Everything Discovery has abandoned over the course of this season...

[Mudd]

T'Pol is the only Vulcan other than Spock that I've liked or felt had much nuance as a character, and Blalock did a remarkable job with some very limited material.

As stock supporting characters they were okay; there was always a great deal of cultural snobbery if not outright racism implicit in the portrayal of Vulcans from the beginning. Spock repeated asserted that they were rational and emotionless, and they never were either of those.

 

[XCV330]

Agreed. Every Vulcan post TOS sucks.

I'm going to be in the minority here but I think I would have liked Tuvok if Voyager writing had not been what it was.
I thought Soval's character was done well.

 

[eschaton]

Granted, but consider that levelling this criticism at Discovery in particular loads the statement. "Discovery does this" in the current atmosphere of controversy is essentially axiomatic with "This is something which has started with Discovery". Few if any trek characters have ever been written as fully rounded complex beings. Typically they are so inconsistent as to be pretty chaotic (Kirk, Picard, Janeway), defined by a specific trait or behaviour pattern (Chekov, McCoy) or so limited as to be a blank slate (Kim, Mayweather). Some have become iconic due to the performances which became associated with them, the gestures, the body language, the vocal tonalities and inherent charisma of the performers, but to claim they are consistently written as rounded characters is something I would need convincing of.

You are perhaps jumping to conclusions of what I intended when I started this thread, which was only to document the myriad ideas the early episodes seemed to hint at which were dropped. As I said, i think Discovery is now a better (but less ambitious) series than when it began. I also think it's generally speaking surpassed VOY and ENT already, although I still find TOS, TNG, and DS9 better series.

But yes, in general, Trek has sucked at characterization. DS9 was basically the one exception. Even there, the first few seasons, several of the characters were very unformed initially. As was noted, Dax started out as a stoic wise character before becoming fun loving. Bashir was much more of an arrogent twerp, and Kira much more abrasive. Nog and Rom are shown as so startlingly different it's hard to come up with in-universe explanations. Really only Odo and Quark were pretty much recognizable from the first episode.

As I've noted though, Discovery is really missing the earlier Trek "character moments" (also called "Piller filler") - scenes which don't contribute to the story each week, but help us to get to know the characters in a more relaxed setting. The series started to do this to a limited extent from about episodes 4 to 8, but it's been dropped since we've gone to the Mirror Universe. Now characters generally only say what is needed to move the plot forward in that week, which makes them seem, at least to me, much less credible as imaginary people.

 

[eschaton]

I'm going to be in the minority here but I think I would have liked Tuvok if Voyager writing had not been what it was.
I thought Soval's character was done well.

Tim Russ did a good job I think at finding a way to perform a Vulcan who was a very different person from Spock.

Soval was a pretty good character, but Gary Graham does nothing for me as an actor. I can't believe he was ever in the running to be the captain on both DS9 and Voyager.

 

[Spot261]

Spock repeated asserted that they were rational and emotionless, and they never were either of those.

For me personally I tend to read that as being specifically Spocks take on Vulcans, much as Worf sees Klingons as being fundamentally honourable. Vulcans collectively put a great deal of stock in their lack of passion and this projected self perception has become an unattainable Platonic ideal Spock lives up to, or at least attempts to. I can't help but feel his actual interactions with Vulcans seem to be largely disappointing to him, as in fact are Worf's interactions with Klingons. Both find the reality falls short of the expectation.

You are perhaps jumping to conclusions of what I intended when I started this thread, which was only to document the myriad ideas the early episodes seemed to hint at which were dropped

Yes and no, I get that what you are doing is making specific statements or complaints about Discovery, but I'm making the point that such statements have a tendency to be read instead as complaints specific to Discovery, as though somehow the show is falling short of some established standard which no other has in truth ever met. This perception is commonplace at the moment and tends not to hold up to scrutiny. Trek has always suffered (IMHO) as a victim of it's own success, perpetually in it's own shadow with new instalments forever being compared to both the mythology and people's internalised idealisations.

 

[fireproof78]

As I've noted though, Discovery is really missing the earlier Trek "character moments" (also called "Piller filler") - scenes which don't contribute to the story each week, but help us to get to know the characters in a more relaxed setting. The series started to do this to a limited extent from about episodes 4 to 8, but it's been dropped since we've gone to the Mirror Universe. Now characters generally only say what is needed to move the plot forward in that week, which makes them seem, at least to me, much less credible as imaginary people.

I feel like that will change after the first season. Even William Shatner remarked about how different he felt from one season to the next.

Also, I feel like I identify quicker with these characters than other shows, like TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT, so either it is my imagination or there is something there.

 

[Spot261]

I feel like that will change after the first season. Even William Shatner remarked about how different he felt from one season to the next.

Also, I feel like I identify quicker with these characters than other shows, like TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT, so either it is my imagination or there is something there.

They're just more convincing for me. I love Picard and co, but it's based on affection, not the ability to actually relate to them as people I might meet in day to day life.They reflect a fantasy of perfection, not rounded, well developed characters. Michael Burnham has arguably had more depth and character development in twelve episodes than any TNG character did in seven seasons, except perhaps Data and we still don't really know her yet. TNG got away with that because we could establish specific traits we could associate with each character and a purity of purpose which had us cheering them on. Discovery has gone a different route in this regard and the serialised format lends itself to that.

 

[eschaton]

They're just more convincing for me. I love Picard and co, but it's based on affection, not the ability to actually relate to them as people I might meet in day to day life.They reflect a fantasy of perfection, not rounded, well developed characters. Michael Burnham has arguably had more depth and character development in twelve episodes than any TNG character did in seven seasons, except perhaps Data and we still don't really know her yet. TNG got away with that because we could establish specific traits we could associate with each character and a purity of purpose which had us cheering them on. Discovery has gone a different route in this regard and the serialised format lends itself to that.

This is one of those situations where I feel like we're speaking different languages, because I don't feel like I know much about any of the characters yet. Certainly a bit more about Burnham than the rest, since her story (particularly in the beginning) was the plot. But for everyone else, there's little to no provided information on their friends, families, fears, hobbies, past relationships, etc.

 

[fireproof78]

TNG got away with that because we could establish specific traits we could associate with each character and a purity of purpose which had us cheering them on.

Not to snip, but the part about "cheering them on" stuck out to me. Because, I don't feel like I'm cheering Burnham and them on, but at the same time I want them to succeed. Does that make sense?

 

[eschaton]

Not to snip, but the part about "cheering them on" stuck out to me. Because, I don't feel like I'm cheering Burnham and them on, but at the same time I want them to succeed. Does that make sense?

Sometimes I feel like I might be mildly "on the spectrum" because I seldom to never identify with characters in Trek. The only exceptions are in stories which deal with familial love, which now that I am grown and a parent gets to me every time. Just last night I saw for the first time the Voyager episode Lineage, and it legit made me cry (only time Voyager has ever done that).

 

[Hythlodeus]

I cried a lot over Voyager, for all the wrong reasons

 

[fireproof78]

Sometimes I feel like I might be mildly "on the spectrum" because I seldom to never identify with characters in Trek. The only exceptions are in stories which deal with familial love, which now that I am grown and a parent gets to me every time. Just last night I saw for the first time the Voyager episode Lineage, and it legit made me cry (only time Voyager has ever done that).

Well, why don't you come to my office and we can discuss it more?

 

[Spot261]

This is one of those situations where I feel like we're speaking different languages, because I don't feel like I know much about any of the characters yet. Certainly a bit more about Burnham than the rest, since her story (particularly in the beginning) was the plot. But for everyone else, there's little to no provided information on their friends, families, fears, hobbies, past relationships, etc.

I'm not so much saying we know much about them all per se, Burnham has had the sort of focus no character has in trek (again, possibly except Data). However they are convincingly fallible human beings (or alien proxies thereof). I don't expect them to necessarily always do the right thing, to shine as slightly different flavours of perfection. I look at how they present on screen and think "these people might let me down and I'd forgive them the way I do people in the real world, because that's what they are, real". I might understand how and why they let me down, empathise with those failings and be all the more inclined to celebrate their successes as a result.

For example when I look at TNG I see Riker, he is suave, bold, classically heroic. He was those things last week, he will be them next week. Those qualities are just words, they don't mean I actually believe in him, I just know he'll save the day with a flourish and we'll get recurring hints about his romance with Troi. He'll do whatever bold, suave things are required of him in the episode without any sense of the motivations of the person behind them. If he stays the same from week to week I'm happy, it's safe and predicable. When he acts in ways I don't expect it's by and large down to exactly the sort of inconsistent writing we talked about earlier and will have no bearing on who he is next week.

When I see Lorca, I see a person I might meet in real life, someone I'm trying to figure out as we go along, someone I'm never quite sure about. He surprises me, does things that impress me, he does things that make me angry. I don't trust him, but I know he might be able to persuade me anyway. I don't expect him to necessarily always be there next week miraculously unchanged by this weeks adventures or act in whatever way neatly brings us to pressing the reset button. I feel hurt, betrayed and let down that he so viciously beat that man and insulted his sisters memory after I had been willing to put some faith in him.

Not to snip, but the part about "cheering them on" stuck out to me. Because, I don't feel like I'm cheering Burnham and them on, but at the same time I want them to succeed. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I think so.

 

[Mudd]

Tim Russ did a good job I think at finding a way to perform a Vulcan who was a very different person from Spock.

Soval was a pretty good character, but Gary Graham does nothing for me as an actor. I can't believe he was ever in the running to be the captain on both DS9 and Voyager.

They were dull.

 

[eschaton]

I'm not so much saying we know much about them all per se, Burnham has had the sort of focus no character has in trek (again, possibly except Data). However they are convincingly fallible human beings (or alien proxies thereof). I don't expect them to necessarily always do the right thing, to shine as slightly different flavours of perfection. I look at how they present on screen and think "these people might let me down and I'd forgive them the way I do people in the real world, because that's what they are, real". I might understand how and why they let me down, empathise with those failings and be all the more inclined to celebrate their successes as a result.

For example when I look at TNG I see Riker, he is suave, bold, classically heroic. He was those things last week, he will be them next week. Those qualities are just words, they don't mean I actually believe in him, I just know he'll save the day with a flourish and we'll get recurring hints about his romance with Troi. He'll do whatever bold, suave things are required of him in the episode without any sense of the motivations of the person behind them. If he stays the same from week to week I'm happy, it's safe and predicable. When he acts in ways I don't expect it's by and large down to exactly the sort of inconsistent writing we talked about earlier and will have no bearing on who he is next week.

When I see Lorca, I see a person I might meet in real life, someone I'm trying to figure out as we go along, someone I'm never quite sure about. He surprises me, does things that impress me, he does things that make me angry. I don't trust him, but I know he might be able to persuade me anyway. I don't expect him to necessarily always be there next week miraculously unchanged by this weeks adventures or act in whatever way neatly brings us to pressing the reset button. I feel hurt, betrayed and let down that he so viciously beat that man and insulted his sisters memory after I had been willing to put some faith in him.

I agree that due to the procedural format of TNG they didn't do enough consistent character work, but I don't agree the characters didn't have flaws.

Picard: Disliked/was awkward with children. Had a bad relationship with his brother. Generally kept people at a distance

Riker: Didn't get along with his dad. Became kind of lazy as time went on. Womanizer.

Worf: Extremely dour and humorless for a Klingon. An absolutely horrible father.

Geordi: Horrible with women to the point of being creepy.

Yes, on the whole, they're all good people with minor quirks. But you know what - the people I know in real life more closely resemble this than the modern day "flawed" characters. Maybe it's just because I've shut toxic people out of my life as I've aged however.

 

[fireproof78]

I agree that due to the procedural format of TNG they didn't do enough consistent character work, but I don't agree the characters didn't have flaws.

Picard: Disliked/was awkward with children. Had a bad relationship with his brother. Generally kept people at a distance

Riker: Didn't get along with his dad. Became kind of lazy as time went on. Womanizer.

Worf: Extremely dour and humorless for a Klingon. An absolutely horrible father.

Geordi: Horrible with women to the point of being creepy.

Yes, on the whole, they're all good people with minor quirks. But you know what - the people I know in real life more closely resemble this than the modern day "flawed" characters. Maybe it's just because I've shut toxic people out of my life as I've aged however.

But, when did we find out all of this? Because, in Season 1, they were largely presented as near perfect, with minor quirks, like Picard's cantankerous attitude towards children, and Riker's weird relationship with Troi.

Versus Discovery which kind of lead with more flawed out of the gate. Which, made them feel more real to me.

 

[Refuge]

Early TNG was very dour on the whole, but as Roddenberry's influence waned, it did loosen up a bit. I think DS9 was the only latter-day Trek series which really embraced fully the idea of having comedic episodes however.

I actually find a lot of humour in the camaraderie between Kirk and Spock and especially Bones and Spock. It is remarkable feel good no matter what the story. Past Roddenberry 'Voyager' really does have a good tone, (perhaps why it is my favourite )

 

[Spot261]

I agree that due to the procedural format of TNG they didn't do enough consistent character work, but I don't agree the characters didn't have flaws.

Picard: Disliked/was awkward with children. Had a bad relationship with his brother. Generally kept people at a distance

Riker: Didn't get along with his dad. Became kind of lazy as time went on. Womanizer.

Worf: Extremely dour and humorless for a Klingon. An absolutely horrible father.

Geordi: Horrible with women to the point of being creepy.

Yes, on the whole, they're all good people with minor quirks. But you know what - the people I know in real life more closely resemble this than the modern day "flawed" characters. Maybe it's just because I've shut toxic people out of my life as I've aged however.

Maybe you just know nicer people than me

 

[XCV330]

TOS Starfleet with its attrition rate, living accomodations, near cold-war like conditions, is honestly probably going to not always attract the most stable flawless people. By TNG Barclays are more of a rarity to the point senior staff can sip tea privately and laugh at them behind their back. In the TOS era you hope you DO get Barclays.

 

[eschaton]

Maybe you just know nicer people than me

Or maybe I'm just naive and expect that most people have good intentions.

I tend to think Trek over-estimates the level of competence significantly compared to the "man on the street," but I'd expect Starfleet to be full of overachievers. After all, in a world where you don't have to work much and can just get replicated stuff, only really driven people would choose a life like Starfleet.