I posted about this in another thread, but it bears more discussion.
Personally, I found the beginning of Discovery to be a mess - particularly the two-episode "prologue" which included extraneous scenes, had some terrible dialogue, and in general completely botched the arc of the fall of Micheal Burnham (presuming we were supposed to become invested in her as a character). I felt the series picked up quite a bit in the third episode, but it didn't feel very "Trek" to me, and had me wondering why they even bothered with the first two episodes. The fourth episode was a step back in the right direction with Trek themes, and the fifth episode was basically classic Trek, with a shift towards ensemble cast development, a classic A/B plot structure, and the central plot beats (a first officer having his command ability tested, a captain who is captured, weighing the ethics of doing something questionable in a dicey situation, etc).
I noticed, looking at the episode credits on Wikipedia, that Bryan Fuller was credited as the full writer on Episode 2 and a cowriter on episodes 1 and 3. Since then, the series has lapped past his writing contribution, and it seems to be getting better, and ironically more "treklike" - considering he was the writer who was supposed to bring the Trek gravitas to the show.
We know from interviews that the controversial Klingon redesign fell squarely on Bryan Fuller's shoulders. He insisted they be bald, and he personally okayed the new design before he left the show. We also know that Michael Burnham was a creation of his, which also likely means the decision to have a narrative focus on a single character was his baby.
The narrative about the series by people who were detractors of Discovery even before it came out was that Bryan Fuller was some saintly character - which I never quite understood, because while he did some above average Voyager episodes, he was not one of the top writers Berman-era trek. His exit was seen by these people as a sign that the studio had intervened, and that under "studio hacks" like Alex Kurtzman and Akiva Goldman it would lose all Trekness. I'm starting to wonder if it was the inverse, watching the series unfold. If due to his reputation in the franchise, Bryan thought he could take liberties that an outsider wouldn't have done. Pretty soon into production, it became clear that his high-concept vision for Discovery wouldn't pan out, so he either quit or was fired. They then retooled to try to make more of a "classic Trek" show that fans would enjoy.
Anyway, that's just my hypothesis. Thoughts?
Personally, I found the beginning of Discovery to be a mess - particularly the two-episode "prologue" which included extraneous scenes, had some terrible dialogue, and in general completely botched the arc of the fall of Micheal Burnham (presuming we were supposed to become invested in her as a character). I felt the series picked up quite a bit in the third episode, but it didn't feel very "Trek" to me, and had me wondering why they even bothered with the first two episodes. The fourth episode was a step back in the right direction with Trek themes, and the fifth episode was basically classic Trek, with a shift towards ensemble cast development, a classic A/B plot structure, and the central plot beats (a first officer having his command ability tested, a captain who is captured, weighing the ethics of doing something questionable in a dicey situation, etc).
I noticed, looking at the episode credits on Wikipedia, that Bryan Fuller was credited as the full writer on Episode 2 and a cowriter on episodes 1 and 3. Since then, the series has lapped past his writing contribution, and it seems to be getting better, and ironically more "treklike" - considering he was the writer who was supposed to bring the Trek gravitas to the show.
We know from interviews that the controversial Klingon redesign fell squarely on Bryan Fuller's shoulders. He insisted they be bald, and he personally okayed the new design before he left the show. We also know that Michael Burnham was a creation of his, which also likely means the decision to have a narrative focus on a single character was his baby.
The narrative about the series by people who were detractors of Discovery even before it came out was that Bryan Fuller was some saintly character - which I never quite understood, because while he did some above average Voyager episodes, he was not one of the top writers Berman-era trek. His exit was seen by these people as a sign that the studio had intervened, and that under "studio hacks" like Alex Kurtzman and Akiva Goldman it would lose all Trekness. I'm starting to wonder if it was the inverse, watching the series unfold. If due to his reputation in the franchise, Bryan thought he could take liberties that an outsider wouldn't have done. Pretty soon into production, it became clear that his high-concept vision for Discovery wouldn't pan out, so he either quit or was fired. They then retooled to try to make more of a "classic Trek" show that fans would enjoy.
Anyway, that's just my hypothesis. Thoughts?