Michael Burnham is the Chosen One

[BillJ]

I like her, I feel some of it is a character choice. She does get more interesting when she’s more emotional expressive, but she does tend to go into Vulcan mode a lot. I think they can make that part of the story, especially as Spock comes in since he has a similar thing. If they actually make Spock’s more emotional performance part of the canon where in his younger days was more willing to embrace his human side while his human adoptive sister is also struggling with her dual human and Vulcan heritage. This could be the catalyst that sends both down different paths.

I'll just be happy if they figure out a way to keep me from falling asleep while watching.

 

[Awesome Possum]

No one is forcing you to watch it.

 

[BillJ]

No one is forcing you to watch it.

Nope. But it is Star Trek, so I make the effort. Though I never did finish season one. Bogged down twice around episode twelve.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Burnham is the best part of the show.

 

[BillJ]

Burnham is the best part of the show.

Personally, I prefer both Tilly and Stamets. And Lorca, prior to his Mirror universe makeover.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Tilly and Stamets feel like actual people, something that’s rare on Star Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

No one is forcing you to watch it.

Exactly. I think this might become my response to a lot of complaints around the show,

Burnham is the best part of the show.

Agreed.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Though I don't find Burnham too compelling, I think they have a strong actress for that part and hope the creative staff learns how to write more to her strengths, much like how the TNG writers learned to write to Stewart's strengths by the second season of TNG.

 

[Awesome Possum]

The first season of any show is rough because they’re figuring it out. TNG didn’t hit its stride until 3. If we judged it by just the first season it would get the exact same complaints.

 

[Mudd]

The first season of any show is rough because they’re figuring it out. TNG didn’t hit its stride until 3. If we judged it by just the first season it would get the exact same complaints.

Well, that's a familiar old Trekkie excuse. Most really widely-watched shows that last for any length of time have to be good quickly or they fail quickly.

These people don't get paid all that money to stumble around and "figure it out" for a year.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Well, that's a familiar old Trekkie excuse. Most really widely-watched shows that last for any length of time have to be good quickly or they fail quickly.

These people don't get paid all that money to stumble around and "figure it out" for a year.

Discovery isn’t a bad show either. But most long running shows take a season or two to figure itself out. Now they know what works and what didn’t and they can adjust.

 

[Jadeb]

Well, that's a familiar old Trekkie excuse. Most really widely-watched shows that last for any length of time have to be good quickly or they fail quickly.

These people don't get paid all that money to stumble around and "figure it out" for a year.

If TOS had stumbled out of the gate, we wouldn’t be here today.

 

[Awesome Possum]

If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Well, that's a familiar old Trekkie excuse. Most really widely-watched shows that last for any length of time have to be good quickly or they fail quickly.

These people don't get paid all that money to stumble around and "figure it out" for a year.

It’s not a Trekkie excuse, it’s a fact. The Trek spin-offs weren’t the only shows to experience rocky first seasons before being refined into something better. I can think of Parks and Recreation and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Not all successful shows just hit it off with their best seasons like TOS did. As long as a large enough audience is maintained, the makers are free to “figure it out” in order to make a better show.

https://screenrant.com/worst-first-seasons-amazing-tv-shows/

That’s not a guarantee that Discovery will find its stride, of course. It’ll either be refined into whatever it needs to be soon, or it’ll flounder like Enterprise until it gets cancelled.

 

[cultcross]

Rewatching first seasons of successful shows tends to highlight one of two scenarios, in my opinion.
First, they had great ideas and crafted a brilliant season which they then find increasingly difficult to follow up on. A lot of these are where you are telling a particular story which is clearly done, but it was successful so you have to make more. Homeland, 24, Glee, House of Cards, The Killing, Dexter, Broadchurch, 13 Reasons Why, Heroes.
Second, the first season was at best a rough draft of what was to come, with some ideas in place but nothing quite fleshed out. Later seasons grew the beard. These tend to be shows based on a concept/setting without a particular central storyline. Most Treks fall into this category, as does OITNB, Parks and Rec, Buffy, Angel, The Simpsons, Agents of Shield, Stargate Universe, the US Office.

I'm hoping Discovery is the latter.

 

[eschaton]

I wrote this on another forum, which is related to this thread, so just crossposting this here:

SMG was given the hardest job out of all of the actors on the series, in that she was directed - at least initially - to not emote. The reasons for this never made a lick of narrative sense. Don't get me wrong - the idea of having a human raised by Vulcans is intriguing, for much the same reason that Worf (a Klingon mostly raised by humans) ended up being intriguing. However, the Spock's sister thing fucked everything up, because of Amanda. She was within the house, fully human, and should have been able to ground Micheal. It's not like the show ignored her either. I guess it's possible as a result of her two childhood traumas she just turned her back on her "human nature." But then there's the related issue of how Burnham could have served for seven years aboard the Shenzhou with Georgiou and not let loose a bit. Regardless, she was specifically instructed to not show her emotions - and even worse, to talk about them instead of showing them. Until the showrunners changed their mind and/or forgot.

When I thought that the writers had a plan (e.g., prior to the last episode) I presumed that what the writing was trying to tell us about Micheal Burnham was that she was, due to her Vulcan upbringing, basically lying to herself. That is to say, she was under the belief that she was a supremely logical, rational person. However, in truth she was more emotional than the average human being. For whatever reason her upbringing meant she didn't have the tools to handle her childhood trauma - suppression works for Vulcans, but it does not work well for humans. So instead of confronting things, she kept running away from how she felt - or trying to rationalize it as being the "logical course of action." Thus she made random-ass gut check decisions when put in a crisis situation, when a normal human who was a Starfleet Officer would have known enough to second-guess those decisions.

Unfortunately, the season finale made it painfully clear that was not their intention. Instead they picked up tattered threads to her character that had been totally unused since the second episode, and decided to run with that.

 

[Mudd]

Rewatching first seasons of successful shows tends to highlight one of two scenarios, in my opinion.
First, they had great ideas and crafted a brilliant season which they then find increasingly difficult to follow up on. A lot of these are where you are telling a particular story which is clearly done, but it was successful so you have to make more.

This would be somewhat true of both Westworld and the original Star Trek. I still found the second season of WW to be head and shoulders above most of what passes for science fiction in TV and movies, but they could not do again what they did the first year. And the difficulty with Star Trek was that they ran the gamut of novel premises that fit within their (admittedly broad) format within the first season. After that, most episodes were variations of what they'd done before - they did, maybe, four first-class stories in their second year and then a lot of alternate Earth-type stories and thin allegories.

 

[ITDUDE]

My gripe with the character and the show is that they were both exceedingly dull. Hopefully, both fare better in the second season.

This x 1000

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Hardest example is TWIN PEAKS with such a strong first season, followed by an incredibly troubled second season that basically sank the show after its central premise was rushed by the studio to be resolved, with nothing left to work on besides a bunch of b-plots. We all like to think the best shows start off great from the get go, but there’s something more rewarding of seeing a show move upward. At least none of the spin-offs so far have had a last season as horribly disappointing as TOS season 3.

 

[ITDUDE]

That's the problem with high concept shows. They tend to have great first season or two and then disappear. They burn out after the concept is over done and there is nothing left to hold the show up. The best shows that last a long time are the ones that start slow, keep building momentum and don't depend on any one concept to be successful.
A good example is Under The Dome which I didn't know existed until recently and then binge watched all 3 seasons in about 3 days or so. GREAT first season, and then... fluff... for rest of the run. Many Stephen King novels are like that, they are short(ish) books, with start, middle and end. They have great concept and then it gets resolved. If you try to stretch it out indefinitely you will end up with... fluff.
STD isn't necessarily high concept (but common ANOTHER arc based on preventing destruction of the whole galaxy), but in order to survive long term they really need to build up other characters than Boringham. They kept around Georgiou (good), but killed Lorca (bad. BBL!). Let's hope they figure it out this season, QUICKLY. There is no guarantee of Season 3