I really don't see why people think the characters aren't well developed. Since people love comparing it to TOs... how much character development was there for the main cast?
I think character development was there for "the big three," no question.
Scotty would be next on my list, but he also was a bit of a caricature than anything else. Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov were just kinda... there. So, yes, the point is taken.
However, I will also admit that Discovery has done a p*ss-poor job of developing the minor bridge crew. TOS didn't do that all the time, but we do have characters like Stiles from "Balance of Terror," Bailey from "The Corbomite Maneuver," and of course, Lt. Kyle.
Outside of Keyla Detmer (whose name I only remember because Burnham called her out by name), I did have a "who the f*** is that?" moment in the final MU episode. It's nice that they finally got lines, but it didn't feel quite natural... almost like Lorca had a DO NOT TALK rule on the bridge.
And I also think that certain aspects of the main cast are still severely underdeveloped, the Burnham/Tyler relationship being the prime example. It is a credit to the show that some of these characters have caught on with fans, despite this... but, I've heard even the most ardent supporters of this show say they wished the story would linger for a moment, so we could spend more time with these characters.
And I also think that certain aspects of the main cast are still severely underdeveloped, the Burnham/Tyler relationship being the prime example.
You're assuming the relationship is over. From what I've heard/read, it's far from it.
No, not really.
I don't doubt their story is done, especially since Michael is the lead of the series... I still think the formation of the relationship was rushed and underdeveloped. Reminds me A LOT of the Lois/Clark relationship in Man Of Steel. It didn't feel earned there to me, and it doesn't feel earned here.
We'll see where this season ends up on Sunday, but you'll probably hear this from me a lot over the next few weeks: this season's story should have been divided over two seasons. I don't think I have many issues with the story itself, with the possible exception of how they dealt with Lorca... but even that might've been okay, had they built it up over two seasons (and I still don't like that they turned him into a cheap Bond villain named Gonald Lump, but whatever, I'm making my peace with it).
And I also think that certain aspects of the main cast are still severely underdeveloped, the Burnham/Tyler relationship being the prime example.
You're assuming the relationship is over. From what I've heard/read, it's far from it.
No, not really.
I don't doubt their story is done, especially since Michael is the lead of the series... I still think the formation of the relationship was rushed and underdeveloped.
Honestly it seems to me that Tyler is now in the shoes Burnham was in when she first came onboard the Discovery, except he is not treated as a pariah.
While DIS has been quick to cut off some loose ties here and there, I think that if season 2 is roughly in the same timeframe and not much further into the future, the relationship will gain a second wind of sorts. I'm not convinced it will just "end" with season 1 (unless one of them dies).
And I also think that certain aspects of the main cast are still severely underdeveloped, the Burnham/Tyler relationship being the prime example.
You're assuming the relationship is over. From what I've heard/read, it's far from it.
No, not really.
I don't doubt their story is done, especially since Michael is the lead of the series... I still think the formation of the relationship was rushed and underdeveloped.
Honestly it seems to me that Tyler is now in the shoes Burnham was in when she first came onboard the Discovery, except he is not treated as a pariah.
While DIS has been quick to cut off some loose ties here and there, I think that if season 2 is roughly in the same timeframe and not much further into the future, the relationship will gain a second wind of sorts. I'm not convinced it will just "end" with season 1 (unless one of them dies).
I would agree.
Again, though, that does not make up for the poor development of the formation of their relationship. They may be together for seven seasons, but it won't change that fact.
And I also think that certain aspects of the main cast are still severely underdeveloped, the Burnham/Tyler relationship being the prime example.
You're assuming the relationship is over. From what I've heard/read, it's far from it.
No, not really.
I don't doubt their story is done, especially since Michael is the lead of the series... I still think the formation of the relationship was rushed and underdeveloped.
Honestly it seems to me that Tyler is now in the shoes Burnham was in when she first came onboard the Discovery, except he is not treated as a pariah.
While DIS has been quick to cut off some loose ties here and there, I think that if season 2 is roughly in the same timeframe and not much further into the future, the relationship will gain a second wind of sorts. I'm not convinced it will just "end" with season 1 (unless one of them dies).
I would agree.
Again, though, that does not make up for the poor development of the formation of their relationship. They may be together for seven seasons, but it won't change that fact.
Not arguing with that. These two being together did make me raise and eyebrow too, given that there was that forshadowing handshake when they first met but then they were instantly attracted to each other. The writers did this for the added drama when Tyler would reveal who he actually was (Burnhams first boyfriend ever is not only an enemy but also the lap-dog of the one who killed her beloved captain).
It's not 100% unrealistic however. Many people throw themselves into relationships super-fast, and then they take ages to realize that it might have been a bad idea.
And I also think that certain aspects of the main cast are still severely underdeveloped, the Burnham/Tyler relationship being the prime example.
You're assuming the relationship is over. From what I've heard/read, it's far from it.
No, not really.
I don't doubt their story is done, especially since Michael is the lead of the series... I still think the formation of the relationship was rushed and underdeveloped.
Honestly it seems to me that Tyler is now in the shoes Burnham was in when she first came onboard the Discovery, except he is not treated as a pariah.
While DIS has been quick to cut off some loose ties here and there, I think that if season 2 is roughly in the same timeframe and not much further into the future, the relationship will gain a second wind of sorts. I'm not convinced it will just "end" with season 1 (unless one of them dies).
I would agree.
Again, though, that does not make up for the poor development of the formation of their relationship. They may be together for seven seasons, but it won't change that fact.
Not arguing with that. These two being together did make me raise and eyebrow too, given that there was that forshadowing handshake when they first met but then they were instantly attracted to each other. The writers did this for the added drama when Tyler would reveal who he actually was (Burnhams first boyfriend ever is not only an enemy but also the lap-dog of the one who killed her beloved captain).
It's not 100% unrealistic however. Many people throw themselves into relationships super-fast, and then they take ages to realize that it might have been a bad idea.
I would say that half of her boyfriend is the lap-dog of the one who killed her beloved captain since Discovery Tyler is a combination of the original Tyler and Voq. How much of Voq is left remains to be seen. Original Tyler could have complete access to all of his memories and Voq is dead, Voq will appear as a 'ghost' to Tyler, or Tyler is dead and Voq is pretending to be Tyler. The last situation is extremely unlikely since most Klingons don't have the cunning required to pull it off. L'Rell could, but she comes from a House that uses deception and other dishonorable acts.
But the real question is "who cares", at least in my opinion. None of these characters are likeable in any way. I just watched the latest episode and I really can't stand looking at all these serious frowny faces gurgling the same "desperate times" nonsense lines every single time. Stamets and Tilly are the only people that had a character beyond roboting their way through the end times so far.
I only try to look at the characters since nothing else in this show makes sense. That terraforming, creating fungus 'trees' and TRIBBLE - who needs Genesis, we have our almighty magic doodad that does everything. Mind melds substitute for any kind of interesting or clever dialogue, Sarek simply walks around mindraping the fourth person just so the plot can advance into more gloomy doom territory.
Eh.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
But the real question is "who cares", at least in my opinion. None of these characters are likeable in any way.
That really depends on the angle you view them from. While Tyler is frankly a poor guy being in the wrong place at the wrong time a lot, Burnham is set up to be polarizing, but she did show some qualities that many lead-characters in Trek had.
And I found it a bit contrived that while everybody saw that obviously it was the klingons who started the war, they were pointing fingers at her because she simply FAILED THE ATTEMPT to capture T'Kuvma.
1. She is an explorer AND a risk-taker first and foremost. SHE went out to the unknwon, later revealed to be klingon beacon in a space-suit. SHE was the one to actually STUDY Ripper. She is often the one working with the Starfleet-gizmo's to do the technomagic stuff typical to Trek.
2. She's an inverted, may be even "Anti-Spock" of sorts. She has that inner conflict between human emotions and vulcan logic turned on its head. While she usually WANTS to follow the logical path and often tries to come off AS a vulcan, more often than not she is a confused mess (a bit like Ezri Dax was) with her human emotion taking over as a result. Even Sisko had that kind of conflict in the beginning of DS9 in a way, like when one could almost see him punch Picard in the pilot.
You all realize that Burnham is no expert in terms of relationships?
Yes.
Still doesn't excuse the lack of development... Tyler was introduced in Episode 5, met Burnham in Episode 6, did the Harry Mudd magic reset button in Episode 7, and then was kissy-face with Burnham on Pahvo in Episode 8. That's three episodes... and the relationship is all but dead five episodes later.
And you're surprised some fans have no emotional attachment to this relationship?
You all realize that Burnham is no expert in terms of relationships?
Yes.
Still doesn't excuse the lack of development... Tyler was introduced in Episode 5, met Burnham in Episode 6, did the Harry Mudd magic reset button in Episode 7, and then was kissy-face with Burnham on Pahvo in Episode 8. That's three episodes... and the relationship is all but dead five episodes later.
And you're surprised some fans have no emotional attachment to this relationship?
Still more character development than Kirk got in season 1 of TOS.
Still more character development than Kirk got in season 1 of TOS.
I'd strongly disagree with that, for a number of reasons.
First of all, William Shatner was the leading man in a show made in the 1960s, and season one of TOS had 30 episodes at about 48 minutes a pop. It's Kirk's show, and it's not even close. I can give you five episodes off the top of my head that directly build his character... and even though the episodes aren't a connected serialized narrative, it is internally consistent throughout the season.
Secondly, comparing a specific aspect of Burnham's development to the general development of Kirk is not a fair comparison. While I don't think season one of Discovery has developed one aspect of Burnham's character well, I can't argue that she has gotten the majority of the focus. A more direct comparison to the Burnham/Tyler relationship is the Kirk/Rand "relationship" in TOS... while for very different reasons, both were severely underdeveloped. (So, THAT might be a wash... HOWEVER...)
Finally, given that Discovery is a different storytelling format than TOS, it's really not fair to make the comparison between the two. Yes, it's the same sci-fi franchise, but two wildly different productions. Discovery doesn't suffer the budgetary constraints, or faces the lack of network support, or the need to conform to censorship. Quite frankly, there's no excuse. I mean, one episode this season had a runtime of 37 minutes... for a streaming show.
It all points back to my conclusion about this season: Discovery attempted to do too many things at once, and has ended up not doing many (any?) of those things well.
Still more character development than Kirk got in season 1 of TOS.
I'd strongly disagree with that, for a number of reasons.
First of all, William Shatner was the leading man in a show made in the 1960s, and season one of TOS had 30 episodes at about 48 minutes a pop. It's Kirk's show, and it's not even close. I can give you five episodes off the top of my head that directly build his character... and even though the episodes aren't a connected serialized narrative, it is internally consistent throughout the season.
Still more character development than Kirk got in season 1 of TOS.
I'd strongly disagree with that, for a number of reasons.
First of all, William Shatner was the leading man in a show made in the 1960s, and season one of TOS had 30 episodes at about 48 minutes a pop. It's Kirk's show, and it's not even close. I can give you five episodes off the top of my head that directly build his character... and even though the episodes aren't a connected serialized narrative, it is internally consistent throughout the season.
Please do.
Easy. All of these episodes are critical to the development of Kirk's character, in one way or another:
"The Corbomite Maneuver"
"The Enemy Within"
"City On The Edge of Forever"
"Arena"
"Balance of Terror"
And I could argue more, but that seems silly to defend that Kirk is well-developed in his own series.
Still more character development than Kirk got in season 1 of TOS.
I'd strongly disagree with that, for a number of reasons.
First of all, William Shatner was the leading man in a show made in the 1960s, and season one of TOS had 30 episodes at about 48 minutes a pop. It's Kirk's show, and it's not even close. I can give you five episodes off the top of my head that directly build his character... and even though the episodes aren't a connected serialized narrative, it is internally consistent throughout the season.
Please do.
Easy. All of these episodes are critical to the development of Kirk's character, in one way or another:
"The Corbomite Maneuver"
"The Enemy Within"
"City On The Edge of Forever"
"Arena"
"Balance of Terror"
And I could argue more, but that seems silly to defend that Kirk is well-developed in his own series.
Given that people are trying to say that Discovery is WORSE in that regard, I would posit that it was inevitable. Of those you listed Arena is the only one I can think of that was something beyond Kirk simply explaining his motives.
Still more character development than Kirk got in season 1 of TOS.
I'd strongly disagree with that, for a number of reasons.
First of all, William Shatner was the leading man in a show made in the 1960s, and season one of TOS had 30 episodes at about 48 minutes a pop. It's Kirk's show, and it's not even close. I can give you five episodes off the top of my head that directly build his character... and even though the episodes aren't a connected serialized narrative, it is internally consistent throughout the season.
Please do.
Easy. All of these episodes are critical to the development of Kirk's character, in one way or another:
"The Corbomite Maneuver"
"The Enemy Within"
"City On The Edge of Forever"
"Arena"
"Balance of Terror"
And I could argue more, but that seems silly to defend that Kirk is well-developed in his own series.
Given that people are trying to say that Discovery is WORSE in that regard, I would posit that it was inevitable. Of those you listed Arena is the only one I can think of that was something beyond Kirk simply explaining his motives.
That's funny (and a bit baffling) to me, given that I thought "Arena" was the weakest example on the list.
"Corbomite" deals with the gambler/captain that stares down the threat of danger, while also revealing his commitment to his duty (over, say, the potential of a relationship with Janice Rand). "Balance" juxtaposes against this, with a captain that is unsure of himself at times, while also being the ultimate father figure to his crew (the wedding/funeral bookends). "Enemy Within," while not the greatest episode, explores the demons within Kirk's own psyche, and how the balance of his good and bad sides make him a good captain.
As for "City"? I seriously need to explain that as an important episode for Kirk's character?
And, again, I'd point out that my argument is that specific aspects of Burnham's character are underdeveloped (namely, her relationship with Tyler), not that season one hasn't developed Burnham's character. Those are two very different things.
Comments
I think character development was there for "the big three," no question.
Scotty would be next on my list, but he also was a bit of a caricature than anything else. Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov were just kinda... there. So, yes, the point is taken.
However, I will also admit that Discovery has done a p*ss-poor job of developing the minor bridge crew. TOS didn't do that all the time, but we do have characters like Stiles from "Balance of Terror," Bailey from "The Corbomite Maneuver," and of course, Lt. Kyle.
Outside of Keyla Detmer (whose name I only remember because Burnham called her out by name), I did have a "who the f*** is that?" moment in the final MU episode. It's nice that they finally got lines, but it didn't feel quite natural... almost like Lorca had a DO NOT TALK rule on the bridge.
And I also think that certain aspects of the main cast are still severely underdeveloped, the Burnham/Tyler relationship being the prime example. It is a credit to the show that some of these characters have caught on with fans, despite this... but, I've heard even the most ardent supporters of this show say they wished the story would linger for a moment, so we could spend more time with these characters.
No, not really.
I don't doubt their story is done, especially since Michael is the lead of the series... I still think the formation of the relationship was rushed and underdeveloped. Reminds me A LOT of the Lois/Clark relationship in Man Of Steel. It didn't feel earned there to me, and it doesn't feel earned here.
We'll see where this season ends up on Sunday, but you'll probably hear this from me a lot over the next few weeks: this season's story should have been divided over two seasons. I don't think I have many issues with the story itself, with the possible exception of how they dealt with Lorca... but even that might've been okay, had they built it up over two seasons (and I still don't like that they turned him into a cheap Bond villain named Gonald Lump, but whatever, I'm making my peace with it).
Honestly it seems to me that Tyler is now in the shoes Burnham was in when she first came onboard the Discovery, except he is not treated as a pariah.
While DIS has been quick to cut off some loose ties here and there, I think that if season 2 is roughly in the same timeframe and not much further into the future, the relationship will gain a second wind of sorts. I'm not convinced it will just "end" with season 1 (unless one of them dies).
I would agree.
Again, though, that does not make up for the poor development of the formation of their relationship. They may be together for seven seasons, but it won't change that fact.
Not arguing with that. These two being together did make me raise and eyebrow too, given that there was that forshadowing handshake when they first met but then they were instantly attracted to each other. The writers did this for the added drama when Tyler would reveal who he actually was (Burnhams first boyfriend ever is not only an enemy but also the lap-dog of the one who killed her beloved captain).
It's not 100% unrealistic however. Many people throw themselves into relationships super-fast, and then they take ages to realize that it might have been a bad idea.
I already said that the writers did this for the drama of her first boyfriend ever being the murderer of her captain...
plus, Stamets and Tilly kinda talked that idea into her head too.
I would say that half of her boyfriend is the lap-dog of the one who killed her beloved captain since Discovery Tyler is a combination of the original Tyler and Voq. How much of Voq is left remains to be seen. Original Tyler could have complete access to all of his memories and Voq is dead, Voq will appear as a 'ghost' to Tyler, or Tyler is dead and Voq is pretending to be Tyler. The last situation is extremely unlikely since most Klingons don't have the cunning required to pull it off. L'Rell could, but she comes from a House that uses deception and other dishonorable acts.
I only try to look at the characters since nothing else in this show makes sense. That terraforming, creating fungus 'trees' and TRIBBLE - who needs Genesis, we have our almighty magic doodad that does everything. Mind melds substitute for any kind of interesting or clever dialogue, Sarek simply walks around mindraping the fourth person just so the plot can advance into more gloomy doom territory.
Eh.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
That really depends on the angle you view them from. While Tyler is frankly a poor guy being in the wrong place at the wrong time a lot, Burnham is set up to be polarizing, but she did show some qualities that many lead-characters in Trek had.
And I found it a bit contrived that while everybody saw that obviously it was the klingons who started the war, they were pointing fingers at her because she simply FAILED THE ATTEMPT to capture T'Kuvma.
1. She is an explorer AND a risk-taker first and foremost. SHE went out to the unknwon, later revealed to be klingon beacon in a space-suit. SHE was the one to actually STUDY Ripper. She is often the one working with the Starfleet-gizmo's to do the technomagic stuff typical to Trek.
2. She's an inverted, may be even "Anti-Spock" of sorts. She has that inner conflict between human emotions and vulcan logic turned on its head. While she usually WANTS to follow the logical path and often tries to come off AS a vulcan, more often than not she is a confused mess (a bit like Ezri Dax was) with her human emotion taking over as a result. Even Sisko had that kind of conflict in the beginning of DS9 in a way, like when one could almost see him punch Picard in the pilot.
Yes.
Still doesn't excuse the lack of development... Tyler was introduced in Episode 5, met Burnham in Episode 6, did the Harry Mudd magic reset button in Episode 7, and then was kissy-face with Burnham on Pahvo in Episode 8. That's three episodes... and the relationship is all but dead five episodes later.
And you're surprised some fans have no emotional attachment to this relationship?
Check out this FAN-MADE pic of how she'd look in Discovery's aesthetic:
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
I'd strongly disagree with that, for a number of reasons.
First of all, William Shatner was the leading man in a show made in the 1960s, and season one of TOS had 30 episodes at about 48 minutes a pop. It's Kirk's show, and it's not even close. I can give you five episodes off the top of my head that directly build his character... and even though the episodes aren't a connected serialized narrative, it is internally consistent throughout the season.
Secondly, comparing a specific aspect of Burnham's development to the general development of Kirk is not a fair comparison. While I don't think season one of Discovery has developed one aspect of Burnham's character well, I can't argue that she has gotten the majority of the focus. A more direct comparison to the Burnham/Tyler relationship is the Kirk/Rand "relationship" in TOS... while for very different reasons, both were severely underdeveloped. (So, THAT might be a wash... HOWEVER...)
Finally, given that Discovery is a different storytelling format than TOS, it's really not fair to make the comparison between the two. Yes, it's the same sci-fi franchise, but two wildly different productions. Discovery doesn't suffer the budgetary constraints, or faces the lack of network support, or the need to conform to censorship. Quite frankly, there's no excuse. I mean, one episode this season had a runtime of 37 minutes... for a streaming show.
It all points back to my conclusion about this season: Discovery attempted to do too many things at once, and has ended up not doing many (any?) of those things well.
My character Tsin'xing
Easy. All of these episodes are critical to the development of Kirk's character, in one way or another:
And I could argue more, but that seems silly to defend that Kirk is well-developed in his own series.
My character Tsin'xing
That's funny (and a bit baffling) to me, given that I thought "Arena" was the weakest example on the list.
"Corbomite" deals with the gambler/captain that stares down the threat of danger, while also revealing his commitment to his duty (over, say, the potential of a relationship with Janice Rand). "Balance" juxtaposes against this, with a captain that is unsure of himself at times, while also being the ultimate father figure to his crew (the wedding/funeral bookends). "Enemy Within," while not the greatest episode, explores the demons within Kirk's own psyche, and how the balance of his good and bad sides make him a good captain.
As for "City"? I seriously need to explain that as an important episode for Kirk's character?
And, again, I'd point out that my argument is that specific aspects of Burnham's character are underdeveloped (namely, her relationship with Tyler), not that season one hasn't developed Burnham's character. Those are two very different things.