Is this show actually "character driven" at all?

I've posted about issues of character in the other threads, but I figured it should have a standalone discussion. Apologies if this is repetitive.

My understanding of "modern TV" is that it is essentially that the story should be driven by the characterization, rather than the other way around. So far, however, I'm seeing the inverse from discovery - that it's essentially all plot, with no character development at all.

The writers have made a solid attempt to develop Michael Burnham, who has been featured strongly in all four episodes to date. The show also has an unusual structure (for both Trek and a lot of modern TV) in that it's built around her as the main character, rather than an ensemble cast. The problem with Burnham's character is that, at least to my mind, it's inconsistent. She veers from hyper-rational to emotional, from making great decisions to making poor ones, from being the "perfect starfleet officer" to being a renegade. Some could call this complexity, but to my mind Burnham's decisions are mostly being pushed by the needs of the plot, rather than a consistent idea of who her character is and what she wants.

The crew of the Discovery are worse. Each "also starring" has basically one and only one personality trait. Lorca wants victory at any cost. Stamets is angry that his life of pure research has been disturbed. Saru is cautious and suspicious. Tilly is anxious and inexperienced. Every single conversation reinforces these archetypes rather than allowing them to deepen. And every conversation they are in is either to further along the main plot arc or to further Burnham's development as a character, rather than their own.

The Klingons haven't been given much screen time yet, and I'm not even sure what their singular traits would be. Voq is a true believer (and kinda a loser), Kol is an opportunist, and L'Rell is...mysterious I guess? They haven't had much screen time, so I'm not going to complain heavily in this case.

What the show is sorely lacking are "character moments." These tend to be the quiet bits of dialogue which allow for two characters to engage in casual, informal conversation without necessarily furthering the main plot. DS9 was great for these moments, which often resulted in saving an episode which would otherwise be a total stinker with some great backstory. But it seems to me, at least so far, the series is so densely plotted that there isn't the breathing room to allow for this sort of natural character development to happen. I hope it slows down a bit in the future.

 

I think you just listed a lot of examples of the show being character driven, and you just happen not to like any of them.

 

So far it's coming off less character driven and more character grounded, much like DS9 was at its inception.

 

You don't like the fact that Burnham has complexity and is inconsistent but you're also unhappy that the other characters are so far consistent and lacking complexity?

Ok, sure.

 

Pretty much every character is an asshole thus far, and it is hard for a story to recover from that. You know what they say about first impressions.

The show feels more plot driven than character driven. Exhibit A would be Commander Landry's beyond stupid actions that led to her death.

 

I don't see any complexity in the character, honestly. She suffers from Janeway Syndrome. Just all over the place as the plot dictates. None of her actions feels organic.

 

Character conflict does not equal character driven. The main plot points of the show to date have been plot driven external conflict, with the exception of Burnham's series of poor choices in the first two episodes.

What I want is a holocommunication that Lorca has back home to his wife and kids. Or to see a kareoke session in the mess hall where Tilly gives an awesome performance. Something to remind me these are human beings, not archetypes.

 

though I do disagree with your overall point.

what TF were the writers thinking?

 

Even those were externally driven.

"Where No Man..." opens with Kirk and Spock playing Chess and talking about Spock's family and Earth emotions. We learned more in that single scene about the characters than we have in four episodes about Burnham.

 

I find most of the characters pretty understandable. Landry was the only one that perplexed me, and her exit was as equally perplexing. And I thought Olson's death in ST09 was the dumbest, but she took the cake.

 

I agree with much the OP has said. I don't recall being confused after 4 episodes of any of the other series. I don't mean confused about the content of the plot, I mean confused about the characters and why we should be invested in them.

 

Plot-driven: stuff actually happens.

Character-driven: forty-five minutes of whiny emo angst.

I know what I prefer.

Kor

 

So far, I can't see the point of Michael's Vulcan backstory. It seems entirely irrelevant, if not directly at odds with her impulsive, emotional behavior. Maybe it will go somewhere, but we're a quarter of the way through and things haven't really coalesced yet. That's how I'm kinda feeling about the show in general.

I was totally sucked into Twin Peaks: The Return from the first episode, so it's not just the nature of serialized television. I kinda wish Trek hadn't followed so closely on the heels of that.

 

What about whiny emo angst driven by the plot?!?

 

I'm felt the same way about The Handmaid's Tale. They presented a fleshed-out group of characters and world from the get-go. I'm thinking that in Discovery's case, it bit off more than it could chew trying to tell a war story from two different sides. It is badly cutting into time that could be used to learn about the crew and the world they inhabit.

 

I'm not sure what drives the show at this point, but for a show that's supposed to be focused on characters, they're all very weak, bland and uninteresting. I suspect that it's because they're trying to do a GOT thing where they'll be killing them off one by one.

 

That is the relevance, and the point.

Vulcan trained/educated + human tendencies = hyper rational conclusions mixed with irrational execution.

the purpose is for this war of culture and upbringing, in an inward way, to shape her character and the events around her.

also consider, her training has only become at odds with her actions in one episode in a big way, since then she's been always right, and methodical. Yes luring the tardigrade was dangerous but not at all impulsive.

 

The show is more interested in its tech and its messy overstuffed visuals than it is in its characters.

 

They haven't sold me on that at all. She acts out in the first two eps because of her overwhelmingly emotional reaction to the Klingons. And her standoffishness/rudeness/behavior since seems built more on remorse (an emotion) than on anything Vulcan. You could drop the whole Vulcan/Sarek angle and have the exact same story with the need for very little rewriting.

I really hope it ends up paying off in some way.

 

Michael is a mess of a character, her main selling point was this phony association with Sarek and Spock, yet there's absolutely nothing Vulcan in her behavior, it cannot possibly be any less Vulcan. It's beginning to look like this association serves no other purpose than the writers wanting to immortalize their names with the history of Spock. So far, we're getting overly contrived characters and a klingon war backdrop. And yet the vast majority of posters here are giving the show above 5 ratings, so, logic dictates, that I'm missing something.