I have been vocal about the wrong in FB and I didn't liked the first teaser and trailer. There are the little things, details very crucial to the Trek lore, which are off that adds up and takes me out of the familiar Trek feeling.
Snce I've written a long constructive essay about why Discovery is not Star Trek (and a lot of my friends, who are also open for DIS, were disappointed and agreed on these issues), I'll try to make it short.
I have seen the first two episodes in whole to gather an overall impression, not analyzing first, but watch it all through and observed everything from an "vulcan" standpoint. To my disappointment, the first first impression that came before only solidified my skeptism and doubt that I had beforehand. I had hoped to be wrong.
It already started with the retro futuristic intro and the musical theme, which was at best underwhelming, the reasons:
The visual intro as well as theme relied heavily on TOS stuff, blueprint and explosive view of the Starfleet equipment and Alexander Courage's "Star Trek" theme made me think about, why did they do that? The only thing I can think of, is, that they don't have the confidence to do and make something on their own, CBS tries too hard to tell the audience: "Look! We are making Star Trek!" "This is a Star Trek series!". Instead of totally coming up to present what Discovery is about, with an unique intro like DSN and VOY (TNG not included, because of the continuing use of the theme); heck even ENT, which I loathed for continuity violations and only liked Season 4, they all had a theme to stand out and say: "This is us!" When you listen to the orchestral themes and you don't need to be a hardcore Trekker at all, you instantly get the feeling, "Oh! This is a Star Trek series!" Discovery failed to make their mark with the short and unconspicous theme. It's generic - and that's what's going on through the whole 2 episodes.
The Klingons were too radical redesigned, throwing out an iconic look of over 30 years and refined to what we see as Klingons out of the airlock without an EVA suit. They looked all the same to me. Not a single Klingon had an individual head ridge like Worf or Duras sisters to tell them apart as well as being, yet again generic alien you see somewhere else, which was the complaint of many.
Melinda Snodgrass pointed out, that the complete speech in Klingon was a bore, because it was delievered and not feeling natural, as well as the lack of emotion through the heavy make up. There are certainly tons of other thing I can pick, if I see it twice or thrice.
clap clap clap WOW! Way easy to judge other up and coming make up artists on Face off, but you both failed miserably Neville Page and Glenn Hetrick!
These were aliens other than Klingon, who happens to speak Klingon.
The Starfleet characters besides the Captain and Burnham were flat 2D characters, you don't know about, you don't care about and could also be exchanged with anyone. The bridge was too dark and too modern, the interface too busy and didn't had the refined elegance of information reduction of LCARS by Michael Okuda. No to speak of inserts by aliens and androids, that didn't made sense in any way shape or form. The uniforms didn't had any connection to the Prime Timeline. And the fucking lens flares, don't get me started on this!
The problem also was the expository boring backstory of Burnham and not concentration on the whole big picture story - the script was paper thin, infused with heavy SFX all shiny no substance. I already looked at my watch at 36 minutes and prayed for being over already. Burnham wasn't likeable and Sarek pulled a Yoda on Burnham, as some said with the katra scene. Some also pointed out the overuse of dutch angles… uuurgh!
I didn't liked it, you could have put any other character and it would be another sci fi show, but if you want to call it Star Trek, you have to do better and harder than this.
I'm sticking with the Orville, you see the love of the a Trekker to make an uplifiting scifi show, it's ironic how Orville is much closer to Trek than Star Trek Discovery.