Is this show actually "character driven" at all?

One man's character development is another man's stereotypical role player, eye of the beholder and all that kind of shit.

So far ALL the characters seem one dimensional to me, and has been pointed out, the show is more into whiz bang special effects and action scenes. The characters seem to be there to serve the needs of the plot, not the other way around.

 

Yes, but the tech hasn't been fleshed out either and so far have been less convincing than the Trek average. Mushroom universe navigated by giant water bears using nipple clamps is just not something you want to build an entire season around.

 

Just doesn't seem you like the character, which is fine but I would say for what they are trying to do they've established it very well.

Trained and educated as a Vulcan, but still undoubtedly human. She has also been in prison for months, so it's nut unnatural that her behavior would be standoffish and rude.

I am not sure how anyone would have expected her to "be" a Vulcan, since she isn't even half Vulcan, she was just educated by them. But she is still human. and I think the show plays that out perfectly.

the show is fighting a lot of people's expectations, which it seems to me many built up all on their own,

 

Nipple clamps? Go on.........

 

I don't want the discussion to get sidetracked into another "Discovery sucks" whinge. I mean, I have other issues with the show besides characterization, but there are places for that.

I think the "bit off more than they can chew" point is good. Discovery is trying to tell arguably the most ambitious story in Trek history with a season half as long as classic Trek. Thus it's jam packed with plot development and action, which doesn't give much time for the slow moments needed for character interactions.

They had a great chance to build a character moment between Michael and Tilly in the last episode with their interactions involving Georgiou's telescope. But Micheal decided to basically ignore Tilly and not talk to her. I understand the whole "show, not tell" thing in writing, but it meant that Tilly was responding to a brick wall. Micheal got some character development I guess (we know she felt guilty about letting her captain down...but we already knew that) but Tilly got zilch.

GoT didn't kill that many characters in its first season. Just Ned, IIRC (the first season was a direct adaptation of the first book).

Not to mention killing off half your cast in the first season is a bad thing if you want a second season.

 

Welcome to the internet.

 

The water bear can only navigate the invisible cosmic mushroom field if it's tortured by Starfleet issued nipple clamps.

 

Well, it's one of the possible explanations why they wrote a bunch of characters that the audience doesn't care about.

 

I've said this before, but a lot of the show comes across as if the people who sketched out the rough draft of the show (characters, plot arc, setting, etc) were totally different from those who fleshed out the details. Whether this is due to Fuller leaving the show, or heavy interference in the creative process by CBS I am unsure.

 

I've given each show so far a 7 and at least once I felt I was generous with the 7. My rating was driven by the production value, because the visuals are gorgeous and I think deserves to be factored in. However, as time moves on and I become less enamored with the visuals I'm inclined to start rating lower if the story line doesn't start drawing me in and/or I don't start feeling invested in the characters.

Still crossing my fingers.

 

Actually, there are plenty of moments in which nothing is happening other than one actor looking "meaningfully" at something. In comparison with many past Trek episodes, there's a lot of time that passes without dialogue or substantive action. I hate to say that episodes are padded, but it does seem like I am getting less than what I want. The only time that we get real interactions is with Saru and, to a lesser extent, Tilly.

 

I basically only watch it for the visuals at this point. I agree that they're great.

 

Speak for yourself. I have a sadistic water bear BDSM bondage fetish.

 

From a storytelling perspective, what is the point of her Vulcan background if not to imbue her with Vulcan traits? I don't get it at all. I actually would have found it interesting if, rather than sulking remorsefully, she stood by her actions as the logical thing to do. That would be an interesting conflict, one that could put her at odds with crewmates who can't understand such behavior from a human.

 

Tortured shmortured - Ripper assumed the position the moment it was transported into the spore chamber - "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

 

Yeah I bet waterbear-bdsm-fetishists are loving STD.

 

Episode 2 was written by Bryan Fuller, as were parts of episodes 1 and 3. Episode 4 was not. I can't help but wondering if the Vulcan backstory was Fuller's baby, and the rest of the writing staff don't know what to do with it.

 

Discovery seems pretty character driven to me, you've a character who has hit rock bottom and is rebuilding her life and career.
Personally, I think TNG was the least character driven show of any Star Trek, at least until Piller came on board in the 3rd Season.

 

Even if Fuller was the only person to be credited with both the story and the teleplay, it might be entirely possible that many other staff writers worked on the script. Fifty Year Mission shows that sometimes staff writers worked over stories several times, and that some significant additions to episodes were not credited to them.

 

Driven how? What is specifically in her personality or psychology that is dictating her actions? So far, she's been rather passive in these two episodes, so saying that she is "driven" is rather generous. She's fitting in on the Discovery, more or less keeping her head down and delivering that Lorca wants. She's not moving the story.