Star Trek Discovery - The Star Trek show that is less Star Trek

"Star Trek Discovery" has polarized Trekkies all over the world, because it is setting itself apart from the established style of Star Trek shows. The question is: Do we want a new type of Star Trek show or is the consistency of the previous shows part of its appeal? 

Discovery is set approximately 10 years before the events of the original show, in a time, when Klingons were still somewhat a mystery and a huge threat. The Federation was still in its early days. 

The story revolves around a female, human officer, Michael Burnham, who grew up on Vulcan.  While her character is interesting it is also one of the parts that sets the show apart from its predecessors. Most Star Trek show are usually mainly ensemble shows, that take turns focusing on the various team members. Discovery deviates significantly from the concept, mainly focusing on Burnham and giving the other members of the team much less space for character development. The result is that whenever a member of the crew is lost or hurt the audience remains unmoved. 

Most Star Trek shows are actually series with each episode in itself being a closed story with a major story arc that acts more like a setting than a story e.g. Voyager trying to get back to the Alpha Quadrat. Discovery is more of a serial, the main story arc being the sole focus of the show. The only other Star Trek shows with a similar approach are Picard and in the later seasons Deep Space Nine. 

The idea for a major story arc works excellently and puts Discovery on the same level as Battle Galactica and Altered Carbon in terms of story telling. In that sense the show is an update of the classic Star Trek modus to a more modern approach. The audience wants to move away from the "Monster of the Week" or in this case "Planet of the Week" modus and expects complex stories that keep you hooked for weeks and surprise plot twists. This is the reason why shows like Game of Thrones got millions in front of the TV every week. 

The first two seasons work great in terms of story telling, also in part to the great cast. With Michelle Yeoh and Jason Isaacs the producers got some star power on board for season 1 and they delivered. Both are scene stealers and bring stellar performances to the show. While Jason Isaacs left the show after the first season (One can only hope that the producers find a way to bring him back), Michelle Yeoh is still part of the cast but seems fairly underused in more reason episodes. 

*Major Spoilers for season 2 and 3 ahead*

At the end of season two however the producers basically decided that they wanted to make a different show and catapulted the ship 900 years into the future. Naturally this opened the doors to new possibilities with cool designs and new races, but in a way it is a completely different show and not what the audience initially signed up for. Also the focus on Michael Burnham is even more pronounced in season 3 to the point where the audience get annoyed with her character. The new story arc about "the burn" is somewhat intriguing but the first episodes revolve mainly around Michael emotional state. 

Due to this time jump Discovery also had to say goodbye to several regular guest characters such as Lt. Ash Taylor, Sarek, Spock and Anson Mount's Christopher Pike, which may or may not return for another show but left a vacum in Discovery. Only one character has been added to the crew, Adira but most characters in the future seem oddly flat. 

While the idea to create a whole new kind of Star Trek is intriguing and the story telling works great, although one can argue about the decision of the time jump. What is a major problem though is the exaggerated focus on Michael Burnham, which is causing the audience to loose sympathy with the character. The producers are taking away their own chance of developing more interesting characters, such as Adira, which is incredibly intriguing. It would be beneficial for the show dive into the remaining characters.