More 'Star Trek: Discovery' details emerge

By Jamahl Epsicokhan

August 15, 2016

More information has been emerging about Star Trek: Discovery, scheduled to premiere in January May 2017, so I thought I'd take the opportunity to reframe the discussion (previous comments can be seen on the old article) and offer up some of my own musings about what we have been hearing so far.

The show is being run by Bryan Fuller, of Hannibal and Pushing Daisies fame. Also on board are high-profile Trek veterans Nicholas Meyer, Joe Menosky, and others.

This is, obviously, great news. While I have not seen Hannibal or Fuller's other shows, I am aware of them and their ambitious creative visions. I'm glad that a showrunner was selected who has both previous experience with Star Trek and also has been distinguished creatively in the auteur vein in the ensuing years since his Trek tenure. That's probably exactly what this franchise needs — a balance between Trek knowledge/experience and creative visions that are more individually driven. Bringing on Meyer as a consultant will hopefully ground the series in the sort of humanity seen in The Wrath of Khan while also being allegorically relevant like The Undiscovered Country. And, of course, Menosky strikes me as a writer that knows the Trek universe but also has his own individually unique ideas. So this looks like a promising team of Trek-specific writers.

This will air on CBS All Access. Will that be a viable home for a Star Trek series?

That's the multi-million-dollar question. CBS All Access is a streaming service that currently offers the library of CBS content on demand, as well as live CBS programming. I have no idea how successful it is and have done no research to that point. It's definitely a gamble putting the new Trek series there, but if you're committed to putting your streaming service on the map, you need high-profile original content that isn't offered anywhere else, and putting something there with a built-in fanbase probably makes more sense than debuting something unknown. At the very least, they are going to pick up a not-insignificant portion of the core fanbase. This is CBS's gambit, and who knows if it will be successful enough to make this more than a single-season experiment. The Netflix model is so unique (and murky, given that they never disclose how many people actually watch their ever-expanding myriad of shows) that I don't know that it can be replicated. Maybe this is more like the Hulu model.

As a viewer, I'd probably prefer just to see this show on CBS in the first place. I honestly don't care if CBS All Access as a concept is successful apart from it being the home to the new Trek. This effort might be smart for CBS, but that remains to be seen. To my own viewing habits, I have no desire to watch this show on a phone or tablet, so I don't care about the on-the-go convenience of a streaming service that has only one show I'll probably ever watch. I want to watch this on my 55-inch screen in my living room with my wife, so the key point for me will be a quality HD viewing experience with ease-of-use for streaming it to my large screen. CBS All Access is available on Chromecast, Roku, FireTV, and others, so that should make it reasonably easy, albeit not as easy as getting it through my cable set-top box. And if I'm paying a subscription fee for it, I would hope there would be no in-program ads, but from what I gather that's not likely to be the case, which is unfortunate.

The new series will be set in the prime universe, not the reboot universe, and will take place about 10 years before the TOS five-year mission.

I like the decision to go back to the prime universe. It just allows for this to feel more of a piece with what Star Trek has been for 50 years rather than an extension of the still-bareboned universe of the films or, worse, a third universe under a second reboot. I wonder how they will establish the return to the prime universe onscreen for those who don't follow such things behind the scenes. I'm guessing those people won't care, or will have heard about it already, but to canonize it, maybe it's simply a matter of casually mentioning something simple, like the continued existence of Vulcan? Star Trek 2009 had the luxury of Spock Prime giving us the exposition to establish the timeline reset. Discovery won't likely have that luxury, so it will probably be pretty straightforward.

As for the time period, I do wonder if setting the series before TOS will box the show into limitations of what it can do with the existing history, a la being a Star Trek: Enterprise prequel, as opposed to moving it later in time (to, say, the 25th century), which could've explored new avenues within the all-encompassing history of the latter-day Trek series. Then again, working within parameters doesn't mean you can't creatively do any number of new things, and one could argue that setting the show after DS9 and Voyager could actually box the series into even more limitations because of the additional documented history the show would be beholden to.

This one simply comes down to what they choose to do and how they execute it.

The show's lead character will be female, but not a captain. She'll be a lieutenant commander.

I'm guessing this means she is not commanding the ship, which presumably still has a captain, and the captain is merely not the main character. If this is the case, this could allow a fresh perspective on the typical assumptions made of Trek, where the lead is typically assumed to be the commanding officer. If we're instead seeing this from the perspective of someone in "middle management," that could be an interesting take on the lead character's point of view. And this doesn't necessarily need to represent a seismic shift. After all, the Trek series since TNG have tended to be ensemble casts with the captain being the first of many, but not the sole POV. Making the main character a non-captain need not change that by too much. That is, unless she's a lieutenant commander and in command of the ship, in which case I have no idea what this actually means.

The season will be 13 episodes long, and will highlight a continuing arc storyline.

A 13-episode limit is probably a good move, especially if the season is primarily a single arc. While the limit to 13 episodes was likely more a financial decision given the risk in putting this on CBS All Access, I think shorter seasons are simply the better (and more realistic) TV reality of today, especially for serialized shows. With as many choices people have, giving them more than 13 episodes in a season seems like a risky move for keeping people interested, and a risky move in a writing staff creatively sustaining it. Myself — I'd rather have short seasons that are of a high quality than more episodes.

I think telling a story arc is the inevitable move, and probably more interesting than the anomaly-of-the-week route. Though splitting the difference and doing both serialized and standalone episodes like Battlestar Galactica's first season could be very workable. It just all depends on execution. A show doesn't have to be completely serialized to respect the continuity that came in previous episodes. The audience just needs to know that these things matter, especially from a character standpoint. But season-long arcs are common for TV lately, and they're not without precedent in Trek. DS9's later seasons, while episodic, had a long-term arc in the background even when it wasn't explicitly doing multi-episode stories. The same goes for Enterprise's third season.

Given the audience and the delivery method — appealing to a lot of completists using an on-demand service that will make all the previous episodes easily available — a season-long arc is the logical choice. Hopefully they will write a good story that can maintain momentum through the entire season.

The story arc driving the season will be an incident in Starfleet's history that has been referenced but never fully explored. Die-hard fans "should be very happy. It's something I want to see," Fuller said.

Cool. I wonder what it will be. The speculation has already started. Good to know that it will tie back into the existing canon while telling its own story.

Fuller says sex and profanity might have a place on the show, which will probably be "slightly more graphic."

I think this is a fine line to walk, especially with Trek. Whatever is slightly more graphic or sexy or profane will need to be carefully modulated to seem natural, rather than gratuitous. I think of recent examples, Battlestar is probably a good example of getting the balance right, but that was specific to its tone and subject matter. Will being more explicit work for Trek? I'm sure it could, but like all things, it's all about the execution. Just because CBS All Access will be more permissive doesn't mean the creators need to take advantage of it. But if it appropriately fits their storytelling, then sure.

How about the Discovery starship design?

I must say I'm not a fan of the design as seen in the early Comic-Con teaser video. The proportions seem off to me. But Fuller has said the design is a work in progress and that the final design is still evolving, so we'll see where it goes. Also, as with anything new, whatever it ends up being will probably grow on me.

Will Jammer be reviewing Star Trek: Discovery?

At this point, I think the question isn't whether I will be reviewing the show, but how, when, and to what extent. I think it's fairly safe to say that I won't be able to stay away from the first new Trek series in over a decade and that I will be getting a CBS All Access subscription and watching the show weekly as it becomes available. To then not comment on it would be a pointless oversight on my part. It's probably going to be hard for me to review this show with my schedule as a parent, and probably even harder for me to do it in a timely fashion — but probably even harder still for me to not review it in some manner at all. So I'd say the chances are pretty good that you'll see my take on it.

What that will look like is the bigger question. Ideally, my reviews are going to have to get much shorter and be posted much more quickly (perhaps in the TNG review model) if I don't want my thought process to be continuously dragged into the commentary that happens in my absence. The commenting board soldiers on whether I weigh in or not, and that presents something of a challenge for me as a procrastinator. Administratively, I'm likely to have a real mess here if I don't figure out a simple way to structure the comment threads around the weekly release dates, and figure out how then my reviews fall on top of that. So I'll be thinking about that in the coming months.

As always, don't consider this a promised announcement for my plans around Discovery reviews, but merely an indication of what I'm thinking at this very moment. All things are tentative. We'll see where it goes as the premiere gets closer.

◄ Articles & Miscellaneous

276 comments on this article

Joe H
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 12:15am (UTC -6)
I'm not thrilled with the ship design, but having a new Trek will overrun any thoughts along those lines. We've watched the complete series other than Enterprise with my 10 year old son over the past year, so it will be fun to watch the series new with him.

Interesting is that Canada appears to be the only country that will be broadcasting the entire first season before hopping onto streaming. The first episode will be on CTV, a main network up here, and then following episodes on cable only Space. It will be nice to record and crop commercials!
NCC-1701-Z
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 1:19am (UTC -6)
Finally! A proper discussion forum! Glad to have Jammer's thoughts on what we know of Discovery thus far!

"The show's lead character will be female, but not a captain. She'll be a lieutenant commander." - Could work, if they take the approach of the TNG episode "Lower Decks". That could either work really well or flop miserably.

"The story arc driving the season will be an incident in Starfleet's history that has been referenced but never fully explored."
Placing my bets now (splitting $100):
$70 on Battle of Axanar.
$25 on Earth/Klingon conflict (which may or may not overlap with Battle of Axanar).
$4 on Robert April's command of Enterprise. (see The Animated Series)
$1 on vampire cloud attack on the USS Farragut (see TOS "Obsession").
ben
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 4:24am (UTC -6)
I hate prequels. Name one that didn't suck.
The only good prequel I can think of is Godfather II and that was only a half prequel.
I mean Hollywood movies always end good. Tv shows often do, too.
DS9 was a bit different but anyways this new show will tell a story of which we already know the outcome. Kirk
Enterprise was a good example: The Vulcans treat Humans like shit ?! I wonder if that will ever change ? Oh no I actually already know that this will change and in the end they will all be buddies...
I at least hope that we will not see another woman with suspiciously large breasts stuffed into a corset. That somewhat killed Voyager and Enterprise for me because it is a mockery of the ideals of Star Trek.
One can only hope.
Paul M.
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 5:14am (UTC -6)
Glad to see Jammer tentatively going forward with the reviews. This site has over the years (decades! man I'm getting old) become such an intrinsic part of my Trek experience that it's almost become one and the same to me. Trek without Jammer and his fine menagerie of regular posters and commenters almost doesn't feel like Trek anymore!

So here's to another 20 years of this fine site!

On a side note, NCC-1701-Z, I can already tell you you're gonna lose those $70. Fuller confirmed the show would not be about Axanar. I still think Kodos the Executioner might make sense, even if it's 20 years before Kirk, not 10.
Yanks
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 6:12am (UTC -6)
Thanks Jammer!!

On the ship... I think I would prefer something more in line with the USS Daedalus. .... but I'm sure they will improve what we've seen and the Phase II looking Discovery was pretty much universally shunned.

The female lead, a LCDR.... does that lead us to believe there is a small Star Fleet presence and a large civilian contingent onboard Discovery?

We could possibly have a T'Pol cameo!!!!

chrono117
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 6:22am (UTC -6)
I have a theory on what the new show will be about. I heard the ship's registration, NCC-1031, was a clue and fans have speculated it has to do with Section 31. But when I saw what else Brian Fuller has worked on, Pushing Daisies and Hannibal, I realized a strong theme of 'death' in his shows.
1031 = 10/31 = Halloween. It's a zombie story.
Paul M.
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 6:55am (UTC -6)
Zombies confirmed. Any rumors of other undead appearing? I'd like to see wraiths and liches myself. Gotta watch out for that level drain!
Robert
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 8:05am (UTC -6)
Everything I hear about this lately with a few exceptions make me not want to see it. Most of it's not bad per-say... just a lot that makes me uneasy.

1. CBS All Access was a stupid move. It really was. I don't need more subscriptions in my life. If this is an amazing show I'll likely buy Blu Rays when they come out and pass on it the first time around (or pirate them and then buy the Blu-rays.... go ahead and judge if you'd like... I'm not supporting all access, we need less of this garbage, not more).

2. Prequels are typically stupid because most people don't like writing them. I SINCERELY hope that's not the case here (and obviously Manny Coto actually was into the prequel concept), but a lot of times Star Trek has suffered from their writers not wanting to write to their premise. When you have a premise that ties the writer's hands (ie VOY shouldn't be encountering things from the Alpha Quadrant weekly and ENT shouldn't have the Ferengi) the writers tend to jump through hoops to do what they actually want... and it comes out stupid. Why was the temporal war there in ENT? Because they decided the universe being in danger couldn't ever be interesting in a prequel and so instead of embracing the prequel concept (see Manny Coto) they took a dump on it. It's possible to do a prequel right, you just get a whole lot of "rules" imposed on you. I hope that the team is actually excited about this task.

3. The arc. I like DS9 being serialized. It's my favorite series and that was a big reason. But too many shows today don't have episodes. They are 10-13 hour long movies with longer breaks once an hour. And some of my favorite Trek are standalone hour episodes (Guardian, Measure of a Man, Inner Light, Duet, The Visitor, Blink of an Eye, Carbon Creek, etc.) I worry we lose something special by disallowing the possibility of such things. I like serialization, I really do... but DS9 was able to balance it.

4. The sex? Best of Both Worlds aired when I was 8. I watched it with my Dad. My daughter will be 5 when this comes out and possibly too young for it. But I sincerely hope that by the time she's 8 I will feel comfortable watching with her. Trek has ALWAYS been a family viewable show. And I say this as somebody who enjoys Game of Thrones and Deadpool. There's a time and a place for things, and Trek isn't the time or place for GoT style sex or graphic violence.

5. The lead being a Lt. Cmdr. leaves me feeling really uneasy. I really, really wanted this to be an awesome ensemble (like TNG/DS9 were and VOY should have been because they had an awesome cast) and this just feels like the wrong move. I can't put my finger on why, but this doesn't thrill me.

The good (since I gave a lot of bad).

1. JJ-Verse is basically dead to me (sorry fans), so if this wasn't in the Prime-verse I wouldn't even be posting this because I've largely started ignoring the JJ-Verse entirely.

2. "The story arc driving the season will be an incident Starfleet's history that has been referenced but never fully explored. " This has potential. And at least it makes it sound like there's a possibility that some of the people working on this are excited about their premise.

3. I actually don't hate the ship design (don't shoot!)


Personal cray-cray nutter fan-theory of the day. A lot of people have, in the past... wanted to do a show on a Klingon ship. There is a certain Klingon feel to some of that design and some of the music in the trailer. What if our Lt. Commander is the highest ranking FEDERATION officer on this vessel... a vessel that's a joint venture between two enemies for some reason?
Yanks
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 8:54am (UTC -6)
@ Robert:
"4. The sex? Best of Both Worlds aired when I was 8. I watched it with my Dad. My daughter will be 5 when this comes out and possibly too young for it. But I sincerely hope that by the time she's 8 I will feel comfortable watching with her. Trek has ALWAYS been a family viewable show. And I say this as somebody who enjoys Game of Thrones and Deadpool. There's a time and a place for things, and Trek isn't the time or place for GoT style sex or graphic violence."

I firmly support this notion. I couldn't agree more, I'm voting for Robert for President. I don't want my trek turning into "BSG" for instance. I love BSG, but I don't want to see characters screwing all the time and getting morally bludgeoned every episode.

I have however resolved myself to purchasing CBS All Access. I don't particularly like it, but it is what it is. I do expect CBS to remove all the trek series from Netflix (US anyways) and make them solely available on All Access.
Robert
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 9:47am (UTC -6)
"I don't particularly like it, but it is what it is. I do expect CBS to remove all the trek series from Netflix (US anyways) and make them solely available on All Access. "

Probably. But that's what my DVDs are for! (I have TNG/DS9 so far)
Scotty from Detroit
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 12:27pm (UTC -6)
I'm not too big on speculation. With the given details it can go good or bad, that we'll just have to wait to see how it is executed.

The All-Access is both annoying, but opens up some possibilities. I'm hoping they'll make all the episodes available at once. If not, I hope I can just wait until all 13 are out and get All-Access for just one month and binge-watch them.

All-Access does open up some possibilities that the show won't have to be squeaky-clean, since it won't be on TV.
Yanks
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 12:50pm (UTC -6)
Agree Robert, I have everything trek on DVD - but it sure is nice to watch on Neflix. No changing DVD's, no having to cycle to the next episode, but scratched DVD's.
methane
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 1:04pm (UTC -6)
From some of the descriptions, I'm wondering if we'll really be sticking with one ship through the series. Our lead lieutenant commander may find her assignments change from a ship to a space station (or vice versa). She may lead a diplomatic team establishing a relationship with an alien race, which could mean spending several episodes on an alien ship or planet without Starfleet around.

Yanks said: " I do expect CBS to remove all the trek series from Netflix (US anyways) and make them solely available on All Access."

I don't think they'll ever remove all the series from the other services. After all, the best advertisement for the new Star Trek series is the old Star Trek series, and having them on the bigger services lets more people discover it. I do think CBS will start to reduce their availability in the future, however. It might sell Netflix the rights to only TNG for a few years, and let Amazon have the rights to only Voyager. CBS streaming would be the only place to see every version of the franchise.
Paul M.
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 2:36pm (UTC -6)
Speaking of DVDs and such, Amazon.co.uk (don't know about US) has a great deal on the blu-rays of all 7 TNG seasons. I always wanted those, but they used to be insanely expensive for my tastes. Now I'll just have to buy those suckers and watch TNG in glorious remastered quality.

methane
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 4:12pm (UTC -6)
From a Les Moonves interview a few weeks back:

-the sale of STD overseas (Netflix international + Canada) has already made the series profitable. So CBS won't need to move it off CBS streaming unless it really wants to.

-Recently their "content licensing business benefited from international deals related to its library of more than 700 episodes in the Star Trek franchise."

-"Of Star Trek's future generally, he said: 'We have spinoffs of spinoffs' — presumably on the drawing table, though he wasn't specific."

source: www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cbs-beats-quarterly-earnings-expectations-91 5388

On the TNG remastered blu-Rays:

I heard an interview a few months back with the guy who did all the new extras for the blu-rays. He said the sales had been really, really awful. Apparently people aren't willing to spend huge amounts of money for things that are available on streaming services, especially when the target audience probably already has the same thing in DVD. So I wasn't surprised when I saw the prices for the blu-rays come down to reasonable prices a month or so back.

By the way, I've checked out some of the Blu-Rays from my library just to check out the new extras, and they're really well done. All of the old DVD extras are also included.
Paul M.
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 4:39pm (UTC -6)
Yeah, I checked out TNG Blu-ray reviews a long time ago and they really are beautiful. Staggering visual quality. Hard to believe it's been almost 30 years since TNG premiered...

Pity about the poor sales though. It's the reason DS9 will probably never get the remastered treatment.
Sid
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 6:33pm (UTC -6)
The ship design is similar to an unused one for the refitted Enterprise for "ST: TMP". Interesting but the hard edges bug me.

Other than that it sounds like they have the right team, right universe and will have a tight story arc. Can't ask for more than that.
NCC-1701-Z
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 7:20pm (UTC -6)
@Paul M: I recall reading somewhere that the main reason DS9 and VOY were passed over for Blu-ray treatment is because they can't restore all the CGI scenes for HD (i.e. the space battle from "Sacrifice of Angels") without completely redoing them from scratch like the CGI "remastered" scenes from the TOS blu-rays. Apparently they don't have/can't modify the original digital files or something like that, I don't remember.

What a shame.

Personally, I intend to get TOS and TNG on Blu-ray as soon as I actually acquire an HDTV and Blu-Ray player, which won't be for a while due to finances. I don't trust streaming as agreements can be pulled without warning (cough Battlestar Galactica cough Doctor Who cough). Also, Blu-Ray players can still work with no Internet ;)
David
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 7:20pm (UTC -6)
I'm not having a lot of hope for this new series. I used to not pre judge something but after recent years of mostly crap coming out of Hollywood I've learned to expect mediocrity and be surprised if better

I'm thinking they might have gone with another person other then Fuller to run the series. I've found his shows to be too bizarre, surreal bordering on artsy pretentiousness. He also was responsible for a lot of mediocre or weak episodes when he was a Trek staff writer with episodes like Spirit Folk, Fury, Juggernaut, Mortal Coil, Empok Nor, Gravity to name a few

I'm also not feeling the prequel setting. Bee there done that with ENT and ENT had the advantage of being set in the timeline in a very interesting period in Trek history whereas a decade before ToS not so much. Personally I'd have set the series about 70 years or so after NEM freeing the writers of the canon and continuity constraints; allowing them to use and explore the familiar TNG and DS9 cultures as well as seeing their evolutions in the decades that have passed; and going forward would have allowed writers to also create new aliens and threats much in the way TnG face is the borg and DS9 the Dominion

As far as arc vs episodic. I'm open to either. I loved TNG and it was purely episodic. By the same token I enjoyed soap operas at various points in my life, serialized primetime dramas and thought Ds9 and ENT were at their best when being serialized. It ultimately comes down to writing. ENT first two seasons were mediocre not because they were standalones but because of weak writing
David
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 7:29pm (UTC -6)
Continued thoughts-----

Also I'm concerned Fuller will tell the arc in the LOST mold--beginning in the middle, employing flashbacks in every episode paralleling current events taking place etc etc--rather than a more traditional linear serialized 80s/90s format. And much like a lot of series nowadays not sure starting off with such a limited premise with chronicling a specific pre TOS event as Fuller has revealed seems far too narrow to sustain a series. I think adopting a more open ended premise like TNG would have been preferable and allowed the series to be able to evolve into something more as it went on. Furthermore by being a prequel it makes it impenetrable to a great degree for new fans. Much like ENT season four I suspect DsC will be heavy on insider knowledge, Easter eggs and other send ups whereas part of TnGs success was it was accessible rarely referencing TOS and when it did it explicitly caught the viewer up rather than expecting them to do the research
Brettsky
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 7:37pm (UTC -6)
Robert, I 100% agree with all of your negative points. Everything I hear about the show makes me uneasy too. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised. I'm hoping it does terribly on CBS access so it comes out on Netflix. I've been watching every series on Netflix (currently on Voyager) and it wouldn't feel right watching Trek any other way!

I'm actually surprised that it's not taking place in the new movies timeline. You would think they would want to keep their shows and movies together. Keeping it in the Prime universe is probably the only thing I've heard about this show that I'm fully happy about. (I actually like the new movies, but they just don't feel like Star Trek.)
Dave
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 4:53am (UTC -6)
In terms of how to differentiate the show as being prime timeline, my bet is they start simply with a big old establishing shot of Vulcan, especially with the chat about Amanda being in it who we all know had an early bath in star trek 2009. What's weird is the new movies keep making an effort to tie in the enterprise TV show with the reference to archer and his beagle in the first one and the NX in beyond. What timeline is Enterprise in I wonder?😉
TS
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 5:06am (UTC -6)
Really glad it's set in the prime universe, not so happy about it being a TOS prequel. I would've preferred a 25th century setting. Maybe they'll do that with the next season or whatever.

Also, that ship design... my god... so hideous. Hope they fix it.
Robert
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 6:32am (UTC -6)
@Dave - According to the powers that be ENT is 100% canonical to both timelines as it occurs before the split.
Paul M.
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 7:36am (UTC -6)
Robert, that may well be, but the whole story behind NX-01 aka Archer's Enterprise doesn't make much sense if Earth already had Warp 4 capable ships. Enterprise was supposedly the first ship to break the Warp 2 barrier which made it possible to venture out into deep space for the first time.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not the kind of fan that cares about inconsistencies like these, but they are there. I don't really view Abramsverse as a parallel timeline, but as a total reboot anyway.
Robert
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 9:29am (UTC -6)
"Robert, that may well be, but the whole story behind NX-01 aka Archer's Enterprise doesn't make much sense if Earth already had Warp 4 capable ships. Enterprise was supposedly the first ship to break the Warp 2 barrier which made it possible to venture out into deep space for the first time. "

I'm not sure what you mean here. Did I have to watch Beyond to understand this comment? What doesn't make sense?
Yanks
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 9:32am (UTC -6)
Paul M.,

NX-01 was not the first ship to break the "warp 2 barrier". That was accomplished by the second NX prototype (ENT: First Flight)

I agree, the USS Hamilton can be problematic if you want it be. But it quite easily can fit into canon if you let it.
Del_Duio
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 9:45am (UTC -6)
I had a cool idea, and it'd be probably impossible and they'll never do it but hear me out:

It has to do with the anomaly that had Sisko seemingly jumping forth through time in "The Visitor". What if this Lt. Commander had the same thing happen to her, and each new season she'd wind up 20, 30, 50 years in the future with a new crew?

"New crews", the trailer said after all.

So you'd start with this possible Sheliak fiasco and then maybe end up somewhere between ST6 and TNG, and then maybe in season 3 you'd be up to the point of a Cardassia rebuilding, and then from there on out it's all fresh.

It would be a pretty cool idea, but there's no way this would ever happen.
Yanks
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 9:54am (UTC -6)
Del_Duio,

Quantum Leap meets Star Trek :-)
Peter G.
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 10:22am (UTC -6)
"Quantum Leap meets Star Trek :-)"

Um...didn't we already have that for four seasons? :)
Paul M.
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 10:26am (UTC -6)
Yanks,

Sure, but the point is the NX-01 was the first operational Earth deep space vessel capable of relatively high warp. No place for a Warp 4 USS Franklin in the canon, I'm afraid. As I said, I don't care about such things, just a fun thing to note.
Paul M.
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 10:30am (UTC -6)
Ah yes, Robert, sorry for not making myself clear. In Star Trek Beyond appears USS Franklin, first Earth Warp 4 capable vessel, which apparently predates NX-01. That is, of course, not really possible under the old canon.
Dom
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 12:17pm (UTC -6)
@Robert, I'm somewhat more optimistic for Discovery, but I very much agree with points 2 & 3.

2 - You're right, I'd be really hard-pressed to name a single good prequel. My only hope is that Fuller said the series would be based around an event mentioned in TOS. That suggests to me that they might actually be interested in exploring the pre-TOS Trek history. It sounds like they're not going to come up with some major new event into the timeline just to inject artificial drama and suspense into the series (i.e., Xindi War). Overall, I'm excited for the show, but would have preferred it to be set after DS9. I'm much more interested in seeing how the story proceeds from here than in going back to the past.

3 - This is why DS9 is still one of my favorite shows. TV is too serialized nowadays for my taste. Even with shows I like, like Game of Thrones, I'd be hard-pressed to name my favorite episode, or even to rewatch a single episode just for fun. It all just blends into a single arc for me. This is fine, but one of the things I've loved about Trek is how it can just raise a social or moral issue in a single episode and then move on to a new issue the following week. It allowed the shows to touch upon a wider range of topics. How will the new show deal with social commentary? Will it explore a single theme over all 13 episodes? Or will each episode have its own theme/issue?
James
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 1:43pm (UTC -6)
Like many others here, I will be deeply disappointed if this is not 100% family friendly.I can accept Troi's low cut uniform, and even so tastefully dressed "green aliens" but strong language and sexual situations would be a poor direction for this show. That said I may never get to see it since I will not subscribe to another streaming service,especially for just one show.
Robert
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 3:27pm (UTC -6)
"Ah yes, Robert, sorry for not making myself clear. In Star Trek Beyond appears USS Franklin, first Earth Warp 4 capable vessel, which apparently predates NX-01. That is, of course, not really possible under the old canon. "

That makes no sense. To Memory Alpha!

The possible launch date of the Franklin as Earth's first warp 4 vessel can be narrowed down based on information from ENT: "First Flight", which established that the warp 3 barrier was first broken by the NX Delta in 2145, and that the construction of Enterprise, Starfleet's first warp 5 ship, began in 2150. Therefore, the launch of the Franklin likely occurred within that range.

::shrug::

If I'm being honest I've only seen ENT once, so I'm not totally sure if this contradicts anything. And I've never seen Beyond. So I'm not getting into a Geek discussion over this one :P
Paul M.
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 3:56pm (UTC -6)
Robert,

Since this thread is obviously no place for esoteric arcana that is 22nd century Trek canon, I apologize.

ST: Enterprise established that NX-01 was the first Starfleet deep space high warp-capable vessel. Prior to her, ships in operational service were pretty much limited to Warp 2 which took months and years to get anywhere. There were experimental testbeds that were faster than that, but it's heavily implied that Archer's Enterprise represents a "revolution" in human space age with the advent of Warp 5 engine which is many times faster than previously possible. True, it doesn't directly contradict the existence of the Franklin, but if by the time NX-01 was launched, there had already been a very fast (for the standards of the time) deep space capable Warp 4 ship in service, the whole ST:E backstory doesn't make much sense.
NCC-1701-Z
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 4:44pm (UTC -6)
"Quantum Leap meets Star Trek"

Oh boy.
methane
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 10:35pm (UTC -6)
Brettsky said:
"I'm actually surprised that it's not taking place in the new movies timeline. You would think they would want to keep their shows and movies together"

Well, since the CBS/Viacom split, Paramount (a division of Viacom) has the license to make movies, while CBS owns the TV shows. According to the article I linked to above (which somehow got an extra space in the web address), the TV series are still making an important amount of money for CBS.

CBS doesn't really have any incentive to support the movie timeline. While they may make some licensing money from Viacom, Viacom is getting most of the profit for the new films. If CBS furthers the Abrams timeline, that means that future fans will have less reason to check out TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, & VOY, as all of those series will be an alternate timeline for them. If fewer fans check out those series, CBS will make less money.

I'm sure CBS is hoping this new series gets old fans interested, but also makes new fans who will start to check out one or more of those old series. Part of the reason for remastering TOS & TNG was to try and keep those series fresh for a new generation of fans.
Yanks
Thu, Aug 18, 2016, 7:26am (UTC -6)
Methane,

Agree. I really didn't think there was ever a chance that the new series was going to be in JJ's timeline thingy. Although I will say I would relish a series with this cast.

That said, I'm not sure I'm all in on the time period they chose. I know it's always about the writing, and they've put together what seems to be a very good team (although folks like D.C. Fontana and Manny Coto would have been amazing), but I would have preferred something in the future after Nemesis.
Yanks
Thu, Aug 18, 2016, 7:30am (UTC -6)
Paul M.,

Agree. For the purposes of this movie, this could have been a warp 2 (or 3) ship. I don't see where "warp 4" was a mandatory element in the FRANK LIN's part in the story.
Robert
Thu, Aug 18, 2016, 9:03am (UTC -6)
@Paul M. - "Since this thread is obviously no place for esoteric arcana that is 22nd century Trek canon, I apologize. "

What is the point of being a Star Trek fan if we can't have page long discussions about esoteric 22nd century canon? :P

The more I think about the beginning of ENT (and it has been awhile... I watched S1/some of S2 when it was on, abandoned it, and returned to S3/S4 much later when I heard good things about it... so my watching of ENT was very disjoint... and I may even have missed a few S1/S2 episodes) I get what you are saying.

Warp 2 was DEFINITELY common. I remember the cargo ships going faster than that, and Cochrane had warp as well long before ENT. First flight establishes that the NX-Alpha and the NX-Beta were the first Warp 5 vessels.

"First Flight"'s flashbacks occur about 6 years before "Broken Bow" and it seems to imply they thought crossing Warp 2 was a huge achievement in that episode. In fact, Memory Alpha's 22nd century timeline seems to think that in 2143 they broke the Warp 2 barrier for the first time as part of the Warp Five and NX Program (and that the cargo ships I remembered doing Warp 2 actually max out at 1.8).

"First Flight" also says the NX program broke Warp 3 8 months later, and then 5 years after than the Enterprise was built. So that means somebody, in that 5 year period, constructed a vessel with a crappier warp drive and gave it a strange registry number. Is that possible? Sure. I could fan-wank a million different answers to that question (really, it wouldn't be hard). Is that stupid? Yes... I think it is.
Robert
Thu, Aug 18, 2016, 9:05am (UTC -6)
According to the directors it was a MACO ship, given a Starfleet registry number later (explaining why the NX is later), that it served in the Romulan War and was part of a different warp program. Blech....
Chrome
Thu, Aug 18, 2016, 10:09am (UTC -6)
@methane

That article you linked actually says there are rumors Viacom and CBS will merge, as they are both owned by Sumner Redstone, a media mogul.

So, I can see the new series making nods to the latest films. They're going to want to attract the new movie fans too, after all.
Yanks
Thu, Aug 18, 2016, 7:31pm (UTC -6)
Robert, et all,

The Franklin was a MACO ship, not a deep space vessel. It was only given it's star fleet registry number when it was called upon for the Earth/Romulan War. Star Fleet and the military are two different organizations. It's NOT beyond reason that the military were developing their version of the warp engine. It makes sense that the military developed a ship that could be used to defend Earth while not venturing into deep space for exploration like the NX-01.

No problem fitting the Franklin into canon.
Paul M.
Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 8:52am (UTC -6)
Yanks,

And then they made a massive warp breakthrough years before Starfleet, commissioned their own superfast revolutionary ship... and were forgotten by history in a couple of years. Nah! :)
Robert
Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 9:38am (UTC -6)
@Paul M. - My biggest issue with it is that in S3 they made it seem like Archer's Enterprise was the ONLY ship they could send against the Xindi. And that if they failed Earth was going to be destroyed. To the point that they jacked somebody's warp drive.

If there was a Warp 4 ship right behind them the whole way it would have made the season less exciting, but if that Mako ship existed I sure as hell would have sent them as backup!!!
Robert
Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 9:38am (UTC -6)
Sorry, MACO. This is Star Trek, not FF7.
Chrome
Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 9:50am (UTC -6)
The Franklin runs on refined Mako materia courtesy of Shinra Industries, Inc.

Plothole solved.
karatasiospa
Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 4:03am (UTC -6)
I'm not against prequels. Prequels can be done and be good especially in the star trek universe where there are many chronological gaps. What do we really know for the period between 2161 (romulan war and establishment of the federation) and 2166 when TOS starts? Very, very few things. Its all a matter of good and creative writers. Enterprise failed because most of the episodes were simply mediocre to bad. But the Entrprise's 4th season proved that a good prequel can be done.
As for cbs allaccess i understand the problem of american viewers. Fortunatelly i'm living in greece and i will see it in Netflix juat one day later!
karatasiospa
Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 5:59am (UTC -6)
sorry i meant 2266 for the start of TOS!
Jack Bauer
Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 5:12pm (UTC -6)
Instead of creating their own pre-quel TV series.....again......they should goto the creators of Axanar and give then 13 episodes to tell their story. What those guys are doing, with the budget they have is remarkable. I would gladly watch 13 episodes on the Klingon War with the Federation.
Brandon
Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 10:36am (UTC -6)
I'll probably watch the pilot and stop there, unless it's of "Lost" quality. I'm not paying to watch Star Trek, especially if they've just moved to All Access in order to shill for viewers with sex. Tiresome and not family-friendly.

If it's already profitable overseas, good for them. It'll be profitable without me on board.
FlyingSquirrel
Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 3:51pm (UTC -6)
I think a serialized prequel has potential. Part of Enterprise's problem in the first two years was that, aside from the crew betraying signs of inexperience at times, some of the stories could have easily been on TOS, TNG, or Voyager - they were just alien/anomaly of the week episodes. When they actually explored issues like how the crew might have reacted to situations in the pre-Prime Directive era or fleshed out some of the history that had been previously left vague, it could be pretty interesting. If nothing else, a serialized 13-episode run doesn't sound like it will be about aliens and anomalies of the week. Hopefully, Fuller and company have specific aspects of Trek history that they want to explore in more detail.
karatasiospa
Sun, Aug 28, 2016, 2:54am (UTC -6)
I think there is an over reaction about the supposed"graphic" scenes in Discovery. Fuller said "just a bit more graphic". And i never considered star trek with its social allegories, moral dillemas etc as "family friendly".
Yanks
Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 7:38am (UTC -6)
"Number One"

www.aintitcool.com/node/76084
Del_Duio
Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 8:27am (UTC -6)
I don't know I think it'd way better without gratuitous scenes or nonsense and even swearing. Having Data say "shit!" when the ENT-D was crashing was bad enough, I don't want to hear it 10 times every episode to be honest.

Also isn't it better that way because then when Riker tells Picard "SHUT UP! As in close your mouth and stop TALKING!" it's all the better for it. If they talked like that all the time then that scene wouldn't mean half as much. I think that's exactly why they're going to shoot some STD scenes twice. So the 'director's cut' might have the Klingon Captain telling Number One the Klingon equivalent of "Go fuck yourself, beeatch!" and the reshot version will be something family-friendly.
Jammer
Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 8:35am (UTC -6)
Aw, c'mon, Data saying "shit" when the ship crashed was a perfect use of an isolated curse. It fit the moment, fit the comic theme (despite the larger failure of that comic theme) and felt like a little wink to the audience regarding what they could do in the medium. I still remember the sold-out crowd for that movie, and that moment brought the house down. I just hope Discovery is as good at choosing its moments.
Ivanov
Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 9:03am (UTC -6)
So is the captain also going to be a main character or are we just going to here their voice on an intercom every once in a while?
FlyingSquirrel
Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 9:28am (UTC -6)
Re: "Family friendly" - I think the distinction is that most of the current Star Trek material is something that adults can watch with their kids even if some of the themes and subtext will go over the kids' heads. I vaguely recall watching Star Trek I on TV or video at home with my parents (I was born in 1977) and seeing all the movies from at least ST3 on in the theater. (I know I saw Wrath of Khan somewhere in there, can't remember if it was at home or in the theater.) My family and I also watched TNG together from Day 1.

In retrospect, did I "get" everything that was being conveyed? Probably not. I remember that when I first saw "The Outcast," I viewed it as a general "be respectful of people who were different" message as opposed to a gay rights allegory specifically. But for the most part, Star Trek wasn't something where my mom and dad would have to worry that I'd either be freaked out by the level of violence and horror or would have a bunch of uncomfortable questions for them when it was over.
Del_Duio
Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 10:09am (UTC -6)
@ Jammer-

You're right about that, everybody laughed when it happened and so did I. I think I'm looking at it from a different perspective now though, as I much prefer the pre-emotion chip Data over the one featured in the movies (though he wasn't bad at all).

Also Alice Eve is super hot, but whenever that underwear scene comes on when I'm watching Into Darkness with my kids I'm just kind of cringing a bit since it was only in there for the T&A and nothing more.

And BELIEVE ME guys when I say I am far from a prude or a bible thumper or any of that at all. It's just what I get out of those Fuller quotes is that he's going to purposely try to push the boundary of what's acceptable just because he can now. Hopefully they'll push the boundaries of great storytelling first and foremost.
Chrome
Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 10:13am (UTC -6)
@Del_Duio

My first reaction:

Please don't be like Janeway,
Please don't be like Janeway,
Please don't be like Janeway!

But yes, I see potential here. Sisko started as a Commander too, after all.
Ivanov
Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 10:58am (UTC -6)
@Chrome
The only way she''ll be like janeway is if she gets written inconsistently from episode to episode in a way that makes her look bipolar.
Jammer
Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 11:05am (UTC -6)
@Del_Duio, I'm actually with you here. I hope that they keep this mostly family friendly so that kids of a certain age can watch it. It's just a matter of where to draw the line so that the show can work for the more sophisticated audience as well. Most of that, however, has little to do with how graphic the content is versus how good the writing is, so this whole thing is really a bit of a red herring.
Jack Bauer
Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:43pm (UTC -6)
If Fuller makes this show half as good as Dead Like Me was for the first 6 episodes, were in for a massive treat.
Yanks
Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 10:08am (UTC -6)
D.C. Fontana and Manny Coto are still out there....

.... just sayin...
Del_Duio
Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 7:30am (UTC -6)
Holy crap, just thought of something:

Is there any chance that a Dax previous host shows up on this show somehow?
I don't think Trill was discovered until way later on but hey who knows?
Ivanov
Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 8:30am (UTC -6)
So far the only TOS reference for this time period I can find that would make a good story is the Battle of Anxanar referenced in that Asylum episode.
Robert
Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 9:36am (UTC -6)
"Is there any chance that a Dax previous host shows up on this show somehow?

I don't think Trill was discovered until way later on but hey who knows? "

It's about 99.999999999999% likely that TNG's "The Host" never happened. Stuff we know about Trills from Dax:

1. They don't re-associate with past lovers.
2. They have spots.
3. Dax was involved with Starfleet at a point where Emony met Bones.
4. Curzon was Sisko's mentor, a Federation ambassador, and Sisko was aware of his nature. This occurred prior to the beginning of TNG.
5. The symbionts do not overwhelm the host, instead creating a new individual.
6. Has no trouble using the transporter.

Stuff we know about Trills from Odan :

1. "It" was totally fine continuing a sexual relationship with Beverly across 3 hosts.
2. Forehead ridges, no spots.
3. Starfleet does not seem to be aware that Trill symbionts exist as of the events of "The Host" (2367) despite Curzon dying in 2367 and Dax, a Starfleet officer, getting the symbiont. I guess they don't do medical scans on her ship.
4. And while we're on the topic of medical scans, I guess they didn't scan Odan when he boarded. One would assume that passengers brought in on shuttles are scanned since that would be standard procedure for the transporter.
5. Odan has no personality or name change from one host to the next. Riker is completely gone. And apparently these symbionts can be briefly joined to humans?!
6. Cannot use the transporter.

Verdict. You can either a) retcon "The Host", b) assume that there are two species called Trill that by some random coincidence both use symbionts and that Dax's Trill homeworld is a Federation member while Odan's is relatively unknown or c) retcon all of DS9.

I don't care if you pick a) or b) but I'd have some beef with c).
Chrome
Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 1:04pm (UTC -6)
The real question is, which host would Dax be in during that time? :-)
Jack Bauer
Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 1:26pm (UTC -6)
"So far the only TOS reference for this time period I can find that would make a good story is the Battle of Anxanar referenced in that Asylum episode."

Like I said, there is a multi-million dollar fan flic being made right now on Axanar. Look it up the documentary on Youtube, its going to be awesome. It has some familiar faces in it.
Robert
Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 1:32pm (UTC -6)
Chrome - I can answer that! Since Bones hadn't entered medical school when he met Emony and 10 years before Kirk's voyage he'd have to be in medical school if he was going to be the chief medical officer of the flagship in 10 years (despite what nuTrek says, you don't get magical promotions from cadet to Captain of the flagship) it can't be anything PRIOR to Emony. So Lela/Tobin are out.

Assuming no retcons at all from DS9, Joran Dax died in 2286. DSC launches in 2255, 31 years earlier. So Joran and Curzon are out as well (Joran Dax only existed for 6 months after all).

Aside from Curzon we know the most about Torias because multiple episodes involved him. We know he got into the shuttle crash after being joined less than a year. So the latest Audrid could have died in 2284.

Bones was born in 2227. Upon further examination Emony met Bones when he was in college and she was judging a gymnastics competition on Earth. So let's say 18-22 years after this (2245-2249).

Her career was over already if she was a judge, and Dax raises children as Audrid. So presumably Audrid Dax existed for at least 20-30 years. So I'd say, with a bit of guessing, that DSC launches right around the time that Emony died and Audrid became host. So you could really meet either one.

Audrid is the head of the symbiosis committee on Trill, so if you wanted a good story that might be more interesting than a gymnast.
NCC-1701-Z
Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 2:47pm (UTC -6)
I don't think Dax will be a main character, but if she pops up as a one-episode guest character or even a cameo that would be a really awesome Easter egg for the DS9 fans!!!
Robert
Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 2:59pm (UTC -6)
@NCC-1701-Z : Well Dax couldn't have been in Starfleet during that era, so I doubt she'd be a main character. But I would get a kick out of a name drop or a cameo too :)
karatasiospa
Thu, Sep 1, 2016, 6:38am (UTC -6)
Now without ads but with more money!

www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/star-trek/258177/star-trek-discovery-can-be-seen-wi th-commercial-free-subscription-plan
Chrome
Thu, Sep 1, 2016, 9:14am (UTC -6)
@karatasiopa

That's great, how much more for the topless version?
Robert
Thu, Sep 1, 2016, 10:35am (UTC -6)
"That's great, how much more for the topless version? "

Back in the day you could see Picard and Kirk topless without paying $10 a month. Sigh. Janeway is such a prude.
Yanks
Thu, Sep 1, 2016, 12:05pm (UTC -6)
Damn Robert, that's some good work there son :-) I take it you have research the Trill stuff before?

I'm still holding out hope that T'Pol can make an appearance. ;)
karatasiospa
Sat, Sep 3, 2016, 7:30pm (UTC -6)
Some new information:

io9.gizmodo.com/bryan-fuller-explains-why-the-new-show-is-called-star-t-178 6151607
Dougie
Mon, Sep 5, 2016, 5:50am (UTC -6)
I'm thinking of a Fantasy Island prequel, called Fantasy Atoll.

Every time Ricardo Montalban goes swimming in the lagoon, he winds up in a swirling Blue Hole vortex and is transported to the future only to find himself in a Star Trek episode or movie.

See, there's a Warp 3.14159 capable ship sunk at the bottom of the Blue Hole and there was an alien on the ship who was in the brig who could shape shift and move time and space after consuming a red matter pill and... And... And...

Oh crap here comes Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio and she looks pissed...
Trekker
Mon, Sep 5, 2016, 1:00pm (UTC -6)
Here's Screenrant link on the name "Discovery":

screenrant.com/star-trek-discovery-title-explained-bryan-fuller/

Star Trek's new incarnation could be interesting, I've been watching Trek since the 90's and I am used to Arc stories from DS9, along with Babylon 5.

The Sheliak incident would be a likely culprit, but there are other even more dramatic incidents in Trek lore in the 23rd century aka "Omega" molecule creation., which despite what novels will tell ou did occur in the 23rd century without a real canon date. (Personally after the games, I think Omega has been overused and hope it's not in this series. Cool concept, but too overused.)
Dougie
Mon, Sep 5, 2016, 4:45pm (UTC -6)
I believe it was said it would be a TOS incident. I've been watching ST since 1971 as repeats and don't remember Kirk encountering the Sheliak and Omega was Voyager.

These guys are generating advertising impressions and know squat. There's exactly two small paragraphs of actual detail and the rest is complete blather.

Given he'll probably get maybe 3 or 4K page views I am betting his total revenue take us about $12. Feels about right for a load of dung.

It's not you Trekker. It's how the advertising model works. Out-headline the next "writer" for a few thousand ad impressions.
Trekker
Tue, Sep 6, 2016, 10:59pm (UTC -6)
There are other possibilities from 23rd Century:

Here's a few more:

1. Talos IV incident, a famous issue 10 years before TOS, which we only got a brief glimpse of during the trial sequence in "The Cage".
2. Another incident in the 23rd century, James T. Kirk is in Starfleet Academy in the prime timeline at this point in history and entering service as an Ensign (Now that would be sweet to see a young James T. Kirk being mentored by the main female Commander character). IT was established in TOS episode "Shore Leave".
3. IF they go back to the 2240's, not 2250's, there's an even better set up: TOS episode "The Conscience of the King", Kodos the mad Eugenics based governor of Tarsus IV could be a forefront of the arc. Also, a child age James T. Kirk can make a nice appearance as he was one of survivors of the genocide of Tarsus IV.

The name Trekker isn't a moniker, I know my Trek History pretty well even if I began in the 90's. The old series to me is dated and flawed in so many degrees, but I do pay homage to its ideas that inspired TNG, DS9, voyager, and the last season of Enterprise.

There are things we can explore from this period of Trek history, not to mention that the Enterprise and Constitution-class starships began around this period long before Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and company came into their own.
karatasiospa
Thu, Sep 8, 2016, 5:01am (UTC -6)
The Talos story was told in the Menagerie almost fully. I also thought about the events on Tarsus IV but with fuller saying there will be new aliens i don't think that it will be the event of the show. But there are also the events on Rigel before they went on Talos.
karatasiospa
Fri, Sep 9, 2016, 5:48pm (UTC -6)
Fuller just named balance of terror episode of TOS as a Discovery touchtone.Now what that means exactly is anybody's gues.

www.blastr.com/2016-9-9/bryan-fuller-just-named-classic-star-trek-episode-d iscovery-touchstone
Dougie
Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 9:30am (UTC -6)
I just rewatched it last night. It's an okay episode. Mark Lenard I believe is the only person to have played 3 different alien species on Star Trek. So I guess that's something.

Personally I like Shore Leave more.
William B
Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 10:27am (UTC -6)
For what it's worth, Jeffrey Combs has played 5 different alien species, off the top of my head.
Dougie
Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 10:34am (UTC -6)
Didn't know that.
Perhaps it's better to say "recurring alien species" not "weird forehead of the week species."

Was Lenard the first to do so?

My cousin's husband was in Who Watches The Watchers. I didn't know that until 3 months ago. I miss stuff. Make it go.
Peter G.
Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 12:47pm (UTC -6)
"Make it go."

Is this like a character-portmanteau of Picard with a Pakled? I'm imagining the senior statesman of the Pakled on their flagship becoming famous for his hand gesture and his catchphrase of "Number One, make it go!" The Pakled audience may not be that sophisticated, but they like the star of their show just fine.
Dougie
Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 1:09pm (UTC -6)
I think the CBS All Access route is the biggest barrier for this show. Not because of viewing habit reasons as Jammer referred to, but cost. Let's be honest, most of us watch Voyager and other shows on Netflix. So streaming is not the issue, nor is turning on our chromecast or Apple TV.

It's paying 60%-100% on top of our existing Netflix subscription for one show. Arguably, $6-10 is not something that breaks the budget. It's the concept that the media powers that be think this is okay that makes this nauseating.

I remember the promise of cable tv. More channels and less commercials because you pay for the content directly. Well, that was a lie. It started out okay but then reality tv took over, and now it's 12 minutes of commercials in each half hour. Cable or network. Everywhere. Plus we pay premiums as always for HBO and other movie channels. It's non stop advertising on top of fees.

I already pay for cbs with cable. I also pay for HBO on my cable subscription. I can get HBO Go for free on my streaming devices like chromecast and Apple TV. I can get other cable channels for free as well on stream because I have a cable tv subscription. But CBS wants me to double down, and they have nothing of interest. Big Bang Theory? Watching a bunch of insipid millennials is inspiring? I wouldn't watch it when included, nor when I had an antenna, but they're jacking me to pay for it a second time? It's robbery.

So I think this is a fail today, now, before it even starts. I won't be buying in. I'll wait for it to hit Netflix. And if you think all the free trek will stay on Netflix when it gets closer to launch, you're kidding yourself. All of it will disappear in favor of forcing you to pay. Whether you end up paying $220++ for DVDs or something else, you'll be paying again for known trek also.

That's my prediction. The greed knows no end.
Dougie
Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 2:23pm (UTC -6)
"Is this like a character-portmanteau of Picard with a Pakled?"

Guilty ;)

On occasion I find myself reverting to Pakledese when in error. Nobody gets it.

You are smart.
Trekker
Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 10:53pm (UTC -6)
karatasiospa, you're right Menagerie was the Trial Episode with Pike in a wheelchair.

The Cage, the original pilot, was the one where Pike was Captain, 10 years before Kirk.

Balance of Terror, eh...really:

Maybe the development of Plasma Torpedoes, or the Earth Outposts along the Neutral Zone, maybe even the reason why the Romulans crossed the Neutral Zone after 100 years of silence.

I would love to some more Vulcan/Romulan intrigue being built up.
Dougie
Sun, Sep 11, 2016, 12:21am (UTC -6)
In my opinion there's way too much focus on both. Many of the movies had Vulcan or Romulan intrigue. They've done it.

I would like a focus on another species. I don't have one in mind but there were many interesting ones. Maybe the Tholians. There were a couple of intergalactic origin, they'd also open up a lot.

How about the ship gets zapped to the Andromeda galaxy and they know they'll never get back so they settle down in a nice colony in the Andromeda Beta Quadrant Commerce Zone somewhere.
Trekker
Sun, Sep 11, 2016, 7:28am (UTC -6)
Dougie: Well, Enterprise's final season had success by going in that direction leading, sadly unseen, to the Earth Romulan War. Romulans were always good for cloak and dagger story-lines (a familiar face with an emotional response), which I guess a sizable population enjoy along with me (*cough* Game of Thrones *cough*).

As for other species, I really wish the Gorns would be seen again (Lizard suits aside :P ) as TNG and onward does not mention them again.

The Gorn probably are a shoe-in for re-introduction, they need a better backstory and Lizard people are under-represented.
Dougie
Sun, Sep 11, 2016, 7:57am (UTC -6)
Did you just say: "Enterprise had success (anything... Anything... Anything)" ?
Enterprise is unwatchable. Enterprise, the only trek outing to be unable to do a 7 season run since TOS, may have well focused on Archer's inability to move naturally due to Bakula's back injuries. Enterprise needed Sam.

Gorn? Sure. Lizard Lives Matter. Even the Kelvans would be interesting.

But let's be honest, Klingon and Romulan story lines are uninteresting today with loss of the Soviet Union as an evil force and fading memory of nazis, and communism and socialism becoming mainstream ideas permeating the millennial culture. Those villains do not play. They barely played well ever, to be honest, but at least we're culturally relevant.

How about a series which explains more esoteric philosophies of the Federation and its species? How money is regarded. How birth rates are maintained. How food is produced and traded through the various planets. How trade deals are negotiated. (You know, Trexit), how integration of different genders within different colonies throughout the federation goes on, how prisoners are dealt with, how many bathrooms are there... And how the federation promotes and does employee development throughout the fleet.

After all, Gene was all about situations that had real life parallels.
Dougie
Sun, Sep 11, 2016, 8:00am (UTC -6)
12 episodes dealing with the smuggling, hoarding, and consumption of Romulan Ale within the Federation. There. That I'll accept as a Romulan story line.
Del_Duio
Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:51am (UTC -6)
I truly think this is the first Star Trek series where I get less and less excited about it with each new press release :(
Adam
Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 6:08pm (UTC -6)
Disappointed that the series is taking place in the pre-TOS era. Enterprise failed and the new movies are already in that time frame (albeit a different dimension).

Was excited to have a new series that took place after Voyager and that gave TNG, DS9 and Voyager actors a chance to make guest appearances.

Trek has been a disappointment for the last 15 years and I hope the new series breaks the wheel.
Latex Zebra
Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 9:15am (UTC -6)
So apparently Balance of Terror is the episode that they're using for inspiration for this series.

denofgeek.com/us/tv/star-trek/250209/star-trek-discovery-balance-of-terror- will-influence-new-series
Peter G.
Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 9:39am (UTC -6)
I don't really understand how Balance of Terror can be the basis of the series, since prior to Kirk's encounter with the Romulan ship there hadn't been contact for a long time. Maybe the series is about covert ops that deal with the Romulans behind the Federation's back?
Robert
Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 2:16pm (UTC -6)
@Peter G. - Correct, the Earth-Romulan War is unfortunately 100 years before Discovery, during a "quiet period" between Earth-Romulan relations. Couple that with Spock's assertion that no human/Romulan has ever seen each other and I seriously wonder why bother with this premise when they likely will break canon. If you get to pick your own premise, stick with it!

If they manage to do something interesting with it and not break canon I'll eat my words here, but I am not holding my breath.
karatasiospa
Wed, Sep 14, 2016, 7:07am (UTC -6)
I can't be sure but i think that the reference to Blance of terror is about the structure of the episode ( the personal dynamic between kirk and the romulan commander and their actions and decisions ) not the romulans themselves.
Anyway i'm getting tired with these mysterious hints. Either give us something solid or don't say anything at all.
Latex Zebra
Wed, Sep 14, 2016, 7:11am (UTC -6)
Maybe they just want that kind of cold war vibe. I dunno, never seen that episode. :/

They're saying they want to continue with allegorical stories.
So stuff based on the rise is ISIS and religious fundamentalism... Donald Trump... North Korea, Brexit...

Some interesting things going on in the World that could be twisted into a sci fi tale.

I can't wait.
Robert
Wed, Sep 14, 2016, 9:32am (UTC -6)
@karatasiospa - I hope you are correct. The Romulans would be an AWFUL choice, since it would rob "Balance of Terror" and Kirk of their "first contact" with Romulans in over a century (much the same way ENT did with the Ferengi and Picard). Though I'm wondering what race in a TOS-10 years kind of era would be able to have that sort of vibe.

The Sheliak would be at EXACTLY that time, but it doesn't fit with other hints.... especially something mention in TOS. I'm drawing a blank.
Ivanov
Wed, Sep 14, 2016, 11:15am (UTC -6)
@Latex Zebra Oh god modern Trek trying to deal with Religious fundamentalist. The last time we saw that they were fanatic suicide bombers on Enterprise who wanted to destroy their home world because one group believed it took 10 days to create their star system instead of 9.

Actually when episodes go bad they become almost hilariously bad. Bring on the ISIS aliens!
NCC-1701-Z
Wed, Sep 14, 2016, 1:01pm (UTC -6)
They're going to start filming in September so I expect serious news (casting etc) any day now.

I seriously doubt they're going to be using the Romulans directly; I interpreted "touchstone" to mean they're pulling the themes from the episode but not the specifics. Unless they try something like Enterprises Romulan drone storyline but I think a lot of fans would cry foul about that.
Del_Duio
Wed, Sep 14, 2016, 1:33pm (UTC -6)
"They're going to start filming in September so I expect serious news (casting etc) any day now."

Jesus, it's already mid September though! Is this normal, to cut things this friggin' close when it comes to casting? This is under tighter wraps than Star Wars episode 7 was!
karatasiospa
Wed, Sep 14, 2016, 6:20pm (UTC -6)
Star Trek discovery has been delayed until may 2017. CBS screwed up again.

io9.gizmodo.com/star-trek-discovery-has-been-delayed-until-may-2017-1786641 176
NCC-1701-Z
Thu, Sep 15, 2016, 1:45am (UTC -6)
Delayed till May? Wow...just wow...

*Captain Picard facepalm*

I guess if it gives them time to come up with a better ship design, it will be worth the wait. But still ... wow. *headdesk*

Guess I'll be going back to watching Star Trek Continues. Assuming of course CBS doesn't try to crack down on them too. And of course my Trek DVD collection (I'm old school; unlike Netflix, DVDs can still play without Internet and aren't at the mercy of streaming agreements *cough* Doctor Who *cough* ).
Del_Duio
Thu, Sep 15, 2016, 5:12am (UTC -6)
Until MAY????

Ship redesign has to be part of this, maybe also to get it off CBS All-Crapcess too.

OR maybe they are doing a complete 180 and setting it post VOY.

I wonder what really happened?
Yanks
Thu, Sep 15, 2016, 8:41am (UTC -6)
While I'm not happy I have to wait until May, I'd rather wait that get a rushed product.

I hope a new ship redesign is part of it. I would think it should be as that thing they showed was universally shat upon.
Chrome
Thu, Sep 15, 2016, 10:00am (UTC -6)
This is great news, imo. I don't want to see some half-baked Star Trek series with rushed production. It also gives them time to build hype and get a general audience more interested.

Let's hope the casting list is released soon!
Robert
Thu, Sep 15, 2016, 10:53am (UTC -6)
"Ship redesign has to be part of this, maybe also to get it off CBS All-Crapcess too.

OR maybe they are doing a complete 180 and setting it post VOY. "

Vote Del_Duio for showrunner!
Jack Bauer
Thu, Sep 15, 2016, 3:23pm (UTC -6)
I would love a post-Voyager Trek, but I reckon they are having another prequel series so it ties into the re-boot movies at some point.
Liya
Fri, Sep 16, 2016, 1:32pm (UTC -6)
I'm really disappointed about this. It all seems so very retrograde and little more than pandering to TOS fans. So, is most of the series going to feature female officers in mini-skirts and short jersey dresses, since it's supposedly set 5-10 years before TOS? I didn't even have a problem with subscribing to a new streaming service, when I naively assumed that the Trek Universe was moving forward, but now . . .
Chrome
Fri, Sep 16, 2016, 1:40pm (UTC -6)
@Liya

What makes you think they're going to make women wear short skirts and jersey dresses? That the lead is woman CO signifies that they want female officer to be something other than eye candy.
Liya
Fri, Sep 16, 2016, 8:51pm (UTC -6)
@Chrome

So you're just going to pretend that what I sarcastically asked (in jest) is not, in fact, a valid question, given how "Discovery" is supposed to be taking place 5-10 years before Enterprise A- leaves Dry Dock? And you're just going to pretend that Lt. Uhura wasn't a CO on the senior staff of TOS? We don't even know if this new lead is even a department head. The fact that the lead is a woman and a CO doesn't mean that she won't be wearing some short 60's inspired mod get up. The fact that the lead is a female Lt. Cmdr. just increases the probability that the short 60's mod get up will be dipped in that nasty shade of command green.
Chrome
Fri, Sep 16, 2016, 10:55pm (UTC -6)
@Liya

Don't get me wrong, it's entirely possible that could happen, but it seems to soon to start excusing the *new series* of sexism. TOS was made is the 60s and followed social norms of that time. Discovery is made in 2016+ and will likely fit social norms of this time, regardless of what TOS did.
Alex (in the UK)
Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 3:43am (UTC -6)
@Chrome, surely one of TOS strengths was that it most assuredly didn't follow all of the norms of its time. It bucked them. It presented a woman first officer (briefly), a black senior officer, interracial kiss, etc. Though I am of the opinion these things were less revolutionary than they are commonly made out to be they are still evidence that TOS didn't observe the social norms of mid-century America particularly closely.
Chrome
Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 9:01am (UTC -6)
@Alex

That's true, there were certainly progressive and even revolutionary social concepts presented in TOS. Liya seems to be taking issue with how women's clothing specifically, which I'm saying is more closely a product of that era. For example, if you look at Enterprise, which also takes place before TOS but was filmed in the last decade or so, you'll see women's outfits are uniform with men's.
Marshal Dunnik
Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 3:16pm (UTC -6)
"The story arc driving the season will be an incident in Starfleet's history that has been referenced but never fully explored. Die-hard fans "should be very happy. It's something I want to see," Fuller said."

For some reason, Garth of Izar popped into my mind.
Peter G.
Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 4:22pm (UTC -6)
Axanar was going to do a major profile on Captain Garth, so if Discovery does it I'll know they stole the idea.
karatasiospa
Sun, Sep 18, 2016, 4:15am (UTC -6)
Fuller specifically denied that the "incident" is axanar.
Liya
Sun, Sep 18, 2016, 4:08pm (UTC -6)
@Chrome

Well Enterprise was set over a century before TOS. So, it's perfectly believable that fashion and mores changed drastically from Enterprise to TOS. I'm not expecting a dramatic shift in fashion or mores in the 5-10 years between Discovery and TOS.

Look, I'm a millennial gen fan. So TOS was the last of the shows that I watched, and I relate more to VOY and DS9. While I can appreciate how groundbreaking TOS was in terms of its representation of people of color and certain women, while in production; for the most part, the portrayal of women (as a whole) on TOS left much to be desired. TNG, VOY, Enterprise, and especially DS9 atoned for most of those past sins. The fact that this new franchise is a prequel set so soon before what I consider to be the least progressive of the Trek shows . . . Let's just say that I'm not as excited as I was when I thought we were getting a post VOY era ship and crew. Rightly or wrongly, I'm expecting the specter of TOS to loom heavily over this new show, in terms of foreshadowing and references, when I had hoped that the TV universe would be moving on from all of that.

Liya
Sun, Sep 18, 2016, 4:23pm (UTC -6)
@Chrome

And think about it. With Discovery set when it is, there aren't going to be any next gen tricorders, holo-decks, or human rights debates over androids and holograms.
Chrome
Sun, Sep 18, 2016, 5:54pm (UTC -6)
@Liya

Those things could easily be retconned for the new series. And with a homosexual producer talking up the importance of having LGBTQ characters, I seriously doubt the show is going to have problems being PC. If anything, my worries are of the reverse.
Del_Duio
Mon, Sep 19, 2016, 7:00am (UTC -6)
"Fuller specifically denied that the "incident" is axanar. "

And John Harrington was also not Khan for the longest time too.
Peremensoe
Mon, Sep 19, 2016, 12:28pm (UTC -6)
Liya: "And think about it. With Discovery set when it is, there aren't going to be any next gen tricorders, holo-decks, or human rights debates over androids and holograms."

Thank goodness! We've done all that.

I would love to see some strong, smart women primary characters in TOS-style uniforms. Really confound the idea that a woman's worth can be judged on her appearance.
Peter G.
Mon, Sep 19, 2016, 1:16pm (UTC -6)
You know, I never looked at Majel in "The Cage" and thought "that's eye candy." And it's not because she was unattractive, but because I simply saw her intelligence and bearing more than anything else. Even the Talosians seemed to zero in on her intellectual stature rather than reduce her to what she looked like in her uniform. Similarly, I can't remember ever seeing a scene with Uhura and thinking she was being sexualized by the director (the only exception being in "Mirror Mirror"). Yeoman Rand was definitely the subject of sexual attention, and that was by design, but even so I'd be on board with suggesting it was creepy at times.

Don't forget that in the 50's and 60's miniskirts were not only considered standard business dress for women in the workplace, but in fact such attire was often mandatory and seen as 'professional.' Now we could argue until the cows come home about how this standard was set within a patriarchal framework and was designed to please male executives, but at the end of the day some women still prefer to dress like that and in and of itself having a uniform that consists of a miniskirt doesn't seem sexist to me unless the show uses it sexually. Check out ST: Voyager and Enterprise to get a glimpse of what I think is real sexualization of women on the show, and they had full-body suits that showed nothing (excluding, of course, mandatory biohazard jello scenes). On TOS I don't really see the uniform as being exploitative in any discernible way.
Trajan
Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 5:24pm (UTC -6)
I already pay a small fortune for subscription tv here in the UK ( as free to air is just reality shows and soaps and a tiny scattering of quality) and I'm not shelling out more to Netflix for an unknown standard of new Trek. Sorry. If it turns out to be utterly brilliant I'll just buy the DVD.

The business model of stuffing everything they think will be popular on a subscription only channel is going to backfire because of their own practice of pulling stuff from the schedules if it isn't immediately a hit. How many new shows have you started watching only to discover they've been cancelled? Maybe I'm just old and grumpy but I've had enough of large corporations dipping into my pocket only to offer a substandard or overpriced product. There's no guarantee of quality or longevity so I'll pass.

Thank you, I feel better now.

/Rant over.

Liya
Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 9:07pm (UTC -6)
@Peremenso, @Peter G., @Chrome

My criticism about the TOS women's uniforms started out as a joke, but it's taken on a life of its own. So, I'll say this. Whether or not you want to acknowledge it, TOS women's uniforms were as short as they were for the same reason that Deanna Troy's necklines plunged so low before season 6 of TNG, and none of that had anything to do with what most working/professional women, who weren't flight attendants for Southwest Airlines, were allegedly wearing in the 1960's workplace. TOS women's uniforms were fantasy/sci-fi costumes made for television. So, there's that.

My desire to not see that particular costume revived on TV has nothing to do with judging women by their appearance. It has everything to do with my disdain for outfitting women in garments that aren't practical for their jobs, just for the sake of vanity/objectification, especially those women working in security. It was not a coincidence that the physicality of the female characters changed once women were outfitted in pants uniforms.

How ridiculous would Kira have looked swapping a Bajoran militia uniform for a TOS uniform when she got her field commission? (Rusot probably would've went straight for her legs first chance he got, LOL) Now picture B'Elanna being mandated to wear a TOS uniform when joining the VOY crew or Tasha or Janeway doing fight scenes and running into battle in one of those get-ups. Can you hear me now? So no, I'm not excited at the prospect of women running around with bare legs and short hemlines, juxtaposed next to men in long pants, and I hope that nonsense is kept to a minimum for Discovery.



OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 12:59pm (UTC -6)
Actually, in the 1960's, the miniskirt was a feminist symbol. It was a rebellion against the (then commonplace) situation where men constantly made up rules about what a "decent woman" must wear.

I know this is difficult to believe given the modern climate of sexual objectification, but that's how things were in the 1960's. Back then, having Uhura (for example) in such an outfit actually symbolized something revolutionary and progressive.

You have to realize that in those days, any women who "showed legs" would be considered deviant and even "asking for trouble". So having actual professional women wearing such outfits WITHOUT IT HAVING ANY SEXUAL ORVERTONES WHAT-SO-EVER was a very bold move at the time (and as Peter G. correctly noted, there was nothing remotely sexual in the way Uhura or the random women engineer was protrayed in TOS).

Of-course, TOS did plenty of "sci fi fantasy skimpy outfits" too, from the Orion women to the random alien love interests of the manly man known as James T. Kirk. But comparing these "adolescent fantasy women" to the professional protrayial of Uhura or Lt. Rhada or Lt. Masters just serves as further confirmation of the point I'm trying to make here.

At any rate, I *do* completely agree that having miniskirt uniforms in a modern show would look ridiculous. It gave an empowering message in the 1960's, but that original context is gone now so it would just look funny. It isn't even an issue of "sexism". It would simply look hilariously campy and lame (which is perfectly fine for an occasional nostalgia episode, but probably not a good idea for an entire series).

Fortunately, if Discovery wants to strictly adhere to canon, they wouldn't use the miniskirts anyway. Since it is set in the 2250's, it should use the unisex uniforms seen in "the Cage" and "the Menagerie".

Apperantly the miniskirt fad was just as shortlived in the 2260's as it was in the 1960's (I guess "the sixties" are fashion-crazy no matter what century you're in. Remember that TNG Season 1 actually had MEN wearing miniskirts in the 2360's).
Josh
Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 10:56pm (UTC -6)
I don't know how common it was for miniskirt-wearing women to have a feminist motivation, but I really doubt TOS was being boldly feminist or empowering by outfitting Lt. Uhura, Yn. Rand, and Yn. Tamura in miniskirts. Miniskirts were a common sci-fi trope before the 1960s (the wiki entry on the miniskirt mentions their prominent use on a schlocky 1950s sci-fi show). Plus, rumor has it that Teri Garr hates Star Trek because Roddenberry made her wear one in Assignment: Earth. So much for escaping the rules men make about what women must wear.

Maybe you don't perceive ANY SEXUAL OVERTONES WHAT-SO-EVER but I imagine the producers were banking on those outfits being sexually appealing to their male audience members.
Nic
Thu, Sep 22, 2016, 12:47pm (UTC -6)
Premiere date's been pushed back to May 2017. Bummer. Though I must say I've been expecting as much for a few months now.
Bufo
Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 12:49am (UTC -6)
I too expect the prequel concept to doom this show (and can't for the life of me imagine what these supposedly accomplished show runners are thinking when they choose to box themselves in like this). The tension created by prequelization is inescapable - just like Enterprise, it's conceit will be to portray events way back when, but with decades of additional technology available to the show makers in 2016, the sets and computer tech of the show are going to look much more advanced than TOS or even TNG. Equally damning, a prequel must stick to events, places, and species we already know about, but of course that was the first thing Enterprise abandoned, very much to its detriment. The show runners literally can't be ambitious unless they toss the prequel concept into the trash can, and then you just end up with an utter mess.

Regarding the sexism of TOS, as some folk above pointed out, the idea that anyone could say the last Berman series were less sexist than TOS boggles the mind. One word: 7 of 9, in literally every scene she appeared on screen. Way, way, WAY past anything TOS ever dreamed of, and frankly absolutely mind blowing for a 90s show. This Fuller character was responsible, so don't hold your breath for great things from this new show.

Short season - yes, that I can get behind!
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 6:22am (UTC -6)
@ Bufo "I too expect the prequel concept to doom this show (and can't for the life of me imagine what these supposedly accomplished show runners are thinking when they choose to box themselves in like this)".

It is pretty clear what they are thinking: They want to do a reboot of the TOS era (and yes, this is exactly as terrible an idea as it sounds).

They've already admitted that things will be "the same, yet different" and JJ-Trek already set the precedent of trampling all over the "old" continuity. I do expect Discovery to have far better STORIES than JJ-Trek, but I don't expect it to have any more respect for Trek history.

As for Enterprise: Taken on its own, it wasn't that great an offender of continuity as many fans claim. Apart of a few glaring mistakes (the Ferengi episode for one) it fits nicely with the rest of the canon (although it *does* wreck havoc in many fanon theories which were popular just before it aired).

What really bugs me aboout "Enterprise" in retrospect, is that it started a worrying trend of rebooting Trek history. Enterprise wasn't that bad all by itself, but it served as the first "foot at the door" so-to-speak, which gave rise to far worse offenders.

It is this trend that gave us JJ-Trek. And from what I've heard about Discovery, it seems obvious that it is going to follow the exact same trend.

By the way, I think that most of the aesthetics and props of TOS have aged quite well. The minimalist design of the original NCC-1701 bridge (for example) still looks cool and futuristic and functional. With a few minor tweaks (mostly to the materials of which the panels are made) it wouldn't feel out-of-place in a modern sci fi TV show.

So if TPTB really wanted to do a prequel set in the TOS era without changing anything, they could have pulled it off. Not that doing such a prequel is necessarily a good idea... But if they *do* choose to go with this idea, at least do it right.
Paul M.
Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 7:42am (UTC -6)
Eh, I think some of you guys give the prequel concept way too much weight. Discovery will live or die on the strength of its writing and overall quality, just like Enterprise lived and ultimately died because of its quality (or lack thereof).

Would I love to see the new show set in the future? Sure. Am I a bit confused by all this prequelitis Trek seems to be suffering from for the last 15 years? Yeah. But at the end of the day, writing, characters, and artistic vision are all that really matters. I have no reason to doubt Fuller and Meyer on that front. I expect to see a pretty big departure from NextGen-era Trek (TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT). Fans too stuck in their mindsets on what "Trek is supposed to be" should be wary not to have their hopes dashed. That's my interpretation anyway. Can't wait to watch!
Robert
Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 8:22am (UTC -6)
"Eh, I think some of you guys give the prequel concept way too much weight. Discovery will live or die on the strength of its writing and overall quality, just like Enterprise lived and ultimately died because of its quality (or lack thereof"

Yes and no. The problem with prequels is that all the writers have to want to do it. This leads to people having to tell smaller stories. The Federation can't be in any amount of nail biting danger because we already know that it's all fine.

Enterprise writers couldn't handle that. So they made time travel and a temporal cold war a core of the series. Because then Earth COULD be destroyed and so you should be a little nervous about it!!!

You're right of course. If they go for smaller, more powerful, well written character stories it can turn out well regardless of the premise. But when writers don't like their premise they tend to fight the premise and then it comes out stupid.
Paul M.
Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 11:57am (UTC -6)
Robert,

You are right that ENT writers shot themselves in the foot by not sticking to their premise, introducing time travel garbage and being generally lousy in a variety of ways. Hopefully Discovery doesn't have the same problem. For one, I don't believe the prequel concept was forced on them. If I am not mistaken, it is something Fuller and his crew are fully on board with. Secondly, good stories can be told within the constraints of an established canon.

Take FX's The Americans, for instance. A fantastic show I wholeheartedly recommend. It follows the secret lives of embedded KGB agents in 80's America. We obviously know that USSR lost the Cold War; we know that a nuke won't unexpectedly destroy downtown New York in Season XYZ finale. Although big earth-shaking revelations and huge political plot twists are never gonna happen, there is more than enough narrative space left in exploring crazy faux-lives of the KGB agents as well as taking a look at the 80's America from a somewhat different perspective.

I see no reason why STD (what an acronym!) shouldn't be able to do the same.
Dougie
Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 5:03pm (UTC -6)
Reboots and prequels suggest one thing: Lack of ideas, except to make money off past successful marketing and branding.

Everything has cheapened itself in the internet era. Trek is following the same pattern as... everything.
Niall
Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 7:09pm (UTC -6)
Re: sexism and Bufo's comment, it was Enterprise that was the step back, Voyager not so much. There's no way Voyager was more sexist than TOS - despite the outfit, Seven was a vastly more complex and developed character than the female TOS characters (Uhura/Rand/Chapel). B'Elanna too - her potential was a little underutilized (though nowhere near as much as Chakotay/Kim etc) but she was a great and interesting character. Voyager is the Trek show with the female captain and good female characters (Janeway arguably the least good, mostly due to the inconsistency with which she was written, especially in latter seasons), and it's the Trek show that passes the Bechdel test more than any other. I'm primarily a DS9 but I think Voyager gets too much criticism and, Seven's outfit aside, sexism isn't really a warranted criticism of the show. Fuller was also not "reponsible" (as bufo writes) for the creation of Seven's character or for her outfit, which should be obvious.

ENT by contrast treated its two female characters (especially T'Pol) more exploitatively than Voyager ever did at a conceptual, script and directorial level. The decon chamber, the "Vulcan neuropressure", scenes like Hoshi's top coming off in Shockwave II and the way Hoshi is attired and shot in parts of Exile - we never saw anything like that kind of tawdry, juvenile faux-sexuality in Voyager. Just on a directorial level, though the revealingness of their outfits may not differ significantly, I always though T'Pol was often shot more exploitatively in terms of camera angle and framing than Seven ever way. Plus obviously the fact they cast a glamor model with near-zero acting experience as the series's female lead (her performance was suitably atrocious, esp. in S1-2 - she improved from S3 on), whereas Jeri Ryan and Roxann Dawson in Voyager were clearly vastly better actresses. Add the fact that Enterprise's male human cast was basically rednecks in space (Enterprise is very much the Dubya-era Trek) and the overall feel of the show was pretty backwards. I grew up on TNG, DS9 and VOY and never felt any of them were remotely sexist, but ENT? Absolutely.
Bufo
Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 10:23pm (UTC -6)
Robert, you nailed it. While I agree with Paul M that there is of course nothing inherent in the prequel concept that excludes the possibilty of top-notch writing, the reality is Hollywood is swamped with second-rate and lessor writing and show-running, and such writing will run head on into the inherent contradictions of the prequel concept that Robert and I pointed out. So we can hope (and I am) that somehow this is a light-touch, well-done prequel show that captures some fascinating aspects of pre-TOS trek, but don't hold your breath :)

Niall: I actually agree, ENT was worse in that deep sense. However, looking at Voyager today (I never really watched it on first run), the sexism punches you in the face. 7's costume is problematic on several levels. For some odd reason, it appears to add falsies to enlarge her breasts to essentially pr0n-star dimensions, and having done that, the directors repeatedly shoot her from close in and below looking up to accentuate her cleavage. I'm afraid its impossible to avoid the conclusion that adolscent boys were directing that aspect of the show for basically every year that she appeared.

Having said that, it is true that her character and plot lines were not bad at all, in fact IMO they were the best thing about the show. But I'm sorry, the presentation was not an accident and it really hits you in the face if you weren't numbed to its effects by growing up with the show, causing a constant and disturbing tension between the sexist presentation vs the substance of what she's saying and doing. I found that tension most unsatisfying in the end, part of what makes VOY the worst of the lot for me by a mile.

But you make an even more disturbing point. Sexism was actually worse in the Berman shows than in TOS (starting with Troi's character and outfits, which did not fit into the 80s, whereas the outfits in TOS were normal to that era), and leading from Troi to 7's outfit to the even worse problems you noted in ENT, we see a trend of steadily worsening sexism across the Berman universe. Makes me fear for what might come in STD, like there's just a culture of adolescence that attaches itself to ST properties in Hollywood in the modern era.
karatasiospa
Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 3:52am (UTC -6)
To all those that are against prequels: have you thought that they are, perhaps, legal problems in doing a show after Nemesis? the events of the reboot start at the prime timeline after Nemesis: the destruction of Romulus and spock's attempt to save it etc. So perhaps Paramount would object to a series being set in that period.
Paul M.
Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 5:11am (UTC -6)
CBS owns the series, Paramount the movie franchise. I guess one of the reasons that the Discovery is set before Kirk might be that CBS doesn't want to risk fragmenting the audience between these two alternate universes. By placing the show before the movie reboot, they avoid all the talk about competing canons.
RandomThoughts
Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 6:21am (UTC -6)
Hello Everyone

In the early 90's, I went to see Marina Sirtis (in South Bend, IN, at the Century Center). This is paraphrasing, because, well, it's been a while. But one of her stories was about when a female guest star would come on the show, the first question was when she would get the 'Star Trek' bra. "I want one of Those! *points*". It seems that while it wasn't particularly comfortable, it made the ladies seem much bustier than they were. Marina also commented about taking it off: "So then I take off the bra", looks down at chest, "Where did my boobs go?".

I thought of this when reading about possible 'falsies' for Seven of Nine. I believe she was somewhat 'augmented' already, so to speak, when she started the show, and then the Star Trek bra took care of the rest. While I liked Nine, I and my friends never thought a former Borg would wear a catsuit and heels. It would be functional, with some sort of combat boot for away missions.

I figure Trek has always put a few things in there for the adolescent boys (and the older ones too) since TNG came out with Marina's V-cut top in the first season. While I never wanted the ladies to wear a potato sack, there were times I've just said "Really?" to myself when seeing an outfit. I don't expect them to stop now...

Have a great day... RT
Peter G.
Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 9:08am (UTC -6)
Guys, just Google it. Jeri Ryan didn't wear a 'Trek bra.' They created a special garment for her that fitted on like a vest that included bust augmentation but was very weirdly shaped as well. She wore the 'prosthetic' at all times under her regular costume.
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 5:40pm (UTC -6)
@Paul

"Eh, I think some of you guys give the prequel concept way too much weight. Discovery will live or die on the strength of its writing and overall quality, just like Enterprise lived and ultimately died because of its quality (or lack thereof). "

I'm perfectly fine with a prequel (and I actually liked Enterprise quite a bit).

I'm also fine with an official reboot of the Trek-verse, as long as they make it perfectly clear that it is - indeed - a complete reboot.

What I'm NOT fine with, is doing a sneaky reboot of the TOS era while pertending that it isn't a reboot. And unfortunately, this looks like the way Discovery is going to be.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong, though.

As for doing an actual prequel set 10 years before TOS... It could be a very cool idea, if done by someone who is really serious about doing it correctly. I'd just LOVE to see that era authentically recreated with modern production values. And there are plenty of stories to pick from (*cough* Axanar *cough*).

But by the looks of things, this isn't what we're going to get :-(

@ karatasiospa
"To all those that are against prequels: have you thought that they are, perhaps, legal problems in doing a show after Nemesis? the events of the reboot start at the prime timeline after Nemesis: the destruction of Romulus and spock's attempt to save it etc. So perhaps Paramount would object to a series being set in that period."

The solution to this problem is simple: Set the new series far enough in the future that the events of Nemesis and the beginning of ST2009 won't matter much.

They could have set it in the 26th century, for example. And it would also be a good idea to shake the political map of the galaxy a bit. We don't need another TNG/DS9 clone with Klingons and Romulans and Cardassians.

Or even simpler: Do a complete reboot and start afresh with a blank slate.


Liya
Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 6:04pm (UTC -6)
"I guess one of the reasons that the Discovery is set before Kirk might be that CBS doesn't want to risk fragmenting the audience between these two alternate universes. "

@Paul M.

If that were really the case, then why even bother setting Discovery in the prime universe rather than the reboot universe? The audience is going to be fragmented by default.
________________________________________________________

"To all those that are against prequels: have you thought that they are, perhaps, legal problems in doing a show after Nemesis? the events of the reboot start at the prime timeline after Nemesis: the destruction of Romulus and spock's attempt to save it etc. So perhaps Paramount would object to a series being set in that period."

@karatasiospa

Yes, I have considered that, but then I realized that even though CBS isn't apart of Viacom, it's still controlled by the same company that owns Viacom. So, while I'm not ruling out possible legal issues, this isn't like Marvel asking to borrow Spiderman from Sony or Black Panther not being able to get with Storm because she's in the X-Men and under contract with FOX. Speaking of Marvel . . . I've seen maybe 3 Marvel superhero films and a handful of episodes of "Agents of Shield," and the Marvel film universe timelines are alluded to and weaved into "Agents." So, unless Paramount has plans to produce new Trek films set after Nemesis (which is highly unlikely since we keep getting these redundant TOS era reboots), then I don't see what the harm would be in a Post-Nemesis Trek TV series picking up when Spock left the prime universe.
Paul M.
Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 7:06pm (UTC -6)
Liya,
"If that were really the case, then why even bother setting Discovery in the prime universe rather than the reboot universe? The audience is going to be fragmented by default."

Because CBS doesn't have rights to the rebooted universe. They can't set their show there as that's Paramount's playground. If they are worried about confusing audiences with alternate universes (which honestly they shouldn't be, because... who cares except a few hardcore fans), one option is to pick a time before the split occurred -- and that's shortly before Kirk's time.
Niall
Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 7:28pm (UTC -6)
Hey Bufo... I broadly agree, and you're right to point out a Troi->Seven->T'Pol trend of worsening sexism in relation to each series's "woman in bodysuit" eye candy character in the flagship shows of the Berman era. I think with Seven (and Troi), as a gay guy I honestly never really noticed or thought about her breasts or costume and so was able to focus on the character and performance and just took her at face value, yet somehow T'Pol's presentation as sex object bothers me much more, probably partly because the character and performance is so much worse. Also with Seven, I think when she switched to the brown and blue suits it was an improvement, the initial silver suit was a little OTT. I believe Ron Moore also pointed out the issue with Seven's outfit during his brief tenure at Voyager, along the lines of "How is the audience supposed to take the character seriously when she's basically naked?" To DS9's credit, their "beautiful woman" cast member (Jadzia) wore a standard Starfleet uniform for the duration.

Regarding STD, this is 2016 and it will be the first Trek series in the social media era (and the era of Netflix and OITNB etc) - I think there'd be an online storm if they were to have a female main character dressed up as eye candy, one recalls the reactions to the ridiculous underwear scene with Alice Eve in STID. Plus Bryan Fuller is an intelligent writer, and a gay man - not that gay guys can't be sexist too, but I trust him enough not to due the blatant pandering that Berman/Braga did when it came to the "sexy chick" character. It's not Fuller's sensibility and he's a more skillful writer than that. I actually only watched Enterprise over the past couple of years - when it was first shown I found its whole tone offputting and unwelcoming because of the sexism in the pilot, which I think was partly an attempted not to TOS but ended up coming off much cruder - not just T'Pol and the decon chamber, but the men leering at the "sexy alien dancers" at the outpost, and the ceiling conversation about "women" etc...
Niall
Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 7:29pm (UTC -6)
*an attempted nod to TOS
karatasiospa
Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 3:39am (UTC -6)
@Liya

Paramount allready agreed to the new series on the condision it will air at least 6 months after the release of STB. So it seems they have a say in the desicions for Discovery.
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:42pm (UTC -6)
@Paul

"Because CBS doesn't have rights to the rebooted universe. They can't set their show there as that's Paramount's playground. If they are worried about confusing audiences with alternate universes (which honestly they shouldn't be, because... who cares except a few hardcore fans), one option is to pick a time before the split occurred -- and that's shortly before Kirk's time"

The split occured in 2233, while Discovery is set in the 2250's.
Paul M.
Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 6:36am (UTC -6)
Technically, I guess. But wasn't Nero basically "dormant" and did nothing of consequence (in the theatrical cut at least) until the events of ST09? For all intents and purposes, ST:D doesn't need to bother with acknowledging this or that timeline.
Chrome
Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 9:49am (UTC -6)
Well, Star Trek 2009 and STID implied that Starfleet became much more militaristic (Pike refers to Starfleet as a Peace-Keeping Armada) because of Nero's initial attack on the Kelvin. So you'd think it would be obvious which universe Discovery is in, just by the attitude of the officers.

Or maybe they're clever enough to write around that, who knows.
Jack Bauer
Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 2:06pm (UTC -6)
"But wasn't Nero basically "dormant" and did nothing of consequence (in the theatrical cut at least) until the events of ST09?"

He and his crew were on Rua Penthe during this time which Uhura mentions in passing during ST09. Nero escaped and headed to the point where Spock would emerge from.
karatasiospa
Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 4:14pm (UTC -6)
Whatever happened in the new universe doesn't have anything to do with prime universe. after the split they are two different timelines essentially in two different universes. And Discovery, as was made clear by Fuller is in the prime timeline/universe so what happened in the abrams timeline/universe doesn't have any consequences to the prime one.
The River Temarc
Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 3:06am (UTC -6)
Sleeper prediction for the "major event": the Vulcanian expedition, referenced in TOS "Court Martial." Which would also explain the idea that Amanda Grayson may make an appearance.
M.P.
Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 5:55am (UTC -6)
Liya Liya Liya... oh boy/girl/unisex/ungendered/polygendered/apacheattackhelicopter. You said you were a "millennial gen fan" and boy can I tell. All of the possibilities with Star Trek returning to television after 10 years of absence... and all you can think of is a complaint about sexism and relating this new show to feminist issues.

As a fellow Millennial I'm embarrassed for our generation; that this is really the kind of impression we give off. Not everything is sexist; and arguing that you are "concerned" about this new show before we've even seen a scrap of hard info is absurd. No amount of wiggling can change the fact that you weren't really concerned; you were just bringing up the point to fabricate an outrage that once again somehow victimizes women. Somehow.

I apologize for my generation fellow readers.
Robert
Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 10:11am (UTC -6)
"They could have set it in the 26th century, for example. And it would also be a good idea to shake the political map of the galaxy a bit. We don't need another TNG/DS9 clone with Klingons and Romulans and Cardassians. "

Better yet, let's just have trans-galactic travel and have the Enterprise H be the first trans-galactic ship. Leave the Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta quadrants behind and boldly go. I'd love to see some of the old races too, but as crewmen.

I've always thought we should do a joint-venture with another power, in the same vein of the ISS being a joint American/Russian effort. It'd be great if say... an Iconian Gate to another galaxy was located in the Romulan neutral zone and instead of destroying it they built a joint Federation/Romulan vessel to go exploring. You could get that tension of 2 different crews working together that you had on DS9 and S1 VOY, while having an old enemy be friendly in the way that TNG did with the Klingons.

But I agree.... forward to the future!
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 9:05pm (UTC -6)
@Bufo

"Sexism was actually worse in the Berman shows than in TOS (starting with Troi's character and outfits, which did not fit into the 80s, whereas the outfits in TOS were normal to that era), and leading from Troi to 7's outfit to the even worse problems you noted in ENT, we see a trend of steadily worsening sexism across the Berman universe."

Really?

I mean, yes, 7-of-9's outfit is 100% sexist, but you can hardly judge an entire show on this one thing. How many female crew-members are there on the Enterprise-D/DS9/Voyager/The NX-01? Are they treated any differently than the males?

For the most part - no. Which is exactly why the "resident eye-candy girl" thing sticks out like a sore thumb. And as a pathetic attempt to "appeal to a certain demographic", it shows more contempt towards us (the viewers) than it could ever show towards women...

(it's also stupid beyond belief. A hormone-stricken adolescent male is not going to start watching Star Trek just because the producers added a babe in a catsuit. There are plenty of other shows that fill this need better...)

RandomThoughts
Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 10:44pm (UTC -6)
@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi

(it's also stupid beyond belief. A hormone-stricken adolescent male is not going to start watching Star Trek just because the producers added a babe in a catsuit. There are plenty of other shows that fill this need better...)

So, so true. For those of us watching it back then, it was sort of "Wow, look at what she's wearing!". But I never heard of ANYONE who started to watch it because they could see Jeri in a catsuit. Ever. If anything, folks who knew nothing about the show would see her and ask "What's up with her outfit?". Mostly, it was more of a negative effect, especially if the commenter was female, because it was so obvious...

Just adding to the thoughts... RT
karatasiospa
Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 7:08pm (UTC -6)
Fuller has stepped down from showrunner.

www.spoilertv.com/2016/10/star-trek-discovery-bryan-fuller-steps.html
Latex Zebra
Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 7:24pm (UTC -6)
Yeah. That doesn't bode well.
John W
Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 9:47pm (UTC -6)
So apparently Kurtzman will be co-Show Runner, and according to this Variety article:

variety.com/2016/tv/news/bryan-fuller-showrunner-star-trek-discovery-cbs-12 01901398/

Akiva Goldsman will be joining the writing staff.

Well, that was a solid three months of anticipation that just got watered down.
Paul M.
Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 4:28am (UTC -6)
Sigh.
Yanks
Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 11:29am (UTC -6)
Well.... Manny Coto is still out there.... just sayin....
Del_Duio
Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 12:27pm (UTC -6)
Holy crap, the hits just keep on coming. I swear they're trying to kill this series before it ever starts. All-Access? No word on casting (still)? Prequel? Fugly-ass ship? Edgy just because? A giant release delay? A Showrunner who's said how much he loves this project and wants to be in charge now steps down?

Maybe now somebody new will come in and move this shitshow to a time after DS9 / VOY and save it.

Happy 50th, Trek! We were still love you at least.
Peter G.
Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 12:40pm (UTC -6)
Maybe someone high up with power over the license is a total screw-up and is preventing anything good happening in the vain hopes of short-term windfalls.

The same thing happened/is happening with the Frank Herbert estate over the rights to his universe. His son, and Kevin J. Anderson, were basically running the show and devoting the estate's resources to supporting their fan-fiction prequels and sequels to Frank's books. In the meantime no meaningful moves were made or allowed to remake Frank's books (notably, Dune) in film or TV format. Now that the prequel storm is over there still seems to be a block on creative allowance using Frank's universe, as the board is...who knows, holding out for something or other. They seem intent on never allowing good things to happen, even when notable directors or writers come forward and want to make an attempt at Dune.

If the same thing is happening with the Trek license then the problems are not going to end for a long time.
Robert
Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 1:14pm (UTC -6)
2 months ago I wrote "Everything I hear about this lately with a few exceptions make me not want to see it. Most of it's not bad per-say... just a lot that makes me uneasy."

This has not changed. AT ALL.
William B
Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 1:33pm (UTC -6)
@Peter, you maybe sound dismissive of Herbert's son and Anderson's books (though fan fiction could be meant in a value-neutral sense -- there is good fan fiction and bad fan fiction), but I was curious whether there are any books in the series by those two you recommend, or if they're mostly a waste of time? I finished the Dune series by Herbert a year or two ago.
Peter G.
Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 2:09pm (UTC -6)
@ William B,

I probably sound dismissive because I am. The first trilogy they released (House Atreides) I would qualify as being 'decent fan fiction.' Not great, but an ok read. The rest is utter trash - avoid it. I say this not only because KJA is by and large a weak, derivative writer (even his Star Wars books are amongst the weakest and 'least balanced' of the lot), but because they claimed to be writing using "Frank's notes" but for those of us who read the Dune series carefully it's apparent that all the rest of the prequels/sequels outright contradict the content of Frank's books and miss the entire point at the same time in quite critical ways. They even qualified the content of their books at one point by declaring that all of the content of Frank's books were "in universe documents", meaning the opinion of some person in the books and not objective facts of events. I would call all of these books "bad fan fiction" and if you're looking for good sci-fi to perhaps look at some of Frank's other great books like "Destination: Void" or Under Pressure."
NCC-1701-Z
Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 2:11pm (UTC -6)
*Picard Facepalm*

I agree with some of the people above - nothing that makes me want to flat out not watch, but to quote a certain someone from a rival sci-fi franchise, I have a bad feeling about this.

We'll see, they may pleasantly surprise us yet, (filming starts next month) but if I'm waiting for my food in a restaurant and I hear a very loud argument going on in the kitchen, I tend not to take that as a very good sign.
NCC-1701-Z
Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 2:19pm (UTC -6)
Ah well, worst case, Star Trek will always live on in our hearts no matter how badly they screw up.

I'm saving up to upgrade my TNG set to Blu-Ray, just saying. :)
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 4:02pm (UTC -6)
@Peter
"Maybe someone high up with power over the license is a total screw-up and is preventing anything good happening in the vain hopes of short-term windfalls."

Perhaps.

Or maybe Fuller finally realized that doing "American Gods" is far more fulfilling and exciting than trying to revive a dying horse.

Another possibility (not mutually exclusive) is that Fuller had a grand and revolutionary vision for Discovery which he had trouble selling to the big people upstairs. Maybe they told him to change this and change that, until he was left with something that he no longer felt a drive to produce.

Oh well... As Enterprise-Z said, even in the worst of the worst case scenarios, we'll always have the good old classic Trek to fall back on. Not to mention the brand new Trek encyclopedia that just came out last week! Finally, something good on the 50th anniversary for fans to celebrate.


Del_Duio
Fri, Oct 28, 2016, 10:08am (UTC -6)
"Another possibility (not mutually exclusive) is that Fuller had a grand and revolutionary vision for Discovery which he had trouble selling to the big people upstairs. Maybe they told him to change this and change that, until he was left with something that he no longer felt a drive to produce."

Imagine if the powers that be told him to try and make it more 'Like the Star Trek we all know' and Fuller bailed. Which would be funny because that'd be EXACTLY what almost everyone wants from what I've read.

"Not to mention the brand new Trek encyclopedia that just came out last week! Finally, something good on the 50th anniversary for fans to celebrate."

Cool! I wasn't aware of this but I'll look into it. And don't forget there's that DS9 documentary forthcoming that I'm excited about (unfortunately no Avery Brooks but everybody else appears to be on board).
Yanks
Fri, Oct 28, 2016, 10:39am (UTC -6)
I read an article this morning stating there is a Klingon Captain in the show.
karatasiospa
Sat, Oct 29, 2016, 5:07am (UTC -6)
One more rather negative event: Akiva Goldsman will help (?) with the production and his record does not give me much hope.
Patrick D
Sat, Oct 29, 2016, 9:10am (UTC -6)
So...that sucks. Have they even casted this yet? Wasn't this supposed to come out January of 2017? This looks like one big bungle.

Say what one will about Rick Berman, but he got things done! He ran 4 Trek shows all together; 2 Star Trek series at the same time for 7 years *and* put out Trek feature films on top of it. And one of the shows was the most mold-breaking of all: Deep Space Nine! Imagine them trying to do something like DS9 today. Good luck with that. ("It's Star Trek set on a SPACE STATION? There's no Enterprise? Uh, well get back to you.") These guys can't even get 1 show to launch! And you can't even watch it on regular TV. In the end, it would probably just be Battlestar Galactica with Pointed Ears anyway. Screw this.
Patrick D
Sat, Oct 29, 2016, 6:34pm (UTC -6)
Also, it would be smarter for Paramount to work with Netflix and have the new series released through them--it worked for "Stranger Things"!
Nolan
Sat, Oct 29, 2016, 6:52pm (UTC -6)
@Patrick D

Sure, except Paramount has nothing to do with this series. They own the movie rights and thats it. CBS owns the rights to the series. Hence the maketting based decision to release it on their own streaming platform.
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Oct 30, 2016, 3:38am (UTC -6)
@Patrick

"So...that sucks. Have they even casted this yet? Wasn't this supposed to come out January of 2017?"

They've already postponed it to May 2017, a while ago.

It looks like they don't really know what they're doing. I assume Fuller - at least - had some sort of roadmap for the show, but now he's gone too :-(


@ Nolan
"Sure, except Paramount has nothing to do with this series. They own the movie rights and thats it. CBS owns the rights to the series. Hence the maketting based decision to release it on their own streaming platform. "

It's still a pretty stupid decision, though. They're trying to make "Discovery" the flagship show of their streaming service, which doesn't make any kind of business sense.

Trek is a niche product. There aren't many Trekkies who would subscribe to a streaming service just to watch a single show, nor are there many non-Trekkies who would be interested in Discovery. So what kind of "flagship show" is that?

Besides, all the previous Star Trek spinoffs took a 2-3 seasons to find their footing. We all remember Season 1 of TNG and DS9, and we all hoped that it would get much better (which thankfully - it did). Had these shows been restricted to pay channels, they wouldn't even have a chance to get off the ground.

All this was known to CBS at the time they made that decision. But now, given the lukewarm reception of the new series concept (not to mention the cloud of uncertainty sorrounding its production) the whole thing makes even less sense.

The general reaction is "meh! I have a bad feeling about this, but since it is Star Trek I'm willing to give it chance". Don't they realize that putting the show on a pay-TV service pretty much gurantees that the show won't get that chance?
karatasiospa
Sun, Oct 30, 2016, 4:52am (UTC -6)
just a correction: Fuller is not completely gone. He is still executive producer and the creator of the basic story. I'm not saying that things are the same with him not being showrunner, just that he hasn't completely gone.
Paul M.
Sun, Oct 30, 2016, 5:38am (UTC -6)
karatasiospa,

I am afraid Fuller pretty much *is* gone. The exec producer credits are a standard way of acknowledging significant contributions to the making of the show. There are multiple examples of TV shows with a bunch of guys who have this title that are barely if at all involved with the show after a certain point. I don't doubt that Fuller will be available to chime in with advice from time to time, but as I understand it he's no longer seriously involved with Discovery. Disconcerting news.
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Oct 30, 2016, 6:11am (UTC -6)
Wasn't "executive producer" the title of Gene Roddenberry in those days when he had pretty much no influence over the show?
Niall
Sun, Oct 30, 2016, 7:44am (UTC -6)
Off-topic: Jammer, have you thought about reviewing Black Mirror?
Jammer
Sun, Oct 30, 2016, 10:54am (UTC -6)
I have no reviewing projects on the books at this time. There is just no time. Discovery would get major consideration, if they ever get production moving. The Animated Series may get retro-review consideration at some point. Anything else non-Trek is basically off the table, save the stray movie review (e.g., Star Wars).
Nolan
Sun, Oct 30, 2016, 1:48pm (UTC -6)
Jammer, would that also include "The Cage"? It seems somewhat absent. Granted parts of the Menagerie could stand in for it. Might be interesting though.
NCC-1701-Z
Sun, Oct 30, 2016, 3:55pm (UTC -6)
Just thought of something regarding attempts to make Star Trek Discovery the flagship for All Access: Wasn't Voyager the flagship for the now defunct UPN network when UPN first started? Emphasis on "now defunct"?

I'm not saying the result will be the same (i.e. All Access will be a complete flop) but there are disturbing parallels. That said its really too soon to prejudge until we see the final product on the screen.
methane
Sun, Oct 30, 2016, 8:30pm (UTC -6)
Those of you who think this will be some kind of financial disaster are off base. CBS already announced to shareholders that money from international sales of the show have exceeded the costs to make the show (1). The show could go on for years without anyone from America watching. And that's before any money for product licensing is counted!

And, yes, there will be people who subscribe to the service to see the show immediately. I won't be one of them, but you're fooling yourself if you think there won't be any. It won't be as many as Netflix, but it doesn't need anywhere near that number to be successful. Netflix has huge programming costs; those costs continue to rise even as the library of programming it offers to subscribers is shrinking. With the international deal, CBS has no program cost for this series. Every subscriber added is additional profit for CBS.

For all of you unhappy that this show isn't bundled into some other service (like Netflix), you're going to have to get used to it. People have been complaining for years that having different networks bundled in their cable bills was unfair, saying 'a la carte' would be better. We're just seeing the start of what a true unbundled environment will look like. We will have more and more services, with fewer and fewer shows on any one service. Cable providers will probably survive as "bundles" of programming that will offer you a cheaper way to get a wide variety of programming.

It's also important to point out that this show will not be forever locked on the CBS streaming service. Obviously, you will be able to purchase episodes individually (on itunes or some other service) or as a package on Blu-Ray. However, reruns of the show will eventually be available elsewhere. Look at Showtime, which is owned by CBS. If you want to watch new episodes of Showtime programming, you have to pay for a subscription. However, once shows finish their original runs on Showtime, CBS licenses reruns to other providers, while still making them available to Showtime subscribers. You can find many Showtime shows on Netflix right now. Just a few years back, competitor HBO signed it's own deal with Amazon, allowing that service to stream much of its back catalog of shows.

If you want to legally watch the show on something other than the CBS service, you will be able to; you're just going to have to wait.

--

"I am afraid Fuller pretty much *is* gone. The exec producer credits are a standard way of acknowledging significant contributions to the making of the show. There are multiple examples of TV shows with a bunch of guys who have this title that are barely if at all involved with the show after a certain point. I don't doubt that Fuller will be available to chime in with advice from time to time, but as I understand it he's no longer seriously involved with Discovery. Disconcerting news."

It's been reported that he's written a few episodes and that they've already charted out the story for the season. It doesn't appear that he will be much involved now in the casting, physical production, or editing. But I think the writing is the most important part to get right. If the writing is good I'll forgive a lot of other problems.

I don't know if this show will be good, but this relentless negativity on the internet seems to have less to do with creative decisions than with the method of delivery.

--

"Just thought of something regarding attempts to make Star Trek Discovery the flagship for All Access: Wasn't Voyager the flagship for the now defunct UPN network when UPN first started? Emphasis on "now defunct"?"

Oh, it goes back further than that. Star Trek: Phase II originally went into production in the 1970's as a TV series to launch a new Paramount network. When they worried advertisers wouldn't give them a chance, they decided to abandon that and make a movie instead. Then Star Wars happened and that gave them an extra push to go the movie route.

Eventually, of course, Star Trek spin-offs became the cornerstone of a Paramount TV Network, as Voyager and then Enterprise ran for 11 consecutive seasons as the anchors of that network. The year after Enterprise was cancelled, Paramount decided to merge their network with the WB to form the CW Network, which still exists today (though most of the shows are Warner Brothers productions).


(1) trekcore.com/blog/2016/07/cbs-says-star-trek-discovery-is-already-profitabl e-ahead-of-production/
methane
Sun, Oct 30, 2016, 8:43pm (UTC -6)
Oh, there is one more source of profit for the show on the CBS streaming service: advertising.

CBS's streaming service has ads. So even if it doesn't add any new subscribers, getting current subscribers to watch an extra hour of programming each week will allow CBS to charge more to advertisers. New subscribers will increase both the ad revenues and the subscription revenues.

CBS has mentioned offering an ad-free version. You'd be able to pay more to get rid of the advertisements. Either way, it's profit for CBS.
Robert
Sun, Oct 30, 2016, 8:47pm (UTC -6)
"For all of you unhappy that this show isn't bundled into some other service (like Netflix), you're going to have to get used to it. People have been complaining for years that having different networks bundled in their cable bills was unfair, saying 'a la carte' would be better. We're just seeing the start of what a true unbundled environment will look like. We will have more and more services, with fewer and fewer shows on any one service."

But this isn't a la carte, it's bullshit. I already pay for cable, which means I already pay for CBS.

And I watch one CBS show. And now I want to watch another one and they want me to pay them again. And then again for no ads. But they'll pay more, they're Trek fans with no mortgage living in their parents' basements. Look at how many paid for $100 DVD seasons when the going rate was $40.

No thanks CBS, I'll pass this time just on principle.
Nolan
Sun, Oct 30, 2016, 8:58pm (UTC -6)
@methane and all

Plus I think in Canada at least, it'll air on "Space" our version of "SyFy", so that's just an example of it's international sales.

So, just like back in '66 when TOS premired a day earlier, Canada's getting Trek before the States. =P

And just be clear, I stated how CBS probably decided on this marketing decision, I did not state it was a good one.

(Hey my 100th post apparently)
Chrome
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 12:37pm (UTC -6)
Not to disrespect Fuller, because he seems to have a big following here, but is it really so bad someone else is writing the shows now?

I mean, just looking at Fuller's writing credits for Voyager: "Spirit Folk", "Fury", "Bride of Chaotica!", "The Haunting of Deck Twelve" and other poorly-received shows make me think his absence could actually help Discovery.

Besides, it doesn't hurt to get some fresh blood in a new series. If we're ever going to get another TNG-level new series, we need people who can experiment and not cling to whatever lousy canon was created in the last two series.
Peter G.
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 1:16pm (UTC -6)
If they know what's good for them they'll go back to some Golden Age Trek writers to get them started. D.C. Fontana is still around, as are Michael Piller, Ron Moore, Robert Hewitt Wolfe, Rene Echevarria, Joe Menosky, and others. There is no excuse at all for using substandard scripts this time around, as they had for Enterprise.
Jammer
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 1:48pm (UTC -6)
Michael Piller has been dead since 2005. Joe Menosky is already on the Discovery writing staff. As for the others, being around doesn't necessarily make them available, interested, or affordable. There are a lot of factors that go into the building of any staff.
Peter G.
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 2:40pm (UTC -6)
"Michael Piller has been dead since 2005"

Whoa. How did I miss that. That's terrible 'news.'

I know a show can't necessarily just get any staff it wants, but in general there is a major problem right now in finding quality writing for film/TV, and especially so for film. Somehow good writers are not the ones whose scripts are being used. I just hope Discovery finds the good ones, even if they are new talent. I do believe there are quality writers around, even if "established" mediocre people would be easier to find and justify to some board. We're not talking about Lost in Space, here. Star Trek is supposed to be thought provoking, and that can't happen if the writers aren't as smart as the audience.
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 4:58pm (UTC -6)
@methane
"Those of you who think this will be some kind of financial disaster are off base. CBS already announced to shareholders that money from international sales of the show have exceeded the costs to make the show."

The fact that they are making money in other ways, does not change the fact that putting the show on their streaming service is a stupid decision.


"For all of you unhappy that this show isn't bundled into some other service (like Netflix), you're going to have to get used to it. People have been complaining for years that having different networks bundled in their cable bills was unfair, saying 'a la carte' would be better. We're just seeing the start of what a true unbundled environment will look like. We will have more and more services, with fewer and fewer shows on any one service."

It certainly looks like it. But all it proves is that the entire industry has gone mad.

What you're forgetting in your analysis, is the reaction of the public. They will - as you said yourself - "get used to it". They will get used to the fact that the TV shows are getting worse, more expensive, and more of a headache to find.

And they will also get used to the fact that indie companies are providing more quality content than the networks. There are already channels on youtube which are far better than anything shown on mainstream TV.

The end result? TV as we know it will simply die, due to lack of interest. It will go down the way of the printed newspaper. It will probably take decades for this to pan out, but it *will* happen.

Funny thing is that Star Trek actually predicted this. Remember Data saying that TV ceased to be a form of Entertainment by 2040? This prediction certainly seems realistic now.

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 5:04pm (UTC -6)
@ Chrome

"Not to disrespect Fuller, because he seems to have a big following here, but is it really so bad someone else is writing the shows now?"

All in all, no.

But when "Fuller & Kurtzman" becomes "Kurtzman", we have reason to be worried...
karatasiospa
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 6:30pm (UTC -6)
I think that Ronald Moore is not interested in coming back to star trek. He followed his own path with BSG and now Outlander and he is succesfull and critically acclaimed. As for the others R.H.Wolfe after the disaster named Andromeda worked in many shows but he is not a "big" name anymore. The others i think are rather old and a little "out of the game".
methane
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 9:33pm (UTC -6)
Speaking of Old Trek writers on this series, Nicholas Meyer is a consulting producer and is supposed to have written the second hour. Some people might not be a fan of him, as his view of the future has been significantly less utopian than Roddenberry. Nevertheless, he had a big part in 3 of the best-remembered movies.

---

Chrome:

"just looking at Fuller's writing credits for Voyager: "Spirit Folk", "Fury", "Bride of Chaotica!", "The Haunting of Deck Twelve" and other poorly-received shows make me think his absence could actually help Discovery."

It's hard to hold his Star Trek credits against him as:

1) it was, I believe, his first job. If you're trying, you'll get better with practice.

2) We don't know for sure how much his bosses at Voyager were dictating things. We do know that Ron Moore said: "The politics of the show were such that the egos of the people in charge of the series were threatened by the people who worked for them. To be blunt, Bryan Fuller and Mike Taylor were treated very shabbily, and it pissed me off. They took a lot of crap, and the only reason it was done was to keep the guys on the top of the pyramid feeling good about themselves. It also had the effect of keeping the writing staff from working in concert as a group." (1)

3) Fuller's done a lot since that's very good. I enjoyed Wonderfalls & Pushing Daisies a lot, and I believe he was responsible for some of the best early Heroes before that show went downhill. Hannibal had a lot of fans, although I never tried it (not really my genre). All of these shows also had critical acclaim while he was involved with them.

The counterargument to that would be that he hasn't created anything that was a big hit.


(1) If you're a Star Trek fan and you've never read Ron Moore's big post-Star Trek interview (done long before BSG came along), you should check it out: www.lcarscom.net/rdm1000118.htm

---

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi:


"TV as we know it will simply die, due to lack of interest"

It's strange that you're attacking the CBS service and then saying this. I think most people have concluded that the old TV model is fading away. You can say that it will "die", but you could also say that it's simply evolving. CBS streaming is anticipating that change.

"There are already channels on youtube which are far better than anything shown on mainstream TV."

Youtube recently added a paid subscription service; it's moving towards the CBS streaming model, not away from it.
Latex Zebra
Wed, Nov 2, 2016, 10:33am (UTC -6)
I don't get it though. A Klingon Captain when it has been well established Worf was the first Klingon to serve in Starfleet...

That said, when I first saw the teaser their were Klingon musical motifs and also the ship has a Bird of Prey vibe about it... This would make sense if it was in the TNG era but this is what... 10 years before Kirk.

I'm confused. Would love to see a Klingon Captain on Federation ship.

Captain: "Helm, ramming speed!"
Helm: "For space dock?"
Peter G.
Wed, Nov 2, 2016, 11:02am (UTC -6)
Don't know if anyhow has seen Star Trek: Renegades, a fan film created by Tim Russ and some of the Voyager people, featuring Walter Koenig. The film is, to be honest, godawful, but it's a super-cool idea and it's great that these people were so keen to explore their characters further that they signed on to what was most likely a very low paying job. Anyhow, this film features a mercenary crew that is doing missions of its own on the sly, and which is subcontracted by Starfleet do so some work for them.

If Discovery were to feature a weird ship or a Klingon captain, and yet retain continuity, it would be plausible to place them on a mercenary ship that operated outside the normal political spheres. While the Klingons Empire was nominally at war with the Federation, some Klingons no doubt didn't care about that and made their own way.
Robert
Wed, Nov 2, 2016, 11:10am (UTC -6)
Maybe it's not a Federation ship per say. Maybe it's a joint operations vessel. That'd also explain why the main POV character is not the captain. The Lt. Commander could be the first officer. This could be like DS9 (a Federation/Klingon crew working together a lot like our International Space Station efforts with Russia or the joint Bajoran/Federation effort on DS9) except with Kira as the main character instead of Sisko.
Jack Bauer
Wed, Nov 2, 2016, 1:22pm (UTC -6)
That Tim Russ thing was atrocious as is most fan-fiction.
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, Nov 2, 2016, 6:21pm (UTC -6)
@ methane

"t's strange that you're attacking the CBS service and then saying this. I think most people have concluded that the old TV model is fading away. You can say that it will "die", but you could also say that it's simply evolving. CBS streaming is anticipating that change"

Evolution and change can be a good thing.

However, when the "evolution" is towards models that give people less and less for more and more, then we have a problem. And if this "problem" becomes severe enough, the costumers will stop paying.


"Youtube recently added a paid subscription service"

So? There's nothing new in the situation of having pay-for TV alongside free TV, and there's nothing wrong with it either. It has been that way since the 1940's at the very least.
methane
Wed, Nov 2, 2016, 9:13pm (UTC -6)
" And if this "problem" becomes severe enough, the costumers will stop paying."

Yes! CBS can make a product and set a price for it. Each individual can decide to buy it or not to buy it. I didn't think this needed to be said. After all, I've said multiple times I won't be a regular subscriber to the streaming-service. Other people will make the same choice!

But one person is not every person. Most people are still not all people.

Most people will not buy this service; that doesn't mean there won't be many that do. CBS can be successful with only a small percentage of US households adding the service. You seem to think that because you personally won't be subscribing, that means there will be zero subscribers and that will be a disaster for CBS. You should know that shows and whole networks can be successful even if you don't personally watch them! Even if you don't personally pay for them!

The next time you're in a decent-sized supermarket, pay attention, as if you're seeing things for the first time. I've lived in a third-world country, so I understand how truly magical a supermarket is! Look around at all the different products. Most of the products they sell you won't be buying that trip. Many of the products you won't buy on ANY trip. Maybe they're not to your taste; maybe they're too expensive to be worth the purchase. For each of these products, know that there are a lot of other people who will also never purchase them. Despite this, most of these products will continue to be sold. They don't need to be purchased by a large percentage of people to be worth selling.

If you're disappointed that you won't see the new series right away, feel free to say so. I'm disappointed! But my disappointment doesn't mean CBS is making a bad decision. It also doesn't mean the series won't be worth watching whenever I do see it. I'm sure everyone here has known good shows they only started watching years after they started airing, or even after they stopped producing new episodes. The Star Trek franchise has a history of this; the original series had far more viewers watch it in the first few years after it stopped producing new shows than during it's original run.

--

I just about never go to the cinema because I don't think it's worth the money. So when I do watch a movie, it's generally a year or more later than other people. That doesn't mean that the movies are bad when I see them (though certainly some are). My decision not to go the cinema hasn't meant the collapse of the movie industry; somehow movies still get made.

---

" 'Youtube recently added a paid subscription service'

So? There's nothing new in the situation of having pay-for TV alongside free TV, and there's nothing wrong with it either. It has been that way since the 1940's at the very least. "

Exactly! CBS is offering "pay-for TV" (its streaming service) "alongside free TV" (its over-the-air broadcasts + limited streaming of recently-broadcast shows). You offered Youtube as an example of something different from what CBS is doing. It's not.
Del_Duio
Fri, Nov 4, 2016, 11:12am (UTC -6)
"That Tim Russ thing was atrocious as is most fan-fiction."

I find it hard to fault anybody who's willing to put up his own money to fund something like this. At least his heart's in the right place. If he had the money VOY had I'm sure it'd be better.

Plus this guy's a cool shit!
Nickyc
Fri, Nov 4, 2016, 4:22pm (UTC -6)
200 + comments and no-one has mentioned the S-word. Science ! Since Enterprise finished real life science has given us a ton of new discoveries in Astronomy, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Neuroscience will any of these things be reflected in this new show ? Will we see Hot Jupiters, Pulsar Planets or indeed planets like this one :
www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/11/nasa-reveals-dazzling-blue-alien-plan et-with-rains-of-terror-and-wind-at-seven-times-the-speed-of-so.html

Will we see anything new at all or is the name "Discovery" meant to be ironic ?
Jack Bauer
Tue, Nov 8, 2016, 4:20pm (UTC -6)
www.imdb.com/title/tt5851562/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_4

So apparently the Tim Russ fan fic is coming back, just not under the name "Star Trek" for whatever reason.
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, Nov 9, 2016, 9:02pm (UTC -6)
The "whatever reason" is those stupid "fan fiction guidelines" that CBS published a few months ago, which rendered the original concept of "Star Trek: Renegades" illegal. The Renegades team had no choice but to delete all the Star Trek references from their product, or be sued.

So now we have series about the "Confederation" and "The Dirty Dozen" because Star Trek fans are no longer allowed to use words like "The Federation" or "The Maquis" in their fan films.

Thank you very much, CBS. If you think we're going to subscribe to your "all-access" thing after that dick move, think again.
karatasiospa
Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:14pm (UTC -6)
Almost two months after the announcement of the "delay" and still no news. They have now 6 months to make this, when they will do at least some casting?
Jack Bauer
Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 4:10pm (UTC -6)
"Thank you very much, CBS. If you think we're going to subscribe to your "all-access" thing after that dick move, think again."

Not that I am able to subscribe, but I will be pirating this show when/IF it ever graces the airwaves. After the Axanar fiasco (a video which is some of the best Trek work done in 20 years), I will not be lending my support to CBS.
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 8:46am (UTC -6)
Well, the guys of Axanar share the blame in what happened, in my opinion.

This Peters dude pretty much waved a huge red flag at CBS and taunted them "you think your tough? huh? huh? I'm going to rip off your IP and make tons of money out of it. Let's see if your tough enough to do something about it"

So CBS bit the bait, went breserk and declared war on the entire fan fiction community. And while they didn't really have to do that, it was Peters who insisted on poking a finger in the eye of that sleeping dragon.

There's plenty of blame to go around in that story.

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 9:10am (UTC -6)
Oh, and they (CBS) also sued the guy who made the Tricoder App, even though their contract with Roddenberry explicilty said that if a person ever creates a functional tricorder he'll have the right to call it by that name.

Apperantly these guys are not only ruthless and greedy, but also immensely dense. We have a functional futuristic device which millions of fans are happily willing to associate with CBS' show. What better promotion could there be for the Star Trek franchise?

But no. We're not allowed to call it a "Tricorder". We, the fans, have to go against are natural instincts and call it something else. It's absurd.

Well... I just can't wait until NASA invents the "FTL bubble drive" and scientists at MIT develop the first "matter teleport device". Of-course we all know what the real names of these things is, but don't tell anyone. It's illegal.

Sheesh...
Yanks
Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 8:44am (UTC -6)
@ OmicronThetaDeltaPhi


I completely agree with your take on Peters. I get pummeled most of the time because I blame him.

The new FAN-FIC guidelines are a joke. While I've only found one FAN-FIC that I think is good, it's a shame fan won't be able to express their fandom like that in the future.
Paul Davis
Fri, Nov 18, 2016, 3:49am (UTC -6)
I've been following this story since Discovery was announced and just since August the mood and tone of Trek fans has gradually but forcefully moved from cautious excitement to outright anger and rebellion. I'm one of them.

CBS All Access is 5.99 for basic service - with ads. If you don't want ads for some odd reason (?!) You can pay the Netflix price of 9.99.

Once upon a time not that long ago this was a viable new business model and it's played out to the point we see who's standing now and CBS is at the bottom of the heap of the seven that survived: Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, HBO Now, SHO, Starz and CBS.

I can get all of those but one on my Tivo - guess which one? Any idea how many people use Tivo? More than CBS All Access has as customers - by a very large number - and like Jammer I will NOT be watching this on my phone or tablet. So my choice is wait, pirate or pass.

Those just scratch the surface as to why CBS is setting themselves up for failure.

Now Bryan fuller has left as showrunner. Let that sink in. This is the person that has creative control of the series. CBS has tried to downplay this but it IS a big blow.

Now we have CBS Interactive CEO Jim Laznor angering fans by saying Star Trek and sci-fi don't really do well on TV.
Now some have tried to argue that he's technically correct in that Trek shows lost viewership as the years went on but the other side of that argument is that Star Trek created a bit of a glut for itself - not to mention we need to recognize that the writing on shows like VOY and ENT did go down in quality, as do many shows that find themselves boxed In by their own narrative.

The other argument in favor of Laznor's comment is that while there are actually quite a few sci-fi shows doing well on TV today - none of the ones on broadcast TV are space based. This argument makes no sense. It's incredibly difficult to get your hands on comprehensive production costs of a space based TV show but I see nothing that would indicate a space based sci-fi show would cost any more than any other sci-fi show.

This perception is based on a decades old mentality that CGI is very time and cost prohibitive and in the late 80's into the mid to late 90's that was true. It no longer is.

I wanted to point that out for a little history on where that bias comes from but the truth is it's a moot point.

When you look at Laznor's actual words he wasn't talking about today's shows. It's a very subtle thing he does trying to justify the move to streaming:

"Sci-fi is not something that has traditionally done really well on broadcast..."

He says "traditionally". You see that's just not true on its face. All "traditional" sci-fi has been on broadcast TV - even Stargate SG-1 which started on Showtime moved to the then Sci-Fi Channel. Sci-fi has traditionally done very well on broadcast TV Mr. Laznor.

Go to any site that's talking about ST: Discovery right now and read the comments section. It is overwhelmingly negative toward CBS while not criticizing the show itself. That should indicate who the majority of these commenters are: Trek fans.

CBS wants American viewers to pay 5.99 - or 9.99 if you don't want commercials - in order to watch a show that millions of viewers will only be able to access on mobile devices - and if you're like 75 million of us still keep your Netflix - while everyone else in the world will be able to watch it ON Netflix.

CBS hasn't aired a single second of this show and they've already pissed of the built in audience that's supposed to support it so why on earth would a non-fan feel motivated to pay for the service when Trek fans themselves are already talking about waiting for it to go to regular broadcast, pirate it or skip it altogether?

I don't know how far along the show is so I don't know what viable alternatives CBS has - if any. What I do know is that the poisoning of the Trek fanbase began when their legitimate right to the IP overstepped into the fanbase that truly love the franchise. There's guidelines for fanfiction now. Fanfic - the vast majority of which never sought monetary gain and hurt no one. If anything it was the lifeblood and spirit that keeps Trek's vision alive. Most franchises with similar fan structures understand there's a balancing act when it comes to protecting the company's legitimate property with givingbfans breathing room since they are your base.

Whether these perceptions are true or not this was seen by most if not all fans as vindictive and punitive.

So CBS started in the negative column. Now, go to any comicon and ask a Trek fan and you'll hear them talk about how CBS and Paramount have no respect for the fans or the franchise and that it would be in better hands with Disney. Yes, I heard that at a comicon and I have to say I found myself nodding before I even considered if it would be because I don't feel it's been treated with respect or an understanding of Treks vision and spirit.

Again, none of these perceptions may be true (though I personally believe many are) but they ARE out there in large numbers.

I almost think it would be better to shelf it and do some image rehabilitation but I suspect they won't.

For myself I'll wait and see how it's received and if it's positive I'll either hold off till it goes to reruns on the network - or Netflix since they have a relationship now. What I WON'T do is contribute to CBS All Access. I'm pretty sure I represent most Trek fans in that regard.
Brandon
Fri, Nov 18, 2016, 3:06pm (UTC -6)
www.parentherald.com/articles/86005/20161117/star-trek-discovery-air-date-n ews-expect-nudity-swearing-streaming.htm

And now, apparently, we can expect nudity and swearing in our Star Trek.

And you thought DS9/VOY/ENT were trying to be edgy.

Something tells me this is why Bryan Fuller left as showrunner.

Trying to get people to pay to watch a Trek series is hard enough. Thinning out the audience is the last thing they need to do. Is Les Moonves just TRYING to tank Trek? "There. We tried. It doesn't work. See?"

So disappointing.
Jammer
Fri, Nov 18, 2016, 3:30pm (UTC -6)
@Brandon, before you get all up in arms, you should consider the article and source. I am very suspect, because the article is full of hedged "coulds" and "maybes." And it mentions an "R rating" multiple times, which is just factually wrong. TV shows don't get R ratings; the R rating is a trademarked classification only given to feature films that are rated by the MPAA. TV shows get TV-MA ratings.

And this site is a child-rearing informational site, which makes me question its bias on this issue.
NCC-1701-Z
Fri, Nov 18, 2016, 7:09pm (UTC -6)
I'm still willing to give Discovery a chance, but I am quite troubled by the higher-ups seemingly completely screwing up stuff behind the scenes. I'm really hoping we get casting news or something before the end of the year. Anything to give the fans a bone to chew on, some positive news for a change.

I don't blame Trekkies for being frustrated and focusing incessantly on behind-the-scenes-missteps; they have after all been waiting patiently for more than ten years (Sherlock fans, we feel your pain). They're the sort of people who notice all the little details, so every little bit of bad news gets magnified dramatically. Sometimes out of proportion, but never entirely unwarranted (the overly restrictive fan film guidelines being one instance of fan outrage being completely justified, IMO).

That said, I'm still with Han Solo's ghost - I have a bad feeling about this...

But at least we'll get Guardians of the Galaxy 2 in May in addition to Discovery!
RandomThoughts
Fri, Nov 18, 2016, 11:33pm (UTC -6)
Hello Everyone

I will also give Discovery a chance when I finally see it, and heck, I'll probably find a way to like it. But one thing, mentioned above somewhere, still bothers me...

It looks like, if you have Netflix anywhere in the world, except for the United States, you can see these episodes first-run. But ONLY in the USofA, fans would need to buy a separate service to see them in a timely manner. This just seems so... shortsighted. I already have Netflix and Hulu, with no cable/dish, and I know I am not buying anything else. Ever.

I believe they have a bad plan that will bite them in the backside, but they will be too stubborn to do anything about it until it's too late...

Network executives... Pfffttt!!!

Your mileage may vary... RT
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Nov 19, 2016, 3:37pm (UTC -6)
@Brandon:

"www.parentherald.com/articles/86005/20161117/star-trek-discovery-air-date- n ews-expect-nudity-swearing-streaming.htm

And now, apparently, we can expect nudity and swearing in our Star Trek.

And you thought DS9/VOY/ENT were trying to be edgy.

Something tells me this is why Bryan Fuller left as showrunner."

To be fair, Fuller himself said - quite a while ago - that swearing will be a thing on "Discovery". He also said that they'll use swear words sparsely (which can actually be a good thing) and not just for vulgarity's sake.

He also said that Discovery will be "darker" (which is weird, given the optimistic name of the series).

OSo it could be that the site you've given was assuming things based on these facts (which are nothing new).

" Is Les Moonves just TRYING to tank Trek? "

That thought *had* crossed my mind... but what reason could CBS possibly have for doing this?

I think it is far more likely that the guys high up are your typical short-sighted managers who don't understand what makes Star Trek special, nor do they "get" the mentality of the fans of the franchise.

And this problem isn't exactly new, either, as the 7-of-9 catsuit tells us...
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Nov 19, 2016, 4:03pm (UTC -6)
"I don't know how far along the show is so I don't know what viable alternatives CBS has - if any. What I do know is that the poisoning of the Trek fanbase began when their legitimate right to the IP overstepped into the fanbase that truly love the franchise. There's guidelines for fanfiction now. Fanfic - the vast majority of which never sought monetary gain and hurt no one. If anything it was the lifeblood and spirit that keeps Trek's vision alive. "

Yeah, but even that isn't the part which antagonizes me the most.

The worst thing is how CBS lied through their teeth and claimed they support fan films while simultanously bringing down the axe. The beginning of their "fan film guidelines" document was full with lofty words to this effect. It was so hypocritical and so transparent that it's sickening.

Do they think we are stupid or what?
Brandon
Sat, Nov 19, 2016, 4:41pm (UTC -6)
@Jammer

You have a point, so I linked to the article which Parentherald cites.

www.recode.net/2016/11/10/13557358/star-trek-reboot-naked-aliens-swearing-c bs-digital-chief-jim-lanzone-podcast

It makes it sound more like they're OPEN to the possibility, sure. But the fact that Trek has always been a family-friendly establishment, and that these producers don't seem to recognize that, it disconcerting.

Also, producers, quit saying "sci-fi doesn't do well on television". THIS. IS. STAR TREK. *kicks producer into a pit* It has an established base, instant name recognition, about as good a launching platform as you could ask to launch from. All you really need from there is good cast and stories. We're not talking about relaunching some niche dreck like Red Dwarf here.
Nolan
Sat, Nov 19, 2016, 5:30pm (UTC -6)
@Brandon

Funny you should mention Red Dwarf which just recently finished it's eleventh series and has the twelveth already finished and ready to air. Which also has some hidden depths.

Though compairing British media to American is jusr folly. American TV is too afraid to take risks. Have you SEEN the american pilots for Red Dwarf? Can you imagine an american produced Doctor Who.

That said CBS doesn't know what they're talking about. While sure, superhero's are sometimes a sub-genre, look at all the superhero shows on the air right now, most of which have sci-fi elements. Not to mention the number of new space based shows produced in the last few years. Defiance, Dark Matter, Killjoys, the Expanse.

But why're we surprised, this is CBS, the network that was gonna cancel TOS, had their minds changed, then meddled the show into the dirt. If TNG, DS9 and VOY hadn't had syndication and partnerships, would any have them lasted? Maybe they should partner with SyFy, who seem to finally have gitten their act together. Either that or we could always send them Tribbles, ala Jericho and the nuts. Not that I think it'll help. Probable make them kill the show altogether.
Tom
Sat, Nov 19, 2016, 11:42pm (UTC -6)
I don't like the idea of the new show being set just 10 years before TOS. I think it severely limits the potential scope. I believe it would have been a better idea to set this after Voyager and the TNG movies, perhaps in the early 25th century, because at least then they'd get to draw out new, previously unknown sections of plot.

My best guess is that this new show will just be dealing with the Klingons yet again.

To Jammer's point about if it were set in the future, it would have to adhere to previously established canon - yes, but that's true no matter when you set it. Having a prequel like ENT limits things, but at least that was a ?hundred-years-back prequel, this is worse. I fear this will be riddled with references to TOS, and have IMO terrible looking uniforms. The fact that we know that the Federation and Earth will survive and be well-off just 10 years after these events happen means that in order to generate any suspense this show will have to make me really care about this ship, Discovery, in particular.

As for the ship itself, I think it looks clunky... but I'll side with Jammer and say give it a chance.

I'm worried because I'm seeing red flags already, and we really need this show to work well.
Peremensoe
Sun, Nov 20, 2016, 9:24am (UTC -6)
There is *plenty* of room for new plots. Even with Klingons; I'd like to see stories about non-warrior Klingon culture, for example, as was hinted at in Enterprise (not the stupid forehead episodes, the lawyer one).

With good writers, the 'limits' of established continuity create opportunities with structure. When limits are removed or ignored, as Voyager so often did, the writing would have to be *fantastic* and original, to not be garbage.
Holyserpent
Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 4:35am (UTC -6)
Man I can't wait. You give the best reviews
karatasiospa
Tue, Nov 22, 2016, 4:39am (UTC -6)
I'm still interested to watch Discovery and i still hope that it will be a good Trek show but i must admitt that things, at lest untill now, are not looking good.
Yanks
Tue, Nov 22, 2016, 10:22am (UTC -6)
I would like to know what shows like 'The Expanse', 'Dark Matter' and 'Killjoys' cost per episode.

I think some missed Moonves' (sp) statement earlier regarding this show. The foreign market pays for the show. Anything else they get from us Americans is frosting on the cake.

I agree, losing Fuller just might be telling... I think this was MUCH bigger than they expressed.

This will be what? .... A 13 episode season? .... with the premier showing on CBS for all to see? ... So that's 3 months of CBS All-Access. Lets say you "go all out" and pay the $10 a month so you don't have to watch commercials.... $30 bucks folks.

Suck it up. It's less than a frakin tank of gas.

It seems to me that he (CBS) has found a way to give us pretty much unlimited trek without having to ever worry about gaining 8-10 million viewers a week on a entertainment medium that will probably be going away soon. (Cable/Sat TV)

Doesn't sound so bad to me.

I'd be more worried about Fuller leaving.

The "R rated trek" article is click bait.
Chrome
Tue, Nov 22, 2016, 10:35am (UTC -6)
" $30 bucks folks.

Suck it up. It's less than a frakin tank of gas."

Yes, but we could see 3 Star Trek feature films in theaters for that price. I just hope All-Access has a promotion at some point (like a free week trial), then you could just watch all the episodes of Discovery at that time.
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tue, Nov 22, 2016, 8:46pm (UTC -6)
@ Yanks

"I think some missed Moonves' (sp) statement earlier regarding this show. The foreign market pays for the show. Anything else they get from us Americans is frosting on the cake"

We didn't "miss" it. We recognized it as a marketing ploy which has little bearing on reality and ignored it.

How do I know that? Because:

1. It doesn't make any business sense. There's simply no way that the foreign markets would shell this kind of money on a series which hasn't even been produced yet. Especially a series with such an uncertain future that even the die-hard fans of the franchise are skeptical about.

2. Saying "We really don't need your money" is the oldest marketing ploy in the book. It's a way to convince you, as a customer, that your money doesn't matter. Makes it easier for you to open your wallet and pay up, because - after all - the money isn't important... It's one of the first tricks that all salesmen learn.

Besides, if they don't need our money, why don't they air the show for free? It's funny how it is always the end costumer who needs to "lighten up, it's only 30 bucks"... Can you imagine Mr. Moonves "lightening up" in this respect? In case you've forgotten, this is the guy who declared war on the entire fan film community just to show his muscles. You can be sure that he won't lighten up over a single penny, so why should we?

"$30 bucks folks. Suck it up. It's less than a frakin tank of gas."

How it compares to "a tank of gas" is irelevant.

For $30 bucks I could buy 2 seasons of TNG on DVD. That's 52 episodes which I then OWN and can PLAY WHENEVER I LIKE.

And while I'm not very well versed in the prices of other streaming services, I'm pretty sure (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that CBS All-Access is far more expensive than Netflix (for example).

So no, a price of $30 isn't reasonable at all. It seems that the guys at CBS think that they can charge any price because we Trekkies are like drug addicts who will pay anything for a fix.

And it is our job, as fans, to stand our ground and make clear that this isn't the case. Yes, we love Star Trek. But no, this doesn't mean we're going to pay 30 bucks to watch something that the rest of the world gets for 1/5 of that price. Nor does it mean that we will blindly support a lousy product (*cough* JJ-Trek *cough*) just because it has the "Star Trek" label on it.

"It seems to me that he (CBS) has found a way to give us pretty much unlimited trek without having to ever worry about gaining 8-10 million viewers a week on a entertainment medium that will probably be going away soon. "

You can't sustain a show without viewership. At least not if you want to make any money from it.

This fact doesn't change just because the medium is different. It may change the details of what kind of viewership is needed for the show to survive, but the basic principles remain the same: No viewers, no show.

So if we accept the unlikely claim that the foreign market "already payed" for the first season, the simple fact is that nobody is going to buy additional seasons of a show that performed poorly.
karatasiospa
Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 4:06am (UTC -6)
The fist casting

io9.gizmodo.com/michelle-yeoh-may-be-the-first-actor-to-join-star-trek-1789 286083
Robert
Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 9:25am (UTC -6)
@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi - I 100% agree with you. I won't be buying All Access. Ever. If the show does well I'll buy the show.

That said it is a remote possibility that they no longer need the American market. Look at Warcraft. Domestic gross - $47.2 million; Budget - $160 million

By all previous knowledge and consideration this is an epic flop that will NEVER see a sequel. But a sequel discussion is still in the works. Why? China. It made $386 million abroad and $220 of that in China. It's still not widely considered a success, but it goes to show that something can succeed while failing the domestic market.

I agree with you. The ploy is to make you think that you need them for your next Trek fix more than they need your money. But it might be closer to true than it was in the past. 5 years ago failing in the domestic market was instant death. It's less true now than it used to be.
Peremensoe
Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 10:17am (UTC -6)
Michelle Yeoh! Fantastic news there, and a sign of serious commitment.


Chrome, I sure hope the new show is a better investment than those last three Star Trek feature films!
Peremensoe
Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 10:34am (UTC -6)
I guess Yeoh could also be a sign of the expected reliance on the Chinese market.
Chrome
Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 11:55am (UTC -6)
@Peremensoe

Don't count on it. People will be singing visionary Abrams' praises by this time next year.

I kid, I kid. But I actually meant any 3 feature films; as in the next 3 Star Trek films. At least they'll take place in a time period we recognize. You'd think with a show they're getting all experimental on, they'd at least give people a cheap viewing option. I'm a fan of the newer stuff, but I in no way think this series is a sure thing.
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 4:53pm (UTC -6)
@Robert

"I agree with you. The ploy is to make you think that you need them for your next Trek fix more than they need your money. But it might be closer to true than it was in the past. 5 years ago failing in the domestic market was instant death. It's less true now than it used to be. "

That may well be.

However, American or not, they still need people to watch the show. The words "foreign market" are not a magic phrase that allows the producers to ignore the basic rules of the television industry. And no sane business-person is going to shell out tens of millions of dollars on a series with an uncertain future.

So saying things like "we don't need the domestic market" at this early point in time is incredibly cocky. Especially when their actions don't match their words: This entire "All Access" fiasco is a classic example of what happens when people are blinded by greed. The very fact that CBS chose this route, proves that they care so much about domestic profits, it caused them to lose their heads.
karatasiospa
Thu, Nov 24, 2016, 4:39am (UTC -6)
Allthough it's not officially confirmed it seems that Yeoh will play the captain of another ship the Shontzu.

www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/star-trek/250209/star-trek-discovery-casting-news-m ichelle-yeoh-character-details
Q
Thu, Nov 24, 2016, 6:25am (UTC -6)
So... We have fine captain, but this will be a minor role, and we haven't main cast yet (per analogiam: we have Guinan, but we haven't Picard).I
think it's highly unlikely that this disaster-series will ever be made.
Yanks
Mon, Nov 28, 2016, 6:14am (UTC -6)
Why does casting an Asian actor result in her ship's name being Shontzu (Asian)?
Robert
Mon, Nov 28, 2016, 10:33am (UTC -6)
@Yanks - It's a mere coincidence. They've just decided to abandon the US market and go for it in China. :P
Yanks
Mon, Nov 28, 2016, 12:09pm (UTC -6)
HAHA.... we've been 'Asian-washed'.
karatasiospa
Tue, Nov 29, 2016, 1:09pm (UTC -6)
The first 3 official actors
www.spoilertv.com/2016/11/star-trek-discovery-doug-jones-and.html
Niall
Tue, Nov 29, 2016, 1:11pm (UTC -6)
"Anything else non-Trek is basically off the table, save the stray movie review" - would that potentially include Arrival, Jammer?
Jammer
Tue, Nov 29, 2016, 3:52pm (UTC -6)
I haven't seen "Arrival" and don't know when or if I will get a chance. My wife and I did take our little ones to see "Moana," though, and liked it a lot.
Yanks
Wed, Nov 30, 2016, 6:21am (UTC -6)
I'm gonig to see 'Arrival' this weekend.

Nice to have some new news concerning our new series. I really like the Doug Jones choice. Lot's of SCI-FI experience and I thought he was really good in 'The Strain' and 'Falling Skies'. Don't know much about the Anthony Rapp fella. The only thing he's been in that I can remember seeing is The X-Files.
Peremensoe
Wed, Nov 30, 2016, 12:43pm (UTC -6)
ARRIVAL is based on a story by an relatively little-known, unprolific writer whose work I have treasured for some years--Ted Chiang. I hope the film is good, but it's hard to imagine that it is as special as the story. In any case, check him out.
Peremensoe
Wed, Nov 30, 2016, 1:05pm (UTC -6)
Oh, of course... I now see that there is a new (June 2016) paperback edition of his primary collection, as well as a separate movie tie-in book. Not so little-known any more.
karatasiospa
Sun, Dec 4, 2016, 5:52am (UTC -6)
It seems that filming starts on january:

www.treknews.net/2016/12/03/star-trek-discovery-to-begin-filming-in-january /
Del_Duio
Mon, Dec 5, 2016, 7:19am (UTC -6)
Then they better hop to it with the casting unless they're going the "Remember Me" route where only 3 people pilot a starship around the Alpha Quadrant :D
Yanks
Mon, Dec 5, 2016, 8:25am (UTC -6)
Hey - Fuller's out. I think I'd rather have this that his effort beeing tugged from two directions. It is a little more than interesting that he chose another series over Star Trek though.

Break... I saw 'Arrival' this weekend with my son. I enjoyed it immensley. If I were to critique it, I would say it was pretty slow at spots, but that's OK. Great story and well executed visuals. No "pew-pew" needed. I ended up feeling like Sisko discussing linear and non-linear time with my son :-)

If real SCI-FI is your thing, then I highly recommend it.
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Dec 5, 2016, 8:20pm (UTC -6)
"Then they better hop to it with the casting unless they're going the 'Remember Me' route where only 3 people pilot a starship around the Alpha Quadrant :D"

2 people, not 3. Michelle Yeoh isn't playing a crewmember of the Discovery.

But that's okay. As Picard said, "we've never needed a crew before" :D
Brandon
Mon, Dec 5, 2016, 8:33pm (UTC -6)
"Arrival" is absolutely Jammer-worthy. Up there with "Interstellar" and "Contact".
NCC-1701-Z
Tue, Dec 6, 2016, 2:36am (UTC -6)
Del_Duio: That would be hilarious if that actually happened, and the camera panned out to the bridge of a 25th century starship.

25th century officer: "Sir, we were unable to save the warp bubble pocket universe."
25th century captain: "Make a note on the captain's log: sucks to be that universe. Set course for the Andromeda Galaxy. Warp 47."
[Camera pans over to Rod Serling]
Rod Serling: "The crew of the ship Discovery are no more. Indeed, they never existed to begin with ... except in the Twilight Zone."
[DUN DUN DUN]

^ I kid, of course. Not trying to slight the not-yet-premiered show. Just having some fun.
Del_Duio
Tue, Dec 6, 2016, 8:18am (UTC -6)
" I ended up feeling like Sisko discussing linear and non-linear time with my son :-)"

It's like... BASEBALL!
The pitcher throws the ball: The batter swings.. He might hit it, he might miss..
YOU JUST NEVER KNOW!

I'm paraphrasing but my daughter and I joke around about Sisko's linear baseball speech all the time lol.
NCC-1701-Z
Mon, Dec 12, 2016, 4:56pm (UTC -6)
Three new cast members, cast as Klingons.

*cue epic Klingon theme from TMP*

Speculation, anyone? Perhaps some sort of secret joint task force?

www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/star-trek-discovery-casts-klingon-trio- 955355
Del_Duio
Tue, Dec 13, 2016, 7:24am (UTC -6)
Most likely, thanks for the info!

I try to look for anything new almost every day but still manage to miss stuff like this hah.
NCC-1701-Z
Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 9:54pm (UTC -6)
BREAKING: Lead character cast and it is HUGE!

www.ew.com/article/2016/12/14/star-trek-discovery-walking-dead-sonequa-mart in-green

If anyone here actually watches Walking Dead on a regular basis could someone tell me how good of an actress she is? I don't watch that show so I've never seen her in action.
NCC-1701-Z
Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 9:58pm (UTC -6)
In fairness I've never seen any of the other people currently cast in Discovery in action either.
Latex Zebra
Sun, Dec 18, 2016, 11:28am (UTC -6)
Sonequa is part of the ensemble main characters on TWD and has always carried herself well and holds her own against the rest of the cast.
NCC-1701-Z
Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 1:19pm (UTC -6)
Finally got a chance to watch her in action (read: searched "best of Sasha walking dead" on YouTube) , and I'm quite impressed. If she can bring that range to Discovery I'll be a happy camper.
Yanks
Tue, Dec 27, 2016, 8:01am (UTC -6)
Well, our new LCDR didn't even make the top ten here.

www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/be...king-dead.html/

Don't know what to think of that.
Scotty from Detroit
Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 4:17pm (UTC -6)
I'm a big The Walking Dead fan. I don't find Sonequa's character to be super-engaging, but she does a very good job with the material she's been given. I'm excited to see what she does with the Discovery role.
General Snacker
Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 12:17am (UTC -6)
Can we have at least one strong male character in this? Watching the evolution of represented masculinity from TOS to TNG to VOY (The General can't really do DS9--maybe because it's stationary?) with zero alpha males, to this. Pussified City here we come haha
Ivanov
Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 10:32am (UTC -6)
@General Snacker Trust me Sisko and Worf from DS9 are tough bastards. Voyager and Enterprise though.... I agree with you on that.
karatasiospa
Wed, Jan 18, 2017, 12:22pm (UTC -6)
So Sarek will also be in Discovery
www.facebook.com/StarTrekCBS/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf
NCC-1701-Z
Wed, Jan 18, 2017, 2:55pm (UTC -6)
And the show got delayed. Again. Are we ever going to actually get to watch this?

Seriously, I feel like no one at CBS knows what they're doing. How do you screw up something as iconic as Star Trek?
[remembers the bulk of Star Trek Enterprise and the series finale]
...Oh. Never mind.
But seriously, are Romulan spies trying to sabotage this behind the scenes? Because that's what it feels like!
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 1:35am (UTC -6)
They've already shelled out tons of $$$ into pre-production of this series, so I very much doubt they'll cancel it.

But you're right about one thing: It is obvious that CBS has no idea what they are doing. I also have the sinking feeling that the only reason they chose to do "Discovery" is the Axanar fiasco. You think it's a coincidence, that both shows are set at precisely the same time period? Nobody in their right minds would set a 2010's TV show in Star Trek's 2250's (Say what you will about "Enterprise", a 100+ year prequel makes much more sense than forcing yourself to choose between '60s asthetics and violating continuity in every episode).

So it isn't like CBS launched this project because they actually have a story to tell. It was a kneejerk reaction which they are now stuck with, and the end product will probably look that way too.

TL;DR: Series or no series, CBS is - indeed - screwing up the franchise and on the 50-year anniversary no less.






Yanks
Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 8:49am (UTC -6)
Our current cast:

Sonequa Martin-Green (Lieutenant Commander Rainsford)
Michelle Yeoh (Captain Georgiou of the U.S.S. Shenzhou)
Anthony Rapp (Lt. Stamets)
Doug Jones (Lt. Saru)
Chris Obi (T’Kuvma)
Shazad Latif (Kol)
Mary Chieffo (L’Rell)
James Frain (Sarak)

I've read a couple places where the series has been pushed to the right.... has anyone seen a date?
Brandon Adams
Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 10:47am (UTC -6)
No date offered.

I think we're officially in development hell.

I figured out a while ago that all this "subscription lets us do graphic stuff we couldn't on networks!" and "sci-fi sucks on networks!" is really just studio-code for "we're going to have a gay character and he's going to be kissing men". I wonder if that was a source of conflict between the various parties.

But between them putting it behind a paywall and the Axanar studio, I can tell you I have no intention of supporting Discovery. Moonves is just putting forth a token doomed effort so he can go "See? Nobody wants it!" and dodge further criticism.
methane
Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 11:31am (UTC -6)
According to CBS' statement a few days ago, it's starting production next week. They're just not fixing an official release date.
Yanks
Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 12:53pm (UTC -6)
Thanks. My hopes are starting to dim....
Del_Duio
Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 2:56pm (UTC -6)
So first it's supposed to air this month.

Then it gets pushed back to May, but the filming starts in Sept 2016.

But when Sept rolls around, they haven't even cast anybody yet, so it gets pushed back again.

And well, etc etc then it was definitely shooting like what 2 weeks ago and now it's not until a bit later (Suuuuuuure)

And, well.. SAREK? Whyyy? I'd rather see a bunch of brand new people than re-treads at this point with this doomed series. I don't want them to bring back old characters for the sole reason I'd hate to see Mark Lenard's awesome legacy get pooped on.

Omni is right on this: CBS has totally screwed this up. This whole thing should've been so friggin' awesome and handled by people who realize just how special this franchise is (and could be again). You won't get another shot at a 50th anniversary again. Hell, the convention rounds in 2014 made WAY more stops than this year did. How is that even possible?

The last thing I want STD.. (yeah, it's STD because it sounds awful and it lingers on and on in production hell haha).. the last thing I want my awesome Trek to do is friggin' flat out DIE from it. Holy shit, guys. Do they realize how many people would jump at the chance to HANDLE THIS RIGHT?

Sorry, haha oh boy went on a ranter there, but at least we friggin' CARE about this sorta' thing.
NCC-1701-Z
Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 6:21pm (UTC -6)
I've said this before, but for the sake of perspective:

I am disappointed by how CBS has been handling this series thus far. They may yet pleasantly surprise us in fall or whenever. But no matter how badly CBS screws up, no matter how much they milk the cow till it's dead, no matter how many Romulan saboteurs wreak havoc behind the scenes, Star Trek will always live on in our hearts and nothing can take that away from us.
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Jan 20, 2017, 5:49am (UTC -6)
"The last thing I want STD.. (yeah, it's STD because it sounds awful and it lingers on and on in production hell haha).. the last thing I want my awesome Trek to do is friggin' flat out DIE from it."

Trek won't "die". Nothing can take the 700+ "classic" episodes (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT) from us.

Recently I began a rewatch of TOS with my wife, and you know something? Even after 50 years, it remains a classic. And CBS can't take the already existing legacy from us.

"Holy shit, guys. Do they realize how many people would jump at the chance to HANDLE THIS RIGHT?"

Yeah. Unfortunately, this cannot be done legally without CBS' approval (which they'll never give).

Maybe it's time to start a new sci fi universe. Create an alternative that fills the niche that the official "Trek" no longer fills. The brand "Star Trek" has been diluted in the past decade or so, anyway.

Oh, and it will be hilarious if Paramount or CBS try to sue somebody for doing this. I'd love to see them trying to convince a jury that a thoughtful quality show is "too similar" to the crap they're producing...
Iceman
Sat, Jan 21, 2017, 9:58pm (UTC -6)
Welp, this series is never coming out. Seriously, is it that hard to hire competent showrunners who can keep their promises? Apparently.

Submit a comment





Notify me about new comments on this page
Hide my e-mail on my post

◄ Articles & Miscellaneous

▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2017 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.