Spoilers Why do the same recurring characters implausibly keep popping up?

Yeah I've looked really hard and can't find any criticism at all.

 

I agree, I like both Cornwall and Sarek and I'm glad they're using them instead of some random new characters.

I generally don't see the problem with using the same characters. The criticism about the klingons for example, they introduced four, three surviving the pilot, of course they're going to reuse them, Kol was the leader, L'Rell and Voq had a plan to infiltrate the federation.

Sarek is connected to Discovery via Michael, Cornwell is Lorca's direct superior it seems and has a past with him (or so she thought), it makes sense that those two would take charge of the Discovery problem when the ISS started killing non humans or whatever Killy decided to do.
And it's not like we haven't seen other admirals besides Cornwell, she just happens to be the one we see the most, she's to Discovery what Ross and Forrest where to DS9 and Enterprise.

 

So, you're saying it could be worse?

 

Heaven forbid that there be fans of discovery in a forum dedicated to discovery

There are plenty of people on this forum who do not like the show and express there dislike of it frequently.

Your claim is nonsense.

 

I have liked Discovery, but I do find it frustrating that we only seem to see a very small group of people. This is in part because they haven't established the 'sector' or 'area' we are usually in, thus explaining why we see these people again and again and again. The small season probably doesn't help, there just isn't any excess, nor a sense of how big the Federation is. Scale is the clear issue here, and defining the structure of things.

 

because those are the stories they tell.

The days where the most interesting thing is the janitor dropping a mop or the cook burning the meatloaf aren't that interesting.

 

Haha that is /r/StarTrek, you literally cannot criticise Discovery on that board without being downvoted to oblivion. Literally made a post about how bad the VFX were in the most recent episode there and people were like "IT WAS THE BEST EFFECTS STAR TREK HAS EVER SEEN, ARE YOU BLIND!?"

 

And what did I say? I said that he came to the wrong forum to discuss bad aspects of Discovery. Because here are all Discovery fans. It seems that I can't say anything that's not 100% exact because people will not be able to understand.

I so hate reddit and its downvote/upvote thing. Some time ago I was frequently on /r/askscience or something like that. There were many many questions that were neglected because users would downvote them if they found the question to be boring or if they didn't like the question.

 

Dude, there's loads of critics of Disco on here, and no shortage of threads and posts evidencing this.

However it you simply want everyone to agree with you and don't want to entertain any debate or discussion, this probably isn't the place for you.

 

But probably 90% of the users here are fans. So my statement is still valid. You can write negative things about Discovery as much as you want, but among 100 replies there will be only a few that agree with you.

And my first statement also is valid, there is no point in writing negative stuff here when all you are going to get are: "That's not true, Discovery is the greatest..." "TNG was shit", "DS9 was shit"....

 

Who said that?

 

Newsflash: fans of Star Trek still have plenty of criticism of Star Trek.

I genuinely don't know what you want. Plenty of people post criticism here - many disagree with it, some agree. That's probably what you'd expect on a Star Trek forum full of people who like Star Trek.

Do you want a safe space for negative-only threads where no one presents a dissenting opinion?

 

I'll try one more time to explain why this bothers me, although it veers into another issue - basically that the writers didn't know if they wanted a "small show" or a "big show" and so gave it characteristics of both.

In a lot of ways, Discovery was set up to be a tight drama centered on Micheal Burnham's character. This explains why much of the season is from her POV, we get a very limited view of the bridge, etc. The show could have been quite successful if it kept to the core cast of six and utilized their interactions to make interesting drama in a "small stakes" story. You could still have Micheal Burnham be a disgraced former XO who caused her commanding officer to die, and is seeking some sort of "redemption" in the Klingon War, for example.

Except, the series added all of these "epic" elements to the story as well to continually raise the stakes. Burnham was raised by Sarek, and is Spock's sister. She's the first "mutineer" in Starfleet history. Her captain was one of the most decorated in the fleet. Following her imprisonment, she ends up stationed on the most advanced ship in Starfleet. That ship develops a new type of drive which allows for instantaneous transit which has never been seen before. She personally kills the leaders of the Klingon Empire - twice. Both her Captain and her love interest turn out to be imposters. In the Mirror Universe, she ends up on the literal capitol ship of the Terran Empire (captained by a mirror version of her former commanding officer) and ends up taking part in a mission which not only saves the crew - not only the universe - but life in all universes everywhere.

All of these epic elements suggest an epic story - which means, among other things, loads and loads of characters. Game of Thrones in its first season for example had 19 main cast members and around 60 guest characters - in ten episodes! Obviously Game of Thrones has the largest budget in television right now, but Season 1 only cost around $6 million per episode. In terms of money, Discovery could afford a cast as wide as Game of Thrones. It also clearly has the run time available to flesh out that many characters.

The answer seems to be the stylistic muddle of the show - that it wants to simultaneously be a tightly-focused character drama and epic. I really find myself wishing it concentrated on the former rather than the latter however. If the characters are right, you don't need ridiculous "epic" moments.

 

But, you would have the complaints (and already do) of "small universe" syndrome, when Star Trek is supposed to best vast.

In my opinion, DISCO has worked to balance the two approaches in a way that, as stated, is very difficult. And, in some places, I could even share the idea of it being "muddled." But, by the same token, I'm also trying to look at is as first season growing pains.

Star Trek is still an "action/adventure" show at its roots, so those "epic" moments come with the package. It isn't just a tight character period piece, but a mix of several elements.

The success of it will be better served in the second season. Then, I'll be far harsher in my criticism.

 

Kinda funny that TOS went to great lengths to avoid the small universe syndrome despite having no budget, and now Trek has the budget but the universe feels smaller than ever.

 

When telling a war story, this isn't unusual.

 

How so? Saving Private Ryan has a small core cast and runs less than three hours but feels far more vast than Discovery after a dozen episodes.