I was waiting also, and a little annoyed at the facetious replies. However, I’m going to make a (very cheap) attempt (that plagiarises heavily from the first hit on a search):
Invincible main character: Michael Burnham survives even the most extreme hardship, where anyone else would have died.
Perpetually high stakes: everything’s always life or death, in a somewhat escalating way where they don’t leave room to establish normal crew life. I would speculate the producers do this so as to avoid “boring” episodes - but such episodes do have significant value in fleshing out a rich and complete world.
Michael Burnham is everything: she’s always central to the core plot, everything is centred around her perspective.
Lack of professionalism: the characters are more emotive, sure, but their emotions often come before their careers as Starfleet professionals. Starfleet is supposed to be this ideal society, but the characters don’t really portray this. They’re more like modern day people living in a Starfleet world.
Inconsistent character development: many characters should have developed and progressed from the experiences we’ve witnessed them go through, but they still stick to some of their Flanderised tropes.
Incompetent crew: everyone’s clueless until the main character (Michael) tells them what the solution is.
Inconsistent technology: the show is set in the early days of Star Trek, yet is more flashy and modern looking than much of 90s Trek.
I would add that, while you could maybe apply some of the criticisms against Michael Burnham towards other captains and commanders in other series, the difference is that they were in commanding roles, and thus inherently central. It generally feels that Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, etc would divert attention away from themselves to their crew, as if to promote them, while Burnham always seems to be jumping into the limelight for herself.
There were a few points I skipped because I didn’t really agree with them, and some of the ones I included no doubt could be applied to other Trek shows, but I’d still say that Discovery has plenty of flaws worth highlighting. That doesn’t mean it’s a terrible show, but it’s far from the best example of Star Trek, in my opinion.
I was waiting also, and a little annoyed at the facetious replies. However, I’m going to make a (very cheap) attempt (that plagiarises heavily from the first hit on a search):
I would add that, while you could maybe apply some of the criticisms against Michael Burnham towards other captains and commanders in other series, the difference is that they were in commanding roles, and thus inherently central. It generally feels that Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, etc would divert attention away from themselves to their crew, as if to promote them, while Burnham always seems to be jumping into the limelight for herself.
There were a few points I skipped because I didn’t really agree with them, and some of the ones I included no doubt could be applied to other Trek shows, but I’d still say that Discovery has plenty of flaws worth highlighting. That doesn’t mean it’s a terrible show, but it’s far from the best example of Star Trek, in my opinion.