Discovery is losing me in Season 3, anyone else?

[fireproof78]

That's fair, I just think it limits the potential of the show and squeezes out the development of other characters. I get she's the main character and is inherently going to have a lot of screen time. But that doesn't mean every single episode has to revolve around her. I mean it's at the point where most of the bridge barely talks (though that has gotten a little better recently).

If it limits the show then it limits the show. It was pretty apparent from the word Go that's what the show would be. I don't fault anyone for not liking Burnham. I just would strongly advise not watching a show with a character you don't like who happens to be the main character. There is a reason why I didn't carry forward with TNG, VOY or ENT. I didn't care about the characters.

 

[nic3636]

If it limits the show then it limits the show. It was pretty apparent from the word Go that's what the show would be. I don't fault anyone for not liking Burnham. I just would strongly advise not watching a show with a character you don't like who happens to be the main character. There is a reason why I didn't carry forward with TNG, VOY or ENT. I didn't care about the characters.

It's not even really that I don't like Burnham, she's OK. Just not strong enough to be a compelling series lead IMO.

 

[fireproof78]

It's not even really that I don't like Burnham, she's OK. Just not strong enough to be a compelling series lead IMO.

I guess I have the view that if a character isn't compelling I don't continue watching.

 

[nic3636]

I guess I have the view that if a character isn't compelling I don't continue watching.

Yeah, I may not be back for S4. I liked Discovery for most of S1, part of S2, and the first part of S3 so the show does have other redeeming qualities. I'm not saying Discovery is horrible or completely unwatchable, but I do think being average is pretty much its ceiling.

 

[fireproof78]

Yeah, I may not be back for S4. I liked Discovery for most of S1, part of S2, and the first part of S3 so the show does have other redeeming qualities. I'm not saying Discovery is horrible or completely unwatchable, but I do think being average is pretty much its ceiling.

I don't think people don't want to continue watching Discovery find it horrible or that is completely irredeemable. But, I am a person who believes strongly in connecting with characters and if characters don't compel then I don't keep watching. I recall a friend of mine absolutely loathing Elliot Stabler on Law and Order: SVU and had to step away. He had no animosity towards the actor but the show wasn't for him.

 

[nic3636]

I don't think people don't want to continue watching Discovery find it horrible or that is completely irredeemable. But, I am a person who believes strongly in connecting with characters and if characters don't compel then I don't keep watching. I recall a friend of mine absolutely loathing Elliot Stabler on Law and Order: SVU and had to step away. He had no animosity towards the actor but the show wasn't for him.

Yeah I mean I don't loathe Burnham but I do have trouble connecting with her as you said. The only characters I really liked this season were Vance, Book, Culber, Georgiou, and Saru. Everyone else was just blah.

 

[Amasov]

Yeah I mean I don't loathe Burnham but I do have trouble connecting with her as you said. The only characters I really liked this season were Vance, Book, Culber, Georgiou, and Saru. Everyone else was just blah.

I think Burnham's story has been totally mishandled over the last two seasons. I continually say that I feel Discovery's premise was pretty much fulfilled at the conclusion of the first season. Since then, I don't feel like they've really figured out what to do with her. She was interesting in the first season because she was stripped of rank and had to earn back the trust of everyone around her and pretty much start from scratch. Once she was redeemed at the end, it was like, "Ok, now what?"

 

[fireproof78]

Now she has to keep that trust.

Plus people wanted her to be captain since she is the main character so wish granted?

 

[johnjm22]

I am stating that Discovery's main character is Michael Burnham and expecting the show to not have her front and center is unreasonable, at best.

I agree. They're too dug in on her for her to NOT be the "main" character.

But with that being said, I think as the show has progressed some changes have been made each season in an attempt to address the biggest complaints about the show.

Right now the biggest complaint I'm seeing is Michael Burnham herself. It wouldn't surprise me at all if next season we see more focus on other characters.

 

[fireproof78]

I agree. They're too dug in on her for her to NOT be the "main" character.

But with that being said, I think as the show has progressed some changes have been made each season in an attempt to address the biggest complaints about the show.

Right now the biggest complaint I'm seeing is Michael Burnham herself. It wouldn't surprise me at all if next season we see more focus on other characters.

It wouldn't surprise me either but that's because that is where the show's story has gone. It had the focus on Saru, on Pike, on Stamets, and Culber and now we are in the future where other characters are becoming a part of the story in a way that I think people will call "traditional" since Michael is now the captain as the main character, which is how people seem to think Star Trek needs to be.

 

[nic3636]

I think Burnham's story has been totally mishandled over the last two seasons. I continually say that I feel Discovery's premise was pretty much fulfilled at the conclusion of the first season. Since then, I don't feel like they've really figured out what to do with her. She was interesting in the first season because she was stripped of rank and had to earn back the trust of everyone around her and pretty much start from scratch. Once she was redeemed at the end, it was like, "Ok, now what?"

Agree, she was a lot better in the first season. I also liked her Vulcan demeanor in S1 which was way better than her new personality where she basically wears her emotions on her sleeve and cries all the time.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, Burnham, please continue to be unhealthy in your emotional expression.

Sorry, the whole Vulcan demeanor thing still bothers me. It wasn't a healthy demeanor for her.

 

[nic3636]

Yes, Burnham, please continue to be unhealthy in your emotional expression.

Sorry, the whole Vulcan demeanor thing still bothers me. It wasn't a healthy demeanor for her.

Maybe there's a happy medium? It's so cheesy how she's constantly ratcheting up all her emotional scenes to a 14 out of 10. Maybe it's personal preference but I prefer when actors convey a lot of emotion through subtle actions and body language. The way she does it is so in your face, like "LOOK AT ME I'M SAD, CAN'T YOU SEE THE TEARS STREAMING DOWN MY FACE?!!?"

 

[fireproof78]

Maybe there's a happy medium? It's so cheesy how she's constantly ratcheting up all her emotional scenes to a 14 out of 10. Maybe it's personal preference but I prefer when actors convey a lot of emotion through subtle actions and body language. The way she does it is so in your face, like "LOOK AT ME I'M SAD, CAN'T YOU SEE THE TEARS STREAMING DOWN MY FACE?!!?"

There is a happy medium and I trust her to find it eventually. That's the part of the story that most interest me. But, I don't mind your face. I prefer tears and emotions because I have had enough of stoicism and other such things throughout my life.

But, even if I didn't like it it still makes sense in the context of the story.

 

[Noname Given]

Yes, Burnham, please continue to be unhealthy in your emotional expression.

Sorry, the whole Vulcan demeanor thing still bothers me. It wasn't a healthy demeanor for her.

And if there is one constant in her character development over the first 3 seasons, it's that she's shedding that Vulcan demeanor (which she kept an nurtured in her 7 years aboard the U.S.S. Shenzhou and regaining her 'humanity'.

Also, she was advertised and has been the lead/main character from day one of the series conception. It amazes me tpo this day that some people are still -- "Yeah, WHY is to show SO focused on Michael Burman?...
^^^
Yeah, why? SHE'S THE SHOW'S LEAD/Main CHARACTER AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN.

 

[nic3636]

And if there is one constant in her character development over the first 3 seasons, it's that she's shedding that Vulcan demeanor (which she kept an nurtured in her 7 years aboard the U.S.S. Shenzhou and regaining her 'humanity'.

Also, she was advertised and has been the lead/main character from day one of the series conception. It amazes me tpo this day that some people are still -- "Yeah, WHY is to show SO focused on Michael Burman?...
^^^
Yeah, why? SHE'S THE SHIOW'S LEAD/Main CHARACTER AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN.

I mean I don't think it's necessarily a binary thing. I would personally prefer if the series went from being 90% about Michael Burnham to maybe 70% about Michael Burnham (or insert whatever percentages make sense). The point is, you can dial it back and still have her as the series lead.

I'm also not sure why it's etched in stone that she has to be the series lead. It's like, everything else about this show can change mid-way through each season, but this can apparently never change for some reason (though I agree it's not likely to change). But that doesn't mean the fans have to accept this as one of the ten commandments of Star Trek. If it's not working, they should make adjustments.

 

[fireproof78]

But, it is working for a lot of people. I don't think that it is etched in stone either but people keep on watching it so clearly something is working.

 

[Midquest]

I can't help feeling that the critiques about Burnham being too central are overstated. Seasons 2 and 3 have both had arcs where she features little or not at all. But then I really like Burnham and have found the handling of the character to be effective and consistently developed, so I've enjoyed her as a member of what I see as a clearly ensemble show from the beginning.

 

[nic3636]

But, it is working for a lot of people. I don't think that it is etched in stone either but people keep on watching it so clearly something is working.

True, but that doesn't make it immune from criticism either.

I can't help feeling that the critiques about Burnham being too central are overstated. Seasons 2 and 3 have both had arcs where she features little or not at all. But then I really like Burnham and have found the handling of the character to be effective and consistently developed, so I've enjoyed her as a member of what I see as a clearly ensemble show from the beginning.

It's definitely less ensemble than previous versions of Trek. She was pretty central in S3 in every episode except Far From Home. The issue is the more screen time Burnham gets, the less time there is for everyone else, which stunts character development and inherently limits the types of stories you can tell. Now, if you have a actor at the level of Patrick Stewart, Michelle Yeoh, etc., then yes, make the show revolve around their character as much as you want. I personally do not consider SMG a top tier actor, she's average. So making the show revolve around her will always limit its potential.

 

[nic3636]

Even in the previous versions of Trek, the lead in each series was very strong. Stewart, Brooks, and Mulgrew are all significantly better actors than SMG. The one exception was Star Trek Enterprise. I thought Bakula wasn't a strong enough actor to lead the series and would always limit the potential of the show. So the same criticism I have of Discovery, but it's more of an issue on Discovery because the show is way more focused on the main character relative to previous versions of Trek.