To me, this latest plot is pretty classic Trek. Do you remain true to the Federation or do you wipe out the Klingons. Having the moral high ground is easy when it's not tested. DS9 explored this really well in the Dominion war. Do they commit genocide on the Founders or risk being over run by them? Moral quandaries are pretty much part and parcel to Trek AFAIC.
That's what the season
could have been about. That's what they hinted it was about. But so far that hasn't really been demonstrated in the show. That's something the views are adding that isn't really there. Reading between the lines...
In terms of the "message" of being scientists and explorers rather than warriors, the show has exclusively relied on tell and not show for that, occasionally just having some character interject that as a throw-away line rather than actively making it a thematic aspect of the series or showing Starfleet as being awkward at battle. They never have to choose between the science and a battle.
The show really relies on telling. We're told the Klingons are winning the war the effects of that aren't really seen. Then we're told
Discovery has turned the tide, but we only see a couple fights. Then we're told the tide has turned back and the Klingons have expanded the cloaking technology.
And the season has actively worked against that message. Taking the Starfleet route led to war, while the untaken Vulcan route might have averted it. The war was almost won twice by
Discovery (first with the jump drive and again by negating the cloak) because of the drive of an officer who was the opposite of what Starfleet stood for, being outright evil. Every single Starfleet-esque action taken in the Mirror Universe failed. The show punished them for those actions (saving the rebels, bonding with Mirror!Saru). And the most noble action committed by Burnham, when she saved the Empress, is likely going to bite her in the ass.
Meanwhile the show is plagued by poor characterisation and sloppy writing. Mysteries like the black badges are introduced and then quickly forgotten. Burnham makes a peace offering of Georgiou's telescope to Saru, potentially restoring their friendship, and it isn't mentioned again and Saru's behaviour doesn't change. Fridging one half of the first openly gay couple in Star Trek. Meanwhile, the writers continually rely on secrets to create cheap drama and conflict between the characters. And focusing heavily on the season long dum dum dummmmmm twists that the Internet saw coming a mile away.
Then you get to awkward episodes like the second Mudd episode, that really should have been a Stamets episode as he's the one who remembers the time jumps, but instead the structure of the show and focus on Burnham awkwardly make her the focus in an inorganic way
No, the writing has not been good.
And, lastly, as far as the writing not being better? Seriously? I'll stand this season up against the first season of any Trek series. I think nostalgia glasses have caused people to forget just how bad the first season of TOS, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise really were. They were practically unwatchable. I know because I just recently forced myself to rewatch them. It's brutal.
Then maybe you should also rewatch
Discovery after it ends and see how it holds up during a second viewing, without being propped up with the uncertainty of what happens next. When you can just look at the writing and presentation of its ideas.
First, that's a fallacious argument:
Whataboutism. The successes and failures of the other shows are not an indication of success or failure here. Reminding people that TNG had a terrible first season doesn't make
Discovery's singular season any better.
And it overlooks the facts that TNG and DS9 and ENT all required production staffing changes to improve. They didn't just happen. Giving
Discovery a pass means it isn't incentivized to improve or find a middle ground where they keep what people like about the show right now while correcting what people dislike.
And the "first season" thing really only applies to TNG. TOS had an excellent first season. It was arguably its best.
Enterprise had a mediocre first season, but the second and third weren't much better.
Voyager also had a mediocre first season. And second season. And third season. The fourth was only *slightly* better. The rest were just... not bad.
And even in its weakest first season, TNG did episodes like
Where No One has Gone Before that was full of imagination. Or delving into Picard's past with the PTSD-esque
The Battle. While it's gory and doesn't go anywhere, there's some good suspense and tension in
Conspiracy. And
Home Soil is a simple little bit of classic science fiction.
Discovery tries to do the extremely alien lifeform story in
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum, but as is standard for the show, the result feels poorly paced and crowded with the other stuff going on. And, of course, forces in a weird "twist" to explain Saru's behaviour.
DS9's first season was it's weakest, comparatively. But it was still very watchable with great moments. It's only "bad" because the rest were so much better. (And because its worst episode was right in the middle.) It's pilot,
Emissary is arguably the best Trek pilot. The first four episodes of DS9 are quite good, and the you get high concept episodes like
Battle Lines and the fantastic
Duet.
The catch with DS9 is the first two seasons are really set-up. The Dominion is name-dropped in s2e07 and doesn't appear until the season 2 finale. They
really wanted to establish the players and setting before jumping into the war.
And
Discovery is in a weird situation, being plotted as a one-and-done season. The second season will almost be a re-pilot, as the whole premise of the show will shift as the war has ended and there's no looming Mirror Universe plot. So it's almost a second first season with a couple established characters. We'll see how that does in 2019.
