg episode before being neutered)

But then you have
Hero Worship
Violations
Imaginary Friend

And, now that I look at them, most of the episodes were really character pieces with little action setpieces or environments.

Unification 1 & 2 was obviously a big deal with a lot of space action and new sets/locations and Cause and Effect had the ship exploding but, apart from that, they are mostly within the Enterprise. Bottle episodes.

People don't want them anymore. (Well, that's what the producers think)


tldr:

Production values/costs are so high they couldn't maintain 26 episodes to shorten the gap between seasons.

pixelburp

I think as well modern TV is produced at a much higher standard than it used to be: time was you could knock out 22 episodes per year because everything was made on a relative shoestring, as fast as possible, to be broadcast & forgotten. Even VHS was relatively new around the era of TNG. With the era of 'Prestige TV', digital recording, binging & HD televisions, more time and care has to go into a lot of shows - especially those acting as topline shows for an online service.

Watching the HD remasters of TNG, while the colours are crisp and the new FX swanky, there's no ignoring the oftentimes shaky, flimsy backdrops. Those sets simply weren't constructed with high definition audiences in mind - why would they? - but I can imagine they were cheap and quick to build or maintain.

Inviere

pixelburp wrote: »

Watching the HD remasters of TNG, while the colours are crisp and the new FX swanky, there's no ignoring the oftentimes shaky, flimsy backdrops. Those sets simply weren't constructed with high definition audiences in mind - why would they? - but I can imagine they were cheap and quick to build or maintain.

Theres no denying that, you can certainly see the flaws in certain sets where you once did not. In saying that though, everything felt more ‘real’ in that era of Trek. I felt like the Enterprise D was a ‘place’, it had a familiarity to it, homely details, there was a noticeable flow to the deisgns and they all complimented each other...from the bridge, to the ready room, to sick bay, to the shuttle bay...they all combined to create a character of the ship itself. Same for DS9, same for Voyager, hell, same for TOS and Ent too.

The Discovery, in my opinion, falls into the same trap as the rebooted films have (though definitely not as bad as them). I don’t know whether it’s just modern set design or not, but to me, everything is a dark, poorly lit, generic set. They’re obviously well made sets, and often nice in their own individual rights, but the bridge of Discovery holds no connection to the Sick Bay, or any other room/set. There’s no character to it, and no feel that it’s a single ‘place’. So while resolution has increased significantly, it doesn’t go hand in hand with set design.

Kirby

I thought the bridge set for the Star trek 09 reboot was absolutely fantastic so I don't agree there.

.....lens flare aside.

I also thought it was a good choice that the corridors and engine room actually looked like they were on a space ship. The enterprise D and Voyager engine rooms look like every other room on the ship but with a giant glow tube in it. TNG's engineering could have hosted yoga with Worf and Troi....it's identical to every other part of the ship.

Enterprise's NX-01 and the reboot engine room did it better imo.

Inviere

Kirby wrote: »

I thought the bridge set for the Star trek 09 reboot was absolutely fantastic so I don't agree there.

.....lens flare aside.

I also thought it was a good choice that the corridors and engine room actually looked like they were on a space ship.

Ah yes, a hyper futuristic bridge that was so white it should have been a sick bay, to the industrial looking brewery that was engineering. I personally found the designs jarring, and they lacked any unified feel. Again, nice sets in their own right, but thats about it.

The enterprise D and Voyager engine rooms look like every other room on the ship but with a giant glow tube in it. TNG's engineering could have hosted yoga with Worf and Troi....it's identical to every other part of the ship.

Enterprise's NX-01 and the reboot engine room did it better imo.

I actually liked that about the Ent D. It’s set 300 years in our future, it doesn’t need to represent a space going steam train with a filthy engine room, pulling luxurious cabins.

I have to laugh at everyone absolutely knowing that it was a brewery being used.

No one I know had a bloody clue until I pointed it out to them. Reason I knew was because I was working in one, at the time.

The bridge being over white was it's only real issue. It should look and feel completely different from the work rooms of a ship.

Kirby is right, ENT-D engine room never felt like a working engineering room. It was just another meeting spot with a glowing centre. It doesn't matter if it's the future, it's not gong to be that sterile. Even our own reactor control rooms look like control rooms

Voyager was a bit better, it felt like a serious place. Enterprise was probably the best.
A first in class workroom. Want a meeting? Get away from my engines and head to a meeting room!

Evade

The reason the future engine rooms are so clean is because when they aren't the dirt has a tendency to dissolve your flesh.

pixelburp

I wouldn't say I knew engineering was a brewery, but it was very obviously some kind of factory or industrial premises the production used as a location. To be fair it was a 5 minute throwaway scene, but did jar with the clean white "iPhone" aesthetic of the bridge (which I did like, lens flare notwithstanding). Felt like a curiously low budget moment in an otherwise big money blockbuster

CramCycle

I wouldn't have called what I seen there as engineering, more like a facilities hub, as that's what it looks like and I have been in a few breweries (admittedly small scale), I never copped it.

Inviere

Deleted User wrote: »

Kirby is right, ENT-D engine room never felt like a working engineering room. It was just another meeting spot with a glowing centre. It doesn't matter if it's the future, it's not gong to be that sterile.

I wonder if you showed an 18th century factory worker, an image of a 21st century car assembly line, how they'd feel about it. It kinda does matter that it's the future, that's the whole point...it shouldn't represent something you'd see today. It should represent what technology can achieve, not what it already has achieved.

Inviere

Inviere wrote: »

I wonder if you showed an 18th century factory worker, an image of a 21st century car assembly line, how they'd feel about it. It kinda does matter that it's the future, that's the whole point...it shouldn't represent something you'd see today. It should represent what technology can achieve, not what it already has achieved.

I see it more the difference between the office and our server room. All the top tech in the world but you know where the guts of the operation is Vs the command.
Office is clean, no cables, shiny monitors, loads of room.

Server room: while allowing airflow is as cramped as it can be to fit more tech, more power abd network cables feeding into the wall.
It's not messy but it's obviously not polished. Yeah they may have gone to extreme but it immediately let me know that I was in the work body of the ship when there.
Never got that in TNG stylings. In fact even TOS did a better job, now it was much more open but gave a sense of a workroom.

Sad Professor

As i recall, the reason the TNG engineering room looks that way is because the Enterprise-D was supposed to be mostly automated and controlled by computer. Same reason the bridge is so sparse. They mostly abandoned this design philosophy later.

AMKC

Sad Professor wrote: »

As i recall, the reason the TNG engineering room looks that way is because the Enterprise-D was supposed to be mostly automated and controlled by computer. Same reason the bridge is so sparse. They mostly abandoned this design philosophy later.

I would not call the bridge on the Enterprise-D sparse. It is very similar in a lot of ways to the bridge of the Original Enterprise but its bigger with more advanced technology. It still has an operations and a navigation console up front then the three main seats in the middle instead of one on Kirk's ship, then the tactical display behind them and than all the console's around the outer wall's just like in the original Enterprise.
I see nothing wrong with the engine room on the Enterprise-D. This was a ship of exploration of space and a lot of the scientific exploration was done from them working in the engine room so it was a good design and it futuristic too.

_Kaiser_

You have to remember that the size of the Enterprise -D meant that a lot of the work was carried out in other places as well - eg: the nacelle control room where Troi nearly jumps into a plasma beam, or the constant need to crawl through Jefferies tubes.

Main engineering then was basically a working meeting room and high-level control station than anything else. That plus the automation meant they cpuld even transfer primary functions and control to a single console on the Bridge if needed.

The -D/Galaxy class was the best of that era IMO, though I loved the Prometheus too.

_Kaiser_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

You have to remember that the size of the Enterprise -D meant that a lot of the work was carried out in other places as well - eg: the nacelle control room where Troi nearly jumps into a plasma beam, or the constant need to crawl through Jefferies tubes.

Main engineering then was basically a working meeting room and high-level control station than anything else. That plus the automation meant they cpuld even transfer primary functions and control to a single console on the Bridge if needed.

The -D/Galaxy class was the best of that era IMO, though I loved the Prometheus too.

I totally get it but it had the bloody reactor right there in the middle of it (as a set piece I know). It was all so similar to the bridge. There just needs to be a difference in look/feel.

Here is the "BUT"

But it was a show from the 1980s which I loved, while it aired (and still do). While it's aesthetic would not work in today's world, it was more than fine for the time. I am comparing it to how we would view things now, in a comparative way on where things have moved on.
I wouldn't change TNG for the world.

Barring a few things I liked the atmosphere of Kelvin sets. Far more wrong with the first 2 films of that franchise to be worrying about sets to be honest. Disclaimer: I preferred the 3rd film in the franchise. It is flawed and is again more Action-Trek but it has roots in what Trek is. Far more than the first 2 Space-Voyage films, which were JJ's audition tapes for Star Wars.

Discovery, to me anyway, has been a great intro for the show. Again flawed (which Trek wasn't in it's first year, excepting TOS).
It's flaws are, indeed, compounded by the serial nature of the show. One flaw in one idea now affects the entire season (show).
We are seeing one ship in a time of war with admirals holding smokey room meetings. We have no view (yet) as to how the wider Federation acts. There is a lot of precedence for this in TNG and DS9 to be honest.

Season 2 looks to be branching out into a more exploratory view. This is good but I don't want a remake (for all intent) of TOS or TNG.




TLDR: Discovery is flawed but I damn well enjoyed it and can not wait for Season 2

Inviere

Deleted User wrote: »

It was all so similar to the bridge. There just needs to be a difference in look/feel.

There really doesn't though It's 300 years in the future, almost everything has been automated, with computer terminals being able to interface with every system on the ship, able to reroute damaged circuits, able to control most everything on the ship. When you accept that, you have to ask, why would engineering look drastically different to the bridge? Isn't one LCARS terminal going to look like another? Engineering had more/quicker access to more crucial parts of the ship (the warp core, the jeffries tubes, the computer cores, etc), that's why it was Engineering...not because it should have had space pistons and space valves popping up and down...it was a centralized hub with which to work from.

Inviere

Inviere wrote: »

There really doesn't though It's 300 years in the future, almost everything has been automated, with computer terminals being able to interface with every system on the ship, able to reroute damaged circuits, able to control most everything on the ship. When you accept that, you have to ask, why would engineering look drastically different to the bridge? Isn't one LCARS terminal going to look like another? Engineering had more/quicker access to more crucial parts of the ship (the warp core, the jeffries tubes, the computer cores, etc), that's why it was Engineering...not because it should have had space pistons and space valves popping up and down...it was a centralized hub with which to work from.

And it makes for a boring ass looking TV show in 2019, and they had the reactor core in the automated control room which isn't great when things go wrong.
Suppose you have to have an excuse for the Geordi Maneuver

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABxL2LrmWoM

Evade

You also need to factor in how ridiculously empty the ships in Star Trek seem. Those aircraft carries have crews (including the air wing) of up to 5,000 people. The Enterprise is about 430, D is around 1,100, and I think the E is around the same, so there must be a lot of space taken up by self sustaining machinery.

Inviere

Deleted User wrote: »

And it makes for a boring ass looking TV show in 2019

That's debatable, I much prefer the aesthetics of TNG, DS9, & Voyager, to Discovery. Not because Discovery's look doesn't fit with canon, but because beneath the shininess, there's not much soul to any of it (strictly set design I'm talking of, I do enjoy the show)

Inviere

Evade wrote: »

You also need to factor in how ridiculously empty the ships in Star Trek seem. Those aircraft carries have crews (including the air wing) of up to 5,000 people. The Enterprise is about 430, D is around 1,100, and I think the E is around the same, so there must be a lot of space taken up by self sustaining machinery.

Well how many people does it take to load a rocket/missile on a battleship, versus loading a torpedo via a touch panel on the bridge of a starship? How many kitchen/mess staff are needed on a cruiser, versus basically none needed due to replicators. How many radar/sonar operating crews would be made redundant because of sensor integration? You could go on and on really...

Evade

Inviere wrote: »

Well how many people does it take to load a rocket/missile on a battleship, versus loading a torpedo via a touch panel on the bridge of a starship? How many kitchen/mess staff are needed on a cruiser, versus basically none needed due to replicators. How many radar/sonar operating crews would be made redundant because of sensor integration? You could go on and on really...

I'm not critiquing the lack of crew it's the reduced crew versus all that extra space. It has to be filled with something.

CramCycle

Evade wrote: »

I'm not critiquing the lack of crew it's the reduced crew versus all that extra space. It has to be filled with something.

Maybe it is a positive for their mental health?

Inviere

Evade wrote: »

I'm not critiquing the lack of crew it's the reduced crew versus all that extra space. It has to be filled with something.

Optimism....