Is this show actually "character driven" at all?

[eschaton]

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.

We do know Amanda Grayson will appear later in the season, so we're not done with her Vulcan backstory yet.

Hopefully Burnham will become less muddled. What's she looking for now? To save the Federation? To redeem herself personally? To just keep doing a good enough job not to be thrown back in jail? We just don't know.

 

[Jadeb]

We do know Amanda Grayson will appear later in the season, so we're not done with her Vulcan backstory yet.

Hopefully Burnham will become less muddled. What's she looking for now? To save the Federation? To redeem herself personally? To just keep doing a good enough job not to be thrown back in jail? We just don't know.

I'm guessing the answer here is "to atone for her sins." She thinks she ought to be in prison, oddly enough, though the show hasn't really shed any meaningful light on her take on her actions in retrospect. Were they justified? Logical? If she's remorseful, as she apparently is, why? Because her mentor died, because she started a war, or because she now thinks she made the wrong decisions? That's a big hole, and one reason it feels like we know the character so poorly even though she's the only one to get significant focus in all four episodes.

Like I say, I hope we get more explanation going forward. But for now, I find it terribly hard to be invested in her character, which is a big problem, because she's the lead.

 

[Nyotarules]

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.

Star Trek meets 50 Shades of grey.?

 

[eschaton]

I'm guessing the answer here is "to atone for her sins." She thinks she ought to be in prison, oddly enough, though the show hasn't really shed any meaningful light on her take on her actions in retrospect. Were they justified? Logical? If she's remorseful, as she apparently is, why? Because her mentor died, because she started a war, or because she now thinks she made the wrong decisions? That's a big hole, and one reason it feels like we know the character so poorly even though she's the only one to get significant focus in all four episodes.

Like I say, I hope we get more explanation going forward. But for now, I find it terribly hard to be invested in her character, which is a big problem, because she's the lead.

Again, I understand "show, don't tell" is now dogma (and misinterpreted - it was originally to cut down on flowery scene description in novels), but given Micheal has no friends on the ship (or anywhere) she doesn't actually get into conversations about her life history, feelings, dreams, remorse, etc. So her character moments often boil down to staring into the distance when something is going on.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

From a storytelling perspective, what is the point of her Vulcan background if not to imbue her with Vulcan traits? I.

I think her higher level of objectivity is a fairly Vulcan trait, and her execution may be a bit impulsive she is hyper rational about facts and circumstances.

 

[Jadeb]

Again, I understand "show, don't tell" is now dogma (and misinterpreted - it was originally to cut down on flowery scene description in novels), but given Micheal has no friends on the ship (or anywhere) she doesn't actually get into conversations about her life history, feelings, dreams, remorse, etc. So her character moments often boil down to staring into the distance when something is going on.

You'd think they'd use Force Ghost Sarek for that. But maybe he's only available to provide plot McGuffins.

 

[eschaton]

You'd think they'd use Force Ghost Sarek for that. But maybe he's only available to provide plot McGuffins.

I'm convinced that scene was added after the fact to pad the pilot into a two-episode affair. It was so completely and totally unneeded.

 

[Nyotarules]

It would be more interesting for me if T'Pol or Soval was her mentor, just to link the show to the ENT era. Oh well.

 

[Noname Given]

"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.

Oh please - "Spock talks abiout Family and emotions..." - Here's the entire exchange:
[Full Transcript of the episode: http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/2.htm]

SPOCK: I'll have you checkmated your next move.

KIRK: Have I ever mentioned you play a very irritating game of chess, Mister Spock?

SPOCK: Irritating? Ah, yes. One of your Earth emotions.

KIRK: Certain you don't know what irritation is?

SPOCK: The fact one of my ancestors married a human female...

KIRK: Terrible having bad blood like that.

^^^
And lets be honest - if you didn't know these two above characters for the last 50+ years, and somethiing like this happened between to characters of ST: ED - be honest, with the quips to Spock from Kirk, O have to thiink you'd ask: "Hey, why is Kirk being such a dick to his first officer?"

I mean baiting Spock with:
KIRK: Certain you don't know what irritation is?
And then calling into question Spock's lineage with:
KIRK: Terrible having bad blood like that

Yeah, Kirk's a dick.

Oh, an BTW - technically then TOS - "Journey to Babel" contradicts the above. For Spock's father to technically be an 'ancestor' ; Sarek would have to be dead.

 

[Jadeb]

I'm convinced that scene was added after the fact to pad the pilot into a two-episode affair. It was so completely and totally unneeded.

Someone had to tell her that the Vulcans now kill on sight!

 

[Noname Given]

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.

I like ST: D a lot - but even I wouldn't claim "the most ambitious story in Trek history" -- these writers are just trying to tell a Star Trek story in a way/format that's fairly new to Star Trek (Yes, ENT did something similar in its third season, but only the broad strokes of the situation were outlined as they filmed and continued to write. For ST: D the story and character beats were all 100% plotted - and the majority of the episode scripts actually written before they started filming the first scene.

ST: D is also a BIG DEPARTURE from TV Star Trek of the Berman era that spanned 18 years and 25 TV Seasons. Its also a story about Starfleet's first full scale war since its founding after the Earth/Romulan war 90 years earlier in universe - and that's another big departure from Star Trek's traditional format as well.

The only area I think they made a big mistake in was setting it so close to an established Star Trek era. Sertting it AFTER TOS - "The Cage" saddled it with a lot more continuity/canon baggage then if they had set it 10 years BEFORE TOS - "The Cage" <--- But that was a decision the production staff made, and that is causing them more issues in selling this to TOS and TNG era fans (which is something CBSAA was counting on as it's a subscription service. They really want the existing fans to want to see accept this in addition to attracting new fans; and WHEN they set it IS an issue for even TOS fans (I do believe they were 100% correct in NOT setting it Post TNG era because then you have all the Berman era Utopian baggage, and the fact the Klingon culture is well know and understood by Starfleet in that era.)

As far as the story itself, I think it's fine sio far. The issue they're having is with the Star trek fans who dearly loved tghe TNG era; and the TOS fans who because of exactly when its set have issues with even some of the costume design decisions <--- again, which could have been quashed were this set prior to TOS - "The Cage".

Again, as a TOS fan who's been watching Star Trek first run since 1969 (age: 6) - I enjoy the show, and find the characters interesting and do feel they are in line with the 23rd century era of Star Trek; and I also have only a small issue with some of the canon elements (and understand WHY they aren't using "The Cage" era production design elements directly); but I could also see why it WOULD bother other TOS era fans - and their overall enjoyment of the new Star Trek series.

These were all things that the ST: D production staff could have avoided by setting this say even 15 years prior to classic TOS (and 3 years prior to "The Cage" -m but they chose what they did and are having to deal with the various issues of fan acceptance that causes. Maybe they will be able to pull it off and get wider acceptance of this story once it's complete, but again, if they were hoping for wider acceptance from the start, there's more they could have done.

 

[Sir Stewart Wallace]

Character development of the main character will be difficult when that character is played by someone who doesn't seem to be able to act.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Character development of the main character will be difficult when that character is played by someone who doesn't seem to be able to act.

You can't possibly be suggesting that SMG cannot act?

 

[Spider]

Character development of the main character will be difficult when that character is played by someone who doesn't seem to be able to act.

She can do angsty and illogical, which is in direct contrast to what we've been told she is. For someone who was raised on Vulcan and went to the Vulcan science academy, it's obvious she didn't pick up anything. It's kind of analogous to being fat, dumb, and unable to swim after graduating a military naval academy. Does not compute.

 

[CardassianAssassin]

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.

What you’re describing here, are rather one dimensional characters, and I tend to agree. A Captain that’s always a war monger is just s one dimensional nd flat character as a captain who’s always filled with sunny, humanist optimism.

The flat characters would be tolerable if there at least was an interesting main character, and the main character is one of the shows greatest problems IMHO.

Whether it’s her acting skills or because her character is written poorly can be up for debate, but so far I’m very unimpressed with Michael Burnham. She comes across rather unlikable and worst of all: Boring. Most of the time she’s just shooting people the stink eye, or staring at stuff.

T’pol was also Vulcan (or had a Vulcan character) but at least had the skill to shoot a look or raise an eyebrow in a way that said everything. Burnham otoh is just plain and boring.

 

[eschaton]

Someone had to tell her that the Vulcans now kill on sight!

I wasn't referring to her "phone home" to Sarek, but the later "Katra vision" when she was in the brig. It was completely irrelevant from a plot or characterization standpoint.

 

[CardassianAssassin]

You can't possibly be suggesting that SMG cannot act?

Funny enough, that’s an accusation that seems to follow her from show to show...

 

[Kor]

SMG joins the eminent list of celebrated actors who act exactly the same in every role, such as Clint Eastwood, Tom Cruise, and Morgan Freeman.

Anyway, I don't need a bunch of soap-ish character drama. I just wish the characters were a little bit more likeable. Landry was a spiteful grouch who will absolutely not be missed. Stamets started off that way, but he seems to be becoming a little bit less of a jerk as of the last episode. Strangely, the one I like most is Lorca.

So far, what I've been enjoying most about the show are the spectacular visuals. The characters may as well be straight out of Dark Matter.

Kor

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Funny enough, that’s an accusation that seems to follow her from show to show...

There are often people who simply don't like a character or a portrayal of a character and keep it simple by saying bad actore/actress.

I wouldn't say that accusation follows her from show to show, the vast majority of people who watch recognize her as a fine actress. I think what follows her from show to show are a small number of fringe types.

 

[eschaton]

What you’re describing here, are rather one dimensional characters, and I tend to agree. A Captain that’s always a war monger is just s one dimensional nd flat character as a captain who’s always filled with sunny, humanist optimism..

I honestly don't find Lorca to be a warmonger. Instead he seems to be a driven captain with few if any scruples. His mission is to end the war, and he will do that by any means necessary. The problem is, he needs to have more complexity than that if he is to develop into a compelling character.