Were Discovery's early misteps actually Bryan Fuller's fault?

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?

 

Actually, according to studio insiders, the reason Fuller was let go was because he was trying to make the show essentially identical to the 90s shows and CBS wanted something more for modern television.

Honestly, at this point it is clear to me there's some serious behind the scenes drama going on on the ship. I mean, hell, just look at the amount of producers listed in the credits and you can pretty much tell that. The show seems to have "too many cooks in the kitchen" and is being negatively impacted because of it. Look no further than the Prime Universe thing. Everyone involved in the show is insisting that this is the Prime Universe and that the canon will match up, but so far everything we've seen does not match at all. Hell, the recent D-7 debacle pretty much proves to me that no one has any real serious intent to keep this consistent with the Prime Universe, despite the party line.

 

Visual depictions are not canon. The writers have shown they are very aware of canon and clearly do their best to work creatively with it. On the Vulcan depictions, I have no answer. It's an odd disconnect.

 

Oh, yeah? That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

 

I am more inclined to believe the issue was the fact that they switched gears between what Fuller was doing and what they are doing now.

If Fuller was doing it this whole time it would be different but less disjointed.

If Fuller was out from the get go it would be different but less disjointed.

My little opinion

 

Article that I read said he was let go because they were not happy about how he was managing the budget and schedule (which resulted multiple delays, with the series 8 months after the original Jan 2017 target).

 

Until Tribbleations, the look of Klingons post-TMP was never a big deal. It was accepted. They had better budgets for fx. Until Relics, the discerning viewer probably wasn't so literal to think that a starship was controlled by a series of unmarked backlit colored buttons. People accepted far more alien species on post-TMP ships. There didn't have to be some canon explanation for it in the years between the 5yv and the Vger incident.

Over the years episodes that have referred specifically to the look of past episodes have been more problematic than anything. They were really nothing more than winks and nods to the fans until Enterprise came up with augment virus. Sometimes its ok to have some suspension of disbelief on this stuff. Warp travel isn't real. Gravity plating is a kludge to make the show film-able. And Klingon ships, whether I like the way they look, are whatever the director okays them as.

 

The thing is, if you know there is a Klingon ship type known as the D-7, then you know enough to find out what it looks like. Hell, just type Klingon D7 into Google and it pops up. To go and actively choose another ship design when the script clearly says "D-7" is to actively disregard canon.

 

What "missteps"?

Which scenes in particular did you find extraneous, and why?

What dialogue did you find terrible and why?

How was Burnham's arc botched?

I'm asking these questions because I don't accept the premise of your thread.

 

I don't think that is accurate, It was his involvement with American Gods that caused him to leave Discovery. Fuller wanted to work on both, but it was causing delays to Discovery so he was asked to step down.

Bryan Fuller was behind the new Klingons and the new designs of their ships so I'd day that the lack of consistency began with him. Originally Fuller wanted the series to be an anthology with each series exploring a different timeline and the first season was what we are seeing now, a war with the Klingons. He planned out the entire First season before his departure and it is this plan the current showrunner Gretchen Berg and Aaron Harberts are working from, they were hand picked by Fuller as he had worked with them on Pushing daisies. Berg and Harberts seem to have taken over the lion's share of the work and have been actively involved in the writing from episode 2. Kurtzman has only co-written the first episode (which might explain why it was uneven) and hasn't been involved with the writing of any episode since (at least according to the credits)

I think the first few episodes did suffer from too many cooks, but now that it seems to be Berg and Harberts in charge, we're seeing stronger writing and more consistency. Berg and Harberts seem to be pretty invested in discovery and have apparently already planned out season 2 and begun an outline for season 3. I think by the end of the season we're all going to pleasantly surprised with the results

 

That's what was said publicly. Variety, among other sources, has reported the studio's unhappiness with Fuller. When his other commitments caused schedules to be missed that was the end.

I was always skeptical of Fuller, but despite that it looks to me as if it was dumping him that was the genesis of the current mess. This show is being closely managed by the business offices at CBS - they want a certain product for a certain niche, and that's what they'll have.

 

I don't find an excuse for the Klingon visuals. I suspect that IS Brian Fuller, as we know he was involved in the design, like the bald had, sensors in the back of the head, etc. (I wonder if he designed them with easily snappable necks or if that was written in later). It kind of smacks of the excess that Lynch's Dune went into, making the Harkonnen's visually as nearly inhumanly disgusting as possible, for reasons only the director might now.

I don't personally give a rat's ass what the D7 looks like. I always thought they looked spindly. I haven't seen a good enough image of the Disco-D7 to know what it really looks like, but it will probably have too much aztecing and greebling. They really want these Klingon's ornate. For me they made them too inhuman to be relatable. No one would relate to Worf if he'd been in DSC costume. No one would have been able to hear his lines through the rubber, let alone him getting to be in relationships with Troi or Dax.

Plummer and Lloyd would have been absolutely ridiculous in these costumes, let alone Colicos. Going this route visually hobbles actors and it also limited what they can do going forward with Klingons unless there is some plot related fix to the problem.

 

Personally, I think this goes without saying. There's no need to listen to rumors. We are transitioning out of Fuller's vision and influence not the reverse.

 

Fuller is admired because of all the stuff he's done since Trek -- Wonderfalls, Dead Like Me, Pushing Daisies, and Hannibal, as well as playing a significant role in the first (and only good) season of Heroes. He was just starting out when he did DS9 and VGR; he's come quite a long way since then. Judging Fuller's career solely by his previous Trek work is like judging Gene Roddenberry's career based solely on Have Gun -- Will Travel.

I don't think so, no. According to all reports, Fuller had the basic arc of at least a fair portion of the season worked out before he left. I'm sure Berg & Harberts are executing the plan differently than Fuller would've, just because no two creators will ever do the same thing in exactly the same way, but since they're essentially his protegees and have worked with him on other shows, they presumably see it as their job to carry his plans forward as best they can.

Huh? That claim contradicts what's been reported in Entertainment Weekly and elsewhere. According to EW, Fuller's original plan for the show was to do a seasonal anthology in which each season would tell a story set at a different point in the Trek timeline. The first season would be the pre-TOS Klingon war we're getting, the second season would be post-TOS, and so on, moving forward to a different era each year. EW also reported that the reason Fuller was let go was because his attention was too divided by the effort to produce both Discovery and American Gods at the same time, which was slowing down the production untenably.

Lots of shows these days have a really large number of producers. Steven Spielberg's Terra Nova back in 2011 had 13 different executive producers, a co-executive producer, three producers, three co-producers, and five consulting producers. Just to pick one recent Netflix show, Luke Cage also had 13 executive producers as well as three co-execs, three producers, etc. It's got nothing to do with "serious behind the scenes drama," because it's not particularly unusual these days. Heck, Discovery only has about 8 executive producers. It doesn't even break double digits, which makes it a relatively streamlined production by modern standards. Keep in mind that many executive producers aren't part of the creative staff, they're co-owners of the intellectual property or financial backers of the production or business partners of the production companies.

 

Terra Nova is another example of behind the scenes drama, from what I recall.

 

Yep.

 

It's in line with things I've heard, however. I work in the same office as number of the former CBS Digital Discovery VFX team and they've made comments about Fuller's time on the show very similar to what The Wormhole has heard. If the production really was as troubled as they've implied, there's no reason to think places like Entertainment Weekly or Variety are going to get anything other than PR managed explanations.

 

Courtesy Variety, an industry publication of, ah, some standing.

Tip of the ice berg.

 

Looks will never match no. But events are matching prime pretty damned well so far.

 

In another year or two, when you search D7, guess whats gonna pop up? Removing the D7 would be a canon violation, changing its look to fit a modern style, is not.