Trailer proves the existence of ‘Star Trek: Discovery’

After many, many months of vague press and departing showrunners, we finally have a trailer with actual footage from the forthcoming Star Trek: Discovery to be streamed on CBS All Access. We also have a date, or at least a season, for its release: Fall 2017.

My initial thoughts: Like many trailers, this is a very generic offering that teases the show, gives the title, displays some sci-fi visuals, and provides next to nothing in terms of story information. Par for the course. If you were hoping for something awesome or informative, you are going to be disappointed. It at least features some actors, including Michelle Yeoh and series lead Sonequa Martin-Green.

But we now have a committed time frame for the release of the show, and proof that it exists. Which, after all these reports of delays and a lack of new information aside from those delays, is something.

◄ Blog Home Page

115 comments on this post

Benjamin
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 12:28 am (UTC -5)

Talk about mixed feelings. When I heard Fuller was creating and running this show, I was cautiously optimistic. When I heard they brought on Nicholas Meyer, I was full blown excited. My excitement has drifted off the last six months or so, and boy oh boy does this trailer reinforce those thoughts. Way too Abrams-y for my money. But of course, I will still be watching. Here’s to hoping that my reluctance is misguided.

karatasiospa
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 3:13 am (UTC -5)

Not impresed. I don’t mind the changes in uniforms etc but i do mind the wooden acting and dialogue. And it seems that this will be a show about klingons or at least the first episodes (btw the new klingons are horrible). It’s not bad (the visuals are really good) but nothing really inspiring. There is a phrase that Yeoh says at some point: “inform starfleet command. we have engaged the klingons” . Perhaps that was their mission?
Anyway not what i hoped for after 1 and a half year of waiting.

NeutrinoHero
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 6:07 am (UTC -5)

I like the visuals and the tone. I really don’t mind that some features (especially the Klingons) in the trailer look like they do in the new film series. It would be confusing for some people to revert to the look from Enterprise or the original movies again. The franchise is on different platforms now (movies = Paramount, series = CBS), so some consistency is welcome. You can blame JJ Abrams for changing them in the first place, but the Discovery team shouldn’t be blamed for sticking to them in my opinion. As for plot, we’ll have to wait. It does look like it’s much more character oriented than the previous incarnations, but we’ll have to see about that as well.

karatasiospa
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 7:22 am (UTC -5)

More character oriented doesn’say much. It depends on the actual characters and if they are interesting it doesn’ seem to me that they are ( of course we must wait to see). And star trek is not a show primary about character development, it’ a show about the human condition as it’s revealed through the contact with alieness. Characters of course help in that but they are not the focus of trek.
As for the klingons they were free to do whatever they wanted to do, they have no obligation to follow the new movies.

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 7:52 am (UTC -5)

“I really don’t mind that some features (especially the Klingons) in the trailer look like they do in the new film series.”

They don’t look alike, though.

Similar design, yes, but they are still quite different. So apparently, consistency with the films wasn’t the reason for the change.

karatasiospa
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 8:27 am (UTC -5)

Example of dialogue:
“Starfleet does not fire first”
“But we have to”
Well this is the dialogue that could be written by a 10 years old screenwriter.

Chrome
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 8:57 am (UTC -5)

Looks promising. Production wise, it’s a feast for the eyes, from the weathered, bronze Starfleet insignia to actress Sonequa Martin-Green’s everything.

Del_Duio
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 9:33 am (UTC -5)

Well it looks friggin movie-quality visual wise but I’m with you guys I don’t know how to feel about it. This captures none of the same feelings TNG, DS9, or even VOY did with me. And you’re right for as good as these actresses are that acting wasn’t so hot.

BUT at least it’s finally out in some way now.

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 9:37 am (UTC -5)

Yeah, the visual quality is amazing. I’ll give them that.

R.
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 10:07 am (UTC -5)

This trailer was a little too Abrams-esque for my taste, but I’ll reserve final judgement until the finished product. To be honest, and from a pure storytelling perspective, I would rather have had someone like Ron D. Moore at the helm than Bryan Fuller but this is where we are. At least there weren’t any more shots of the great flying pizza cutter.

Brandon
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 10:35 am (UTC -5)

It looks like a fan-made trailer. They filmed it on location and it still looks like a fan-made trailer. Copious lens flares to cover up the weak green-screen, lame dialogue mixed in with a couple of interesting lines, awful line editing even by trailer standards. The shot of the ship at warp is something I’d expect from someone’s basement effort on Youtube, with “fraps.com” showing at the top. We didn’t even get a good clear shot of the ship.

There was one interesting idea in there – a species being groomed to sense the presence of death. That smacks of Fuller. The actor portraying Mr. Forehead was interesting. But that’s the only thing that sticks with you.

Most ominously, did anyone else notice that the material in that trailer looks to be pulled from a single episode? In fact, it could well have been pulled from five minutes of screen time. That is probably the one thing I noticed more than anything else. It does NOT betray the idea that there is a large body of work behind this effort. I get the distinct feeling that the production is behind schedule.

I think the death Mr. Forehead senses is of this series.

Matthew
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 11:09 am (UTC -5)

Welp, that looked terrible. Hackneyed dialogue, hyperdramatic acting and framing, emphasis on extreme visuals and fighting and….

Yeah, you can feel the influence of Kurtzman here. The Bad Robot crew has poised the Star Trek well.

Johnathan
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 11:23 am (UTC -5)

Was that the ship coming through the clouds? It didn’t look much like the one in the teaser we got 6 months ago.

NCC-1701-Z
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 11:39 am (UTC -5)

Ugh, this looks way too Jar Jar Abrams-y for my liking, from a purely visual standpoint. The tech looks far too advanced to be pre-Kirk in any sense. Does everything have to be dark and dingy? And the dialogue seems way too wooden – my 7 year old nephew could write better than that!

Furthermore, I checked the YouTube like/dislike bar. Currently sitting at 11K likes and 5K dislikes. Most trailers have no problem getting more than 90% likes.

On the positive side this still does have potential from what little we get of the plot. But we’ll just have to wait and see. Maybe they don’t want to give too much away, but they had the same dilemma with the Force Awakens trailers and those still brought the house down.

Then again the first Beyond trailer was disliked by a lot of fans and the movie itself did fine, but not spectacular. (I didn’t watch Beyond)

Corey
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 12:25 pm (UTC -5)

Apparently this is a highly serialized series. So expect this to be a single long arc about the Federation meeting the Klingons, fighting the Klingons, and then learning to love thy neighbour.

The black Vulcan officer looks half human and seems to be an outcast at odds with other Vulcans. There are also pics of the new ship floating around online; apparently a bad Ralph Maquarrie design from the 1970s.

Personally, I don’t like the aesthetic of Nu Trek. Meyer’s Trek and TNG Trek had a sense of sleek utopinism, the former drifting toward 19th century nautral adveture, the latter to slick modernism.

Paul M.
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 1:48 pm (UTC -5)

Finally a trailer! Though not for international audiences, for God knows what reason. Wouldn’t want too many people watching, I guess… I had to go out of my way to actually watch it!

As others have said, the show looks great; very cinematic (those lens flares, on the other hand…) Personally, I don’t give a f*ck about canon or whether Klingons or uniforms or this or that jive with whatever established Trekkian “feel” someone thinks Discovery should adhere to.

On the other hand, I am unpleasantly surprised by acting and dialogue, what little we saw: expository, wooden, and very amateurish. It’s hard to have any sort of informed opinion with so little to go on, but, man, it sounds bad. Both Yeoh and Martin-Green behave and speak like lobotomized Vulcans. I’d like to think that’s how they are supposed to come across in the final product.

Paul M.
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 1:50 pm (UTC -5)

Note to myself: PROOFREAD before posting. Note to Jammer: editing option would be welcomed! 🙂

The last sentence of my post should read: “I’d like to think that’s NOT how they are supposed to come across in the final product.”

JK
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 2:08 pm (UTC -5)

@Brandon
“Most ominously, did anyone else notice that the material in that trailer looks to be pulled from a single episode? In fact, it could well have been pulled from five minutes of screen time. That is probably the one thing I noticed more than anything else. It does NOT betray the idea that there is a large body of work behind this effort. I get the distinct feeling that the production is behind schedule.”

I read that they are filming something like episode 6 right now, so all that you see in the trailer is probably taken from the first five episodes or so.

Trajan
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 2:19 pm (UTC -5)

Interesting to read comments here suggesting that the dialogue could have been written by children. When I watched the trailer (before visiting here) I wondered if the show was MEANT for children. Visuals- not bad; dialogue- ugh.

‘We HAVE to shoot first, you fools, because how else can we demonstrate that we’re darker and edgier than Bakula?’

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 2:27 pm (UTC -5)

Darker and edgier than Bakula?

How will they manage that? Torture aliens in airlocks every Tuesday?

Trajan
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 2:47 pm (UTC -5)

@Omicron…

They’ll have to torture the pet dogs!

It’s interesting that they always want to go for ‘edgier’ when you remember that, in TOS, Kirk’s solution to the war being conducted by computer (with painless death) was to insist that it should instead be conducted by destroying people horribly together with their infrastructure. Seriously, do we today think he was some some sort of soft touch?

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 4:56 pm (UTC -5)

Not to mention the infamous “General Order 24” threat that Kirk gave in the very same episode…

No wonder Janeway said in “Flashback” that Kirk and Co would have been arrested had they pulled their usual stunts in the 24th century (of-course, Janeway herself would have been arrested too, had she not been conveniently lost in the Delta Quadrant… but that’s another story).

Earl Grey
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 6:04 pm (UTC -5)

I hated the trailer for Beyond, was convinced it was going in a horrible direction. And that turned out to be a way truer trek movie for me than Into darkness. So I will reserve judgement and pray like hell they don’t screw it up. TV is trek’s real home, make it so!

Bufo
Thursday, May 18, 2017, 11:45 pm (UTC -5)

Agree with majority here, the dialogue is terrible and the look is, well, just what I expected – a glossy rip off of all other recent and mostly mindless sci fi outings (abrams crap in particular). But I would also add that what they’re really getting most wrong is that trek was primarily about avoiding war, a time when war (and money) will no longer be part of our civilization, and if you look at TOS as a whole, it accomplished that remarkably well. Kirk was a hero to my young self because of how he always came back to “let’s find a peaceful solution” even in the face of obvious provocation.

To people pointing at things like general order 24 and claiming ToS was about violence, I say you have a poor grasp of history. Trek was made in the 60s, which was a time when manifest destiny was accepted by Americans as dogma, the idea that we were just better than everyone was not questioned and our future plans were to show up at any damn planet we might choose, kick ass, and take it for our “colonization.” This was a time when the Tuskegee experiment was still going on for chrissakes. Given the context, Trek was a towering herald of a different possible future.

Yes, the show often resorted to making reference to war or being on the brink of war, but these were either distant historical events (Balance of Terror) or were narrowly avoided (Errand of Mercy). No one was killed in Taste of Armageddon, the entire point was to end the war.

So, you can identify the really lazy, bad trek as that trek when the foundations of Roddenberry’s concept were dumped overboard and the subpar writing staffs began to rely on actual wars to propel their otherwise empty shows. Out of the gate, it sure looks like they’re setting STD up to be firmly in this camp. Hey, I’d love to be surprised by seeing it go a different way, but most of us here are seeing the same portend. Nuff said.

Outsider54
Friday, May 19, 2017, 12:52 am (UTC -5)

Wow, how disappointing. It looks exciting, but in a generic, blockbuster sort of way. The sort of thing you’ve seen hundreds of times and always forget after. All style and no substance.

I’ll probably watch it in a few years. Or not, I can tell you now I’m never going to pay for CBS All-Access B.S. and I don’t fancy piracy so unless they’ll eventually put it on a legitimate streaming service I’m out.

Looks like they’re rehashing the “racist Vulcan dad” thing from the original. We don’t need another Spock, we have Spock. Give us a different character, or a different family dynamic. Why do Vulcans marry and mate with humans anyway if they’re just going to universally scorn and abuse the children of that union? Give us a suprisingly nice, patient Vulcan parent who actually exhibits all those good traits we’re told Vulcans supposedly have. You can still have the kid striving to prove her Vulcan-ness, just for different reasons. I hope I’m wrong about this being a repeat of Spock and Sarek.

Destructor
Friday, May 19, 2017, 1:40 am (UTC -5)

I’m stunned by all the negativity. I thought it looked cool, I’m very interested in seeing more (while cautiously prepared to accept it may be bad, as any TV show might be). If you genuinely think that maintaining visual continuity with TOS should be given higher priority than making the show look visually compelling from a contemporary standpoint, I am here to tell you that would be death for the show. It wouldn’t last three episodes. It needs to look modern and believable as a future of our society. That doesn’t mean it’s not in continuity- it means film-making and science fiction has moved on from the 80s and Trek needs to as well.

TB
Friday, May 19, 2017, 7:09 am (UTC -5)

Didn’t Enterprise already cover this period? Do we really need another prequel? Seems like they could do so much more, and avoid any continuity problems with TOS if they set it after TNG. TNNG or something. People have said “But there are no enemies left”, what about the Kevlins from TOS? Some intergalactic level war… who knows but choosing to set it right before TOS with such a difference in style and tech seems pretty stupid when there’s plenty of other periods they could go for.

Anyway, I’ll give it a chance with low expectations. It looks like it’s going the effects and rehash route rather than something genuinely new and interesting but we’ll see after a few episodes. No doubt, like TNG it will take a few episodes to get going. Unfortunately, in this era of TV it can’t afford to have several terrible episodes in the first half-season. There’s no way TNG would have had a second season if it was shown now.

TB
Friday, May 19, 2017, 7:15 am (UTC -5)

To expand on my point above, it’s difficult to make a proper Sci-Fi series set pre-TOS now. In various trek series we had mobile phones, touch screen interfaces, ipads, VR computer games, computers with voice recognition. That stuff isn’t sci-fi any more and by setting Discovery pre-TOS it offers no scope to predict new technologies. Effectively they are limiting themselves to technology that existed in TOS and removing the ability to make any kind of predictions in the way TOS and TNG did. Why would they impose that on themselves?

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Friday, May 19, 2017, 8:20 am (UTC -5)

@Bufo

“To people pointing at things like general order 24 and claiming ToS was about violence, I say you have a poor grasp of history.”

Oh, I agree.

I think you misunderstood Trajan and me. We weren’t criticizing ToS. You say that the show is a product of its time, but quite frankly I think that Kirk’s 2260’s would be a much better place to live in than present-day Earth. It mostly aged well (the only part that didn’t – in my opinion – is the sexism that crept in from time to time).

It’s just funny that modern Trek tries to market itself as “edgier”, as if Trek and edginess were always strangers in the past. The difference is, that in ToS the edginess was incidental. It was never the actual point of the show. The actual point was a positive outlook to a (mostly) peaceful future.

Kinda reminds me of a Discovery treated the diversity of their cast: Look, a gay crewmember! We know almost nothing else about the guy. Just his last name, rank and profession. We don’t even know his first name, yet we already know his sexual orientation. How twisted is that?

@Destructor
“If you genuinely think that maintaining visual continuity with TOS should be given higher priority than making the show look visually compelling from a contemporary standpoint…”

First of all, the visuals is about the least problematic thing about this trailer.

Secondly, I don’t really see why the two things you’ve mentioned should be at odds with each other.

TOS looks campy today because the props were low quality, and not because the designs themselves haven’t aged well. If you rebuilt the original Enterprise’s bridge with new materials and tweak the design just a little bit, it wouldn’t be out-of-place in any modern sci fi TV show.

Thirdly, nobody is forcing them to set the show in the 2250’s. If this creates a clash between aesthetics and continuity, then they should’ve set the show at a different era.

And lastly, making a show visually compelling isn’t the same thing as blindly following the latest trends in film-making. Lense flares do not make a show more visually compelling. Dramatic visuals which favor “wow-ness” over substance don’t make a show more visually compelling.

In short: It’s a TV show, not a damn fireworks display. The visuals should integrate seamlessly with the other elements, rather than overwhelm them. And just because this kind of crap is popular today, doesn’t mean that Star Trek needs to go down that route too.

(funny how they market Discovery as “different”, when it seems to be the most conforming Trek series of all. Their trailer looks like a dozen other trailers of generic sci fi shows, so how – exactly – is it groundbreakingly different?)

Brandon
Friday, May 19, 2017, 9:43 am (UTC -5)

@Destructor

I don’t have a problem with the visuals – I just think the quality of that entire thing is on par with Prelude to Axanar.

Wait…no. That one had better dialogue.

Ian Fleming
Friday, May 19, 2017, 11:27 am (UTC -5)

I’ve seen a lot of comments regarding this show and I have to say that I am ashamed to call myself a Trekkie today. I have loved Star Trek since I was four years old (I am 38 now) but the “fan” and “non-fan” overreaction to this trailer is simply beyond the pale. Whatever happened to Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations? Does that mean nothing now?

Del_Duio
Friday, May 19, 2017, 1:33 pm (UTC -5)

@Ian,

We are all pretty hard core Trek fans which is why this looks so disappointing:
Because we know what it could and should be, and not what it appears to actually be.

Yanks
Friday, May 19, 2017, 4:16 pm (UTC -5)

I for one am stoked! Love the look, love the casting.

Had some BAB5 vibes looking at the aliens 🙂

Klingon sarcophagus ship!?!?!?! YEAH! We could see the entire history of the Klingon race!

15 episodes now vice 13!!

Come on folks…. lighten up!! All shows grow…. all Star Trek shows grew…. this one will too.

The only thing that made me tilt my head a bit was the lense flares 🙂

I can’t wait!!

Skye Maidstone
Friday, May 19, 2017, 8:32 pm (UTC -5)

Just happy to have trek back on tv where it belongs. As long as they keep it interesting and have vaguely original stories.

I’m not really bothered about the visuals

Johnathan
Friday, May 19, 2017, 9:04 pm (UTC -5)

The absurdly darkened bridge is really quite demonstrative of the problems with nu-Trek (which is now fairly clear includes Discovery). Here you have a bridge of a starship where lighting is an absolute necessity and could mean life or death. TOS and TNG accounted for that. But then lighting and cinematography “experts” step in and tell you that bright lights don’t make for an appealing aesthetic or visual style. Eventually this comes to apply to all areas of the show. Appearance takes a priority over substance.

Dejinry
Saturday, May 20, 2017, 5:23 am (UTC -5)

@Destructor

“I’m stunned by all the negativity.”

I’m not.

We were only given two minutes of footage, but reading the above comments one might think that we’d seen an entire movie’s worth of garbage. The same panting and moaning by the same crowd graced the initial reaction to the first Beyond trailer. Beyond turned out to be pretty good. I’m going to give this one a chance, because I am a Star Trek fan. It will only be after having watched the finished product that I will be able to conclude whether it was terrible. Heretical as this may sound, I am rooting for the show to be good.

Paul M.
Saturday, May 20, 2017, 8:31 am (UTC -5)

@johnathan,

Re: darkened bridge, google CIC Arleigh Burke or any other modern warship and tell us what you see. Maybe CBS should darken their starship’s bridge a bit more, eh?

Alex (in the UK)
Saturday, May 20, 2017, 10:35 am (UTC -5)

“This video is not available.”

Hmm.

Kevin
Saturday, May 20, 2017, 12:19 pm (UTC -5)

May check it out, may not. I do find myself looking for excused to not watch the show. It may be time to let Star Trek go to rest within my younger self, regardless how good or bad the show is.

patriarchal landmine
Saturday, May 20, 2017, 12:49 pm (UTC -5)

not only are we getting a mary sue galbrush threepwood captain, we also get one that’s a commander?

welp, it could work. if neither of those characters are important. that would be a first. certainly more likely than either of them being presented as reasonably flawed and realistic as people.

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Saturday, May 20, 2017, 4:26 pm (UTC -5)

@ Dejinry
“I’m not.

We were only given two minutes of footage, but reading the above comments one might think that we’d seen an entire movie’s worth of garbage.”

But It isn’t just these “two minutes of footage”.

What about all the promotional material we had in the past few months? “Darker and grittier”? All the signs of trampling over continuity? The leaked photo of the unklingon Klingons (which the trailer confirmed as legit)?

Some people just don’t care about these things, which is perfectly fine.

But for those who DO care about these things (like me), the negative reaction is quite understandable. One certainly does NOT need to wait for the actual series to come out, in order to say these things. The odds of “Discovery” respecting continuity or being an optimistic thoughtful show are exactly zero.

And again, if this doesn’t bother you, that’s cool. The show may well turn out to be a decent sci fi series, just like ST2009 was a decent sci fi movie. But it sure won’t have much common with “Star Trek” as it was in its first 40 years, and for some of us this is a deal-breaker.

karatasiospa
Saturday, May 20, 2017, 4:36 pm (UTC -5)

It seems that this show tries to do the same thing that the new movies tried to do. Ignore the fans and go for a new audience.But a tv show is not a movie. It needs it’s audience to come back every week and in this case pay for it. A generic new audience is not likely to do it, only the fans would do it.
Anyway i hope i’ll be proven wrong and Discovery will be a good star trek show.

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Saturday, May 20, 2017, 6:17 pm (UTC -5)

@ Karatsiospa
“It seems that this show tries to do the same thing that the new movies tried to do. Ignore the fans and go for a new audience.”

Well… yes and no.

They are obviously following the same trend of the new movies, but they don’t need to look for a new audience. The same audience that loved the films will probably love Discovery as well.

Of-course, you’re 100% right that this generic audience is probably not going to subscribe for a show that hides beyond a paywall. Why subscribe, when they can get their generic sci fi fix for free in a dozen other places?

RandomThoughts
Sunday, May 21, 2017, 2:16 am (UTC -5)

Heya Jammer

Any way to put this on the Comment Stream? That is where I keep up with stuff, and will probably not visit this every day to see if someone commented on it.

I don’t know if it’s possible, but just a thought…

Thanks for your great site… RT

Patrick D
Sunday, May 21, 2017, 10:24 am (UTC -5)

I have no optimism for this new Trek series. It comes off as a cynical cash-grab. And no f’ing way does it fit the continuity of the “Prime” universe. (Shouldn’t the Klingons look like normal people with goatees?) The ship is poorly designed, and more to the point, the show is going the “dark and edgy” route. In fact, there’s nothing in this trailer about the wonderment of going out into space and facing the unknown. It’s all about death and destruction–something fanboys eat up.

Check out this series launch trailer as a counter-point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtmsI07AMsE

Star Trek, for me, was life-saving escapism for me when I was younger…and now it’s gone. CBS and Paramount have concluded that Star Trek has to be like to be the same style, the same subject matter, and fit in the same mold and ultimately slopped out on the same trays for consumers who give it as much thought as the one-time used of a paper towel.

*sigh* At least I’ve got TOS and TNG on HD on Blu ray…

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sunday, May 21, 2017, 10:01 pm (UTC -5)

By the way, did anyone here notice that the viewscreen of the Shenzou is actually a window?

I just noticed that now. Hmmm, I wonder where they got they idea for that…

Ano

Johnathan
Sunday, May 21, 2017, 10:32 pm (UTC -5)

I’m not sure that my hopes for Discovery would be any better had it taken an optimistic tone rather than “darker and grittier”.

Remember Enterprise and its opening theme music? “Faith of the heart…”

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sunday, May 21, 2017, 10:48 pm (UTC -5)

I kinda liked “Faith of the heart” XD

Seriously. I thought it was very fitting for the theme of space exploration.

(cue in gasps of horror from everyone, who vow never to speak with that weirdo Omicron ever again)

Peremensoe
Sunday, May 21, 2017, 11:54 pm (UTC -5)

It looks fine. Not much to go on here, apart from the look, but somehow I get a better vibe than from the new movies.

I look forward to watching it, and hope everybody gives it a fair chance.

Eric
Monday, May 22, 2017, 2:32 am (UTC -5)

Oh good, ST predictably resumes its continuing mission to seek out new and exciting politically correct captains to helm it’s show. Finally they can claim the first black woman captain of a ST tv show! I’m so relieved! Perhaps the next captain can be a gay Muslim! That will really show how forward thinking they are!

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Monday, May 22, 2017, 4:22 am (UTC -5)

What’s wrong with a black woman captain? And how did a bigot like you end up on a Trek site like this?

The diversity of the crew is the one thing that Discovery did right. That’s the one core idea they kept from all the previous iterations of Trek.

And the funny thing is, she isn’t even the captain of Discovery. The captain of the eponymous ship is a guy named Lorca who is portrayed by Jason Isaac. I’m sure you’ll be relieved to know that Isaac is white on the *right* side, just like all civilized men.

(Also, a gay Muslim captain would be a wonderful idea. The fact that this combination irritates so many people pretty much sums up everything that is wrong in our current society.)

Latex Zebra
Monday, May 22, 2017, 4:46 am (UTC -5)

I am a little underwhelmed… Also seems to be following the reboot style of uniforms etc.
Whilst I’m not expecting a dial back to the Trek look of Kirk… Keeping it in the same ball park wouldn’t have been too hard would it?

karatasiospa
Monday, May 22, 2017, 5:21 am (UTC -5)

whera are the other comments? i can only see the last two.

Yanks
Monday, May 22, 2017, 6:13 am (UTC -5)

Wow OmicronThetaDeltaPhi, who were you talking with? 🙂

I for one loved everything about the trailer aside from the lens flares. Hopefully they won’t go the the JJ level in the series.

15 episode now!!

Love the look, love the casting… we get to see the Klingon sarcophagus ship!!

I am officially reenergized!!

I get the feeling that she will be the Captain of the Discovery (lead military) but Issacs will be “in-charge” as a civilian?

We’ll see.

TS
Monday, May 22, 2017, 7:24 am (UTC -5)

I thought this show wasn’t going to take place in the JJ-verse, but everything about this trailer (technology, weird Klingons, friggen lens flares) says otherwise…?

Mixed feelings for sure. Most fans (including myself) seem to really want a post-Nemesis show and CBS is all like “Nah, we’d rather keep milking the TOS nostalgia train without actually committing to doing that era right.”

While I’m happy to have a new Trek show in general, this early footage is not what I expected.

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Monday, May 22, 2017, 10:40 am (UTC -5)

@Yanks

“Wow OmicronThetaDeltaPhi, who were you talking with?”

Is that a serious question? Surely you can get the gist of the comment I replied to, from my response.

karatasiospa
Monday, May 22, 2017, 1:35 pm (UTC -5)

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
for some reason the comments previous to yours have dissapeared

NCC-1701-Z
Monday, May 22, 2017, 5:23 pm (UTC -5)

???

What the heck happened to all the earlier comments (including my original comment)? Jammer, we have a problem…

R.
Monday, May 22, 2017, 9:18 pm (UTC -5)

Hmm, I think this comments thread may have been hit with red matter…

Jammer
Monday, May 22, 2017, 10:30 pm (UTC -5)

Looks like there’s a comment limit of 50 that is imposed by the software configuration, and after that it starts a new page. I will need to look into it. The comments still exist. They just aren’t being shown.

Jammer
Monday, May 22, 2017, 10:40 pm (UTC -5)

Fixed.

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tuesday, May 23, 2017, 7:01 am (UTC -5)

@karatasiospa

“for some reason the comments previous to yours have disappeared”

Yeah, I know. Which is why my reply to Yanks was:

“Surely you can get the gist of the comment I replied to, from my response.”

I mean, that post of mine started with “what’s wrong with a black human captain?” You can kinda tell that I didn’t write that in response to a comment about warp propulsion…

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tuesday, May 23, 2017, 7:02 am (UTC -5)

Oops… I wrote “human” instead of “woman”.

Funny, given the circumstances.

Yanks
Tuesday, May 23, 2017, 11:23 am (UTC -5)

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Monday, May 22, 2017, 10:40 am (UTC -5)
@Yanks

“Wow OmicronThetaDeltaPhi, who were you talking with?”

Is that a serious question? Surely you can get the gist of the comment I replied to, from my response.

karatasiospa
Monday, May 22, 2017, 1:35 pm (UTC -5)
@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
for some reason the comments previous to yours have dissapeared

==============================================================

Yup… why I asked the question.

When I posted the question, there was only 2 other post on this thread.

Brandon
Tuesday, May 23, 2017, 12:39 pm (UTC -5)

I don’t think Eric was being bigoted; I think he was just expressing how minority casting has become rote and obligatory in Trek, rather than a boldness.

Not a point worth making, in my opinion.

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tuesday, May 23, 2017, 2:07 pm (UTC -5)

If it is so “rote”, why even mention it? Why complain about it?

It’s not like the creators of the show yelled “Look how bold we are! We have black woman lead!!!!!!” in our faces (like they did with their gay dude, a fact that annoys me to no end). So yes, if a person has such a reaction to the mere appearance of a black woman officer in a trailer, then he has a problem.

As for a diverse crew “not being bold”, I agree. It isn’t bold, but given what we know about the Star Trek Universe, a diverse crew *is* necessary.

Paul M.
Wednesday, May 24, 2017, 5:32 am (UTC -5)

As non-American, may I just say that from what I can see on them interwebz, you guys have gone totally batshit insane with SJW and alt-right hijacking every f*cking single conversation in the known universe and folding space around you like pro melange chewers straight outta Herbert in the process.

Jesus, vast swathes of the net have become downright unreadable due to bigots using every single venue as their grandstanding platforms.

E2
Wednesday, May 24, 2017, 11:40 am (UTC -5)

Paul M., you are so right.

I’m a bit annoyed with CBS, the fan film guidelines, and the ‘All Access’ thing. I’m not a fan of the JJ Trek stuff. I was fully prepared to abandon “Discovery” based on those issues alone. I’d be quite happy skipping it and watching “The Expanse” instead.

However, after seeing the inane alt-right take on the show, and reading how suddenly these white men (like me) feel ‘excluded’ from Star Trek because only 50% of the announced cast are white men… (And some of them are in alien make-up! Or minor roles! Or playing a gay character!) I think I shall sign up for CBS’s pay service when “Discovery” airs even if I choose not to watch it!

MRA anger aside, the show will live or die on whether or not they can tell engaging stories well, and while I remain concerned, the jury is still out on that for now.

leggomybigo
Friday, May 26, 2017, 11:53 am (UTC -5)

It is incredibly disappointing to see that the alt-right has already taken to the Internet to write bigoted garbage about this show. Why don’t they get get some money and a filmmaker to finance their own white-male-only science fiction show? How difficult can that be? It’s not like the writers for such a show would actually have to be paid to.. You know, think.

Dr. Trout
Sunday, May 28, 2017, 12:19 am (UTC -5)

I was thinking of getting CBS streaming just for Star Trek. My mind has been changed. Another prequel with altered Klingons? Couldn’t we just have a Next-Next generation and do great stories (and not worry about JJ’s universe). TNG left a lot of fertile ground for followup stories.

Just wow……how disappointing.

Q
Sunday, May 28, 2017, 4:08 am (UTC -5)

And now we have new variable in that equation – fandom debate (not a shitstorm.. so far) ST: Discovery vs. The Orville. Menosky on one side, Braga on another, etc.

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sunday, May 28, 2017, 7:02 am (UTC -5)

@E2

“After seeing the inane alt-right take on the show, and reading how suddenly these white men (like me) feel ‘excluded’ from Star Trek because only 50% of the announced cast are white men… (And some of them are in alien make-up! Or minor roles! Or playing a gay character!) I think I shall sign up for CBS’s pay service when “Discovery” airs even if I choose not to watch it!”

Really? You’re actually going to support a show you don’t like from a company who treats its fans like dirt, just because a group of bigots complain about the diverse cast?

I’m all for diversity, but we don’t need a bunch of medicore TV shows that get a green light just because their cast is diverse. This is a terrible idea, not only due to the obvious reasons (bad TV is bad) but also because it sends a dangerous political message.

One of the most popular claims of these bigots, is that minority casting has become more important than actually making good TV. Surely you don’t want to prove them right?

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sunday, May 28, 2017, 7:12 am (UTC -5)

@Q

“And now we have new variable in that equation – fandom debate (not a shitstorm.. so far) ST: Discovery vs. The Orville. Menosky on one side, Braga on another, etc.”

Holy sh*t! This is the first time I’ve ever heard of “The Orville”.

I googled it and found a trailer. That thing looks absolutely amazing…

And the really wonderful news? The simple fact that it is actually LEGAL to produce such a thing. The visual feel is so similar to the (pre-Abrams) Star Trek, it gives me goosebumps. I know it ‘s a comedy, but still… wonderful. Just, wonderful.

I’m going to watch the heck out of this series…

Bufo
Sunday, May 28, 2017, 9:24 am (UTC -5)

It must be said that the trailer for Orville looks way better than the Discovery trailer! Now, whether the comedy factor can be sustained over a series remains to be seen.

Q
Sunday, May 28, 2017, 9:52 pm (UTC -5)
Lupe
Monday, May 29, 2017, 8:18 pm (UTC -5)

As of 30th May (Australian time) I get a ‘video unavailable’ message. Is this universal, or just that Australia has copyright laws that can block overseas videos being displayed!

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tuesday, May 30, 2017, 5:38 am (UTC -5)

I think the video has geoblocking. It can’t be viewed from anywhere outside the US.

Mind boggling, given how they’ve heavily targeted the international market until now.

E2
Tuesday, May 30, 2017, 10:11 am (UTC -5)

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi

“Really? You’re actually going to support a show you don’t like from a company who treats its fans like dirt, just because a group of bigots complain about the diverse cast?”

I think I understand your point; let me respond with a story Nichelle Nichols tells (that probably everyone who reads this site has already heard!)

Back when they were still filming TOS, she was invited to attend a NAACP dinner, and they sat her next to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He asked her about the show, and she told him she was leaving it. She was unhappy with the production, her character had very little to do. Frequently, she’d reherase, sit there all week, and when it came time to deliver her only line in the episode, they’d chose to cut it to save time. She was done, she wanted to try to find a job where she’d be able to really do something. Dr. King asked her to reconsider. He told her that just sitting there, on the bridge of the Enterprise every week, she was doing more for their cause than his marches! That convinced her to stay.

I have a wife and a daughter, neither of which are white. Seeing people that look like them onscreen in an optimistic future- that still matters. That still has the power to affect how they see themselves, and how others in our society see them.

So yes, you’re darn right I’ll pay to encourage that, even if CBS has done nasty things to the fan films, and even if the Klingons look like they’ve been JJ’d.

(I also plan to watch the heck out of Orville as well, Since I love ‘Galaxy Quest’ and usually like McFarlane’s stuff…)

Brandon
Tuesday, May 30, 2017, 4:50 pm (UTC -5)

Orville sounds like one of those shows where all the good ideas are used up in the pilot.

I mean, Galaxy Quest was epic, but a sequel would have sucked.

Mitch
Wednesday, May 31, 2017, 6:14 pm (UTC -5)

The latest rumor I’ve heard is, as of now, Star Trek Discovery will take place in NEITHER the Prime universe, or the JJ-Abrams (Kelvin) movie universe. It will be another reboot.

Worse, in order to attract JJ movie fans, the look of the new series will borrow heavily from his work (i.e. lens flares, look of ship’s interiors and consoles, etc). It also looks to be borrowing from Star Wars, to attract that crowd as well. I also heard all the Trek writers and producers who wanted to preserve Trek canon are out, meaning this reboot will be only loosely based on any Star Trek we’ve ever seen. If at all.

After watching the trailer, I can’t say this has *any* appeal to me. I didn’t like the three reboot films, and this seems to stray even further in terms of story, canon and overall Trek lore. Dare I say it, this looks far worse than Enterprise or Voyager. I’ve watched every TV episode of Trek and every film. This is actually the first time I would consider skipping over a television series with the “Trek” name. Based on the trailer, and these rumors, if true, I rather see the whole Discovery project canceled.

Orville by contrast LOOKS like something I would enjoy watching. I would prefer a serious tone sci-fi series along the lines of TNG and DS9, but I’ll take this over Discovery! And I’m thinking back, one of my favorite TV shows of all times did a well balanced mix of sci-fi and comedy. Anyone remember the British series, Red Dwarf? (the original run: 1988-1999).

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wednesday, May 31, 2017, 8:38 pm (UTC -5)

Mitch,

The official position of CBS is that “Discovery” is set in the Prime Timeline.

Obviously, the trailer (as well as other tidbits we’ve heard before) pretty much contradicts this claim. They can say whatever they want, but there’s no doubt that “Discovery” *is* a reboot of the TOS era.

My guess is that CBS thinks that 1960’s Trek is a burden for the franchise so they decided to make a new reference point for that era. And since they understand that admitting a reboot openly would be very bad for business, they are trying to sneak it under our radar.

I would call this attempt at deception stupid… if not for the fact that many of the old fans are actually falling for it. CBS may be ruining the franchise, but apparently they understand their target audience better than I thought…

As for “The Orville”:

It obviously can’t replace Star Trek. If anybody tried to pass Orville as a Star Trek spinoff, I wouldn’t like that at all.

But as a standalone sci fi comedy (that obviously winks at Star Trek) it looks wonderfully inviting. Bring in the anti-banana ray! I’m ready for you 🙂

Mitch
Thursday, June 1, 2017, 12:32 am (UTC -5)

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi – Well, assuming it is released, we should know by the first episode whether it fits within the Star Trek universe or not. And for the record, the JJ-Abrams movies certainly do not. In fact they’ve strayed so far from “Trek”, it almost makes Voyager and Enterprise seem like respectable viewing.

When I first heard of Discovery, I was hoping for not only a return back to the Prime universe, but with writing and set visuals we only last experienced in the DS9 era. Not something that sinks even deeper into the abyss than the 2009-16 reboot movies. Ugh.

I’m also tried of all these prequels. Enterprise, JJ-movies and now Discovery? What is all this going *backwards* nonsense, why not go forward? Ironically just one of the many things (now absent) that Trek was once about.

I’ve about given up on new Trek, I think I’ll go re-watch TOS, TNG and DS9 (just picked up the complete TNG series on Bluray, planning to go season by season to see if it still stands up today!).

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thursday, June 1, 2017, 4:30 am (UTC -5)

The most absurd thing here is that it isn’t even a “prequel”.

Prequels are meant to show how things became the way the did. If they’re changing everything so much that it screams “parallel timeline”, then they aren’t doing a prequel.

At least the Abrams films openly admitted they are set in a parallel timeline… Yet they still insisted on calling ST2009 “an origin story”. How can it be an origin story, if these are completely different versions of the familiar characters?

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thursday, June 1, 2017, 4:39 am (UTC -5)

Oh, and as for the question for whether old Trek still stands up today:

It does. Me and my wife just started a rewatch of all the Trek episodes and films (I-X) a few months ago. TOS holds surprisingly well and even the dreaded season 1 of TNG wasn’t as bad as I remembered it (It’s not exactly *good*, but it is surprisingly watchable).

Mitch
Thursday, June 1, 2017, 11:01 pm (UTC -5)

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi – How true. There is quite the difference between a “prequel” and what we have here, a “reboot”. Discovery obviously wants to disguise itself as a
“prequel”, but when you re-imagine the whole Star Trek universe from the ground up, it is anything but.

The characters, vision, premise and even the basic look and feel has changed so much from what came before, I personally do not consider this (or the 2009-2016 films) part of Trek canon. I did that with Aliens and Terminator 2, following those films, everything that came after didn’t happen in my mind (and I’m starting to do the same with Trek now).

Yep, I actually re-watched TNG season 1, plus the start of season 2 on Netflix last year (before they removed it from the Canadian side, grrr) and quite enjoyed it. TAS too, to my surprise! I’d really like to watch DS9 again though, nevermind just as Trek, it was some of the best TV I’ve ever watched!

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Friday, June 2, 2017, 4:06 am (UTC -5)

What’s wrong with the Discovery characters?

They’re all new people (with the exception of Sarek who has – like – one line which I think is actually in character) so they can be whatever the producers want them to be without any continuity problems.

It’s not like they’ve tried to show us a familiar character doing something completely ridiculous, like (say) Kirk driving a 1960’s car off a cliff to the sounds of the Beastie Boys (just a random example. Of-course this could never happen ;-))

Latex Zebra
Tuesday, June 6, 2017, 6:54 am (UTC -5)

Apparently the Klingon thing is to do with the Enterprise episodes and is just genetic abnormalities.

karatasiospa
Friday, June 9, 2017, 6:01 am (UTC -5)
grumpy_otter
Wednesday, June 14, 2017, 2:08 pm (UTC -5)

I think what all of us keep hoping for is a new Star Trek that will capture our hearts and minds the way old Trek did–thus our disappointment when new series or movies fail to meet our expectations. But I am willing to give Discovery a fair shot–especially if Michelle Yeoh is involved.

As far as the diversity issue is concerned, all you white boys can bite me. We’ve been watching white boys run things for far too long. It’s nice to have some women and people of color in charge.

Mitch
Friday, June 16, 2017, 9:53 pm (UTC -5)

Star Trek derailed, or just ceased to be (from my perspective at least), since the reboot films. This new TV series makes absolutely no attempt to bring it back on track, just stray even further away from what it once was.

Even as bad as Voyager, Enterprise and the last TNG film (Nemesis) were, at least they looked and felt like they were in the Star Trek universe. Don’t get me wrong, the writing was horrendous, but at least you felt there was potential to bring it back on track. And for what it’s worth, I can pick out a handful of respectable episodes that were well done and Trek worthy. Certainly only a tiny fraction, but there were a few (whereas I see nothing positive to extract from the recent films). So after the 2009, 2013 and 2016 films, and what I see of Discovery, I just feel Star Trek is dead.

Ironically the only ones wanting to keep it alive are not Paramount, but fans on the outside. ‘Orville’ and ‘Star Trek Continues’ may be the only way to still see anything approaching real Trek these days…

TS
Sunday, June 18, 2017, 5:46 am (UTC -5)

After seeing the trailer a few more times and having a couple discussions about it, I’ve warmed up more positively to it. Couple things to take away:

The ship in the trailer is not the Discovery, but Michelle Yeoh’s ship. So the Discovery won’t be the off-putting Phase 2 design? Happy about that.

The specific look of these Klingons is potentially deliberate and will tie into the storyline in some way. No guarantees though. I would’ve preferred TOS era Klingons if these are supposed to be actual Klingons. Guess we’ll see?

Apparently the studio is feeling good enough about this project to grant them more episodes for this season (up to 15) and Nicholas Meyer is apparently working on a separate Trek show for them. Kinda crazy.

Kurtzman’s recent comments stating that Fuller’s vision for this season is largely intact gave me some relief.

As always, the hate on the internet for this trailer seems really overblown. After taking everything in, I feel a bit more positive/hyped about the show in general.

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Monday, June 19, 2017, 12:55 pm (UTC -5)
Eric
Monday, June 19, 2017, 4:31 pm (UTC -5)

So, it will be released weekly on CBS All Access. That’s silly considering the success of the Netflix “release a whole season at once” model. Not that I would subscribe to All Access just for this anyway unless the reviews are stellar. I hope I’m wrong and that the series is good, but given that the powers that be haven’t been able to do anything imaginative with the recent movies, I am just not at all excited.

karatasiospa
Tuesday, June 20, 2017, 2:47 am (UTC -5)

But it will be split in two parts, first 7 episodes from september to november the other 8 on january 2018

http://io9.gizmodo.com/star-trek-discovery-begins-september-24-1796225126

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tuesday, June 20, 2017, 3:33 am (UTC -5)

@Eric
“So, it will be released weekly on CBS All Access. That’s silly considering the success of the Netflix ‘release a whole season at once’ model. ”

The entire concept of “CBS All Access” is silly to begin with. It looks like they’re trying to replicate the success of Hulu and Netflix without understanding how these services work (hint – they buy a *huge* wealth of content from many providers).

Data’s “prophecy” of TV going extinct by 2040 sounds more and more realistic every day…

Mitch
Tuesday, June 20, 2017, 4:30 pm (UTC -5)

I can’t even get past the publicity photo (see Gizmodo.com link above). Their uniforms look like a cross between a Nascar driver’s suit, and the blue jumpsuits from Enterprise. And if this is before Kirk’s time, each ship is supposed to have a different insignia badge (the universally worn Starfleet badge didn’t come about until the movie era, right?). Maybe it bothers me because just underlines the fact this is a different universe/reality from regular Trek.

I’ll watch it and see, but we should get a sense of whether it passes or fails after an episode or two. Or rather has enough potential to continue watching (TNG and DS9 were pretty rough in their early seasons, but I could tell they would blossom into something great, and they did). I will say I don’t have much optimism after the 3 films and seeing the Discovery trailer. I’m going in with low expectations but hey, who knows…maybe I’ll be surprised.

Brandon
Tuesday, June 20, 2017, 4:34 pm (UTC -5)

Maybe I’m different from you, but I really couldn’t give a rip about uniforms and continuity and all that. I just want good ideas and characters.

Lo and behold, the series has come up with the SECOND interesting idea I’ve gleaned from it – Sonequa Martin-Green’s character is apparently a human who chose to be educated on Vulcan.

http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/20/star-trek-discovery-sonequa-martin-green-burnham/

There’s little more beyond the typical interview-speak about inner conflict and self-discovery, but hey, I’m intrigued as to why she’d choose to be educated on Vulcan.

Still not watching it after the pilot, though.

Mitch
Tuesday, June 20, 2017, 5:29 pm (UTC -5)

Brandon: Maybe I’m making a bit of a stretch here, but if they have little to no interest in acknowledging the look, feel and essence of the Trek universe, where will that leave stories, writing and the original vision of the show?

Hey, if they can pull off amazing stories and characters with great depth and development, plus fascinating sci-fi that has a point to tell, all the power to this series. I just don’t see that happening from the peek we’re getting here (and I’m afraid the films really set a bad precedent for future Trek). I’d be more than happy to be proven wrong though, but we’ll just have to wait and see….

So why don’t you want to watch it beyond the pilot?

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tuesday, June 20, 2017, 7:33 pm (UTC -5)

Probably because the All-Access thing…

As for:
“And if this is before Kirk’s time, each ship is supposed to have a different insignia badge (the universally worn Starfleet badge didn’t come about until the movie era, right?)”

There’s actually quite some wiggle room for interpertation on this one. What you said is the “offical” theory, but it was never really established on screen (what was established, is that starbase personell had a different patch)

So Discovery contradicting this won’t be a hard continuity error.

Besides, the problem with Discovery’s atmosphere isn’t any specific tidbit. It’s not like we’re continuity fanatics who are moaning about some switch being in the wrong position or a uniform of the wrong color. The problem is that they’ve changed EVERYTHING, including the general feel of the show. The trailer looks like it came from some dark dystopian film rather than Star Trek. And unlike some random and obscure continuity trivia, this fact bothers me a great deal.

Mitch
Wednesday, June 21, 2017, 3:46 am (UTC -5)

“The problem is that they’ve changed EVERYTHING, including the general feel of the show. The trailer looks like it came from some dark dystopian film rather than Star Trek. And unlike some random and obscure continuity trivia, this fact bothers me a great deal.”

Oh, I completely agree and couldn’t have said it better myself! Those are all my feelings too. This drifts even further away from Trek than the movies IMO. At this point though, I’m just nitpicking the trivia details because there’s just so much wrong with the whole thing, that it’s almost not worth pointing out. 🙂 It’s not even the tip of the iceberg what’s wrong with Discovery (from what we can see so far).

As for the insignia badge, didn’t the captain of the USS Constellation (TOS’s Doomsday Machine) have a very different looking badge? Or for that matter, the crew from any other federation starship in TOS.

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wednesday, June 21, 2017, 5:56 am (UTC -5)

Yeah, Captain Decker of the Constellation wore a different badge and so did Tracy of the USS Exeter.

On the other hand, the officers in Kirk’s court martial (in the episode of the same name) all wore the arrowhead badge on their dress uniform.

There’s also “a Word of God” from Roddenberry and the production staff of TOS that the arrowhead symbol was intended for use aboard all Starfleet starships, and that the few counterexamples we’ve seen were mistakes. Many of the TOS novels (yes, I know they aren’t canon) followed this same assumption as well.

Then, of-course, there are many other places were the arrowhead appears as a universal Starfleet symbol way before the NCC1701: It appears on the late 21st century probe “Friendship One” [VOY] and in countless episodes of Enterprise.

So the situation is far from clear. And since *not* having the arrowhead badge would have confused most people, I personally think that using it in “Discovery” was a valid choice.

Brandon
Wednesday, June 21, 2017, 11:02 am (UTC -5)

@Mitch

“So why don’t you want to watch it beyond the pilot?”

I don’t have the money.

Brandon
Wednesday, June 21, 2017, 2:53 pm (UTC -5)

http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/21/star-trek-discovery-jason-isaacs-captain-lorca/

Shot of Jason Isaacs. Another very positive thing about the show.

Dom
Wednesday, June 21, 2017, 4:38 pm (UTC -5)

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi, “The problem is that they’ve changed EVERYTHING, including the general feel of the show. The trailer looks like it came from some dark dystopian film rather than Star Trek. And unlike some random and obscure continuity trivia, this fact bothers me a great deal.”

Precisely this. Trek at its core was about optimism, adventure and exploration in the fun sense of the word, liberal humanism. At a time when people thought the nuclear superpowers would destroy the world, Trek said that there is a future and it is bright. That was conveyed not just through the storytelling but also the design choices (bright uniforms, well lit sets, etc). I think many people criticizing Trek nowadays for looking unrealistic, or being too slow, or having stale characters miss the point entirely. Trek was never about character drama or action scenes, it was about the human spirit.

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wednesday, June 21, 2017, 5:48 pm (UTC -5)

@Dom
“I think many people criticizing Trek nowadays for looking unrealistic, or being too slow, or having stale characters miss the point entirely. Trek was never about character drama or action scenes, it was about the human spirit.”

Not only they “miss the point” but they are also dead wrong.

Classic Trek has stale characters? What kind of crazy person would call Leonard Nimoy’s Spock “stale”? Or McCoy? Picard? Data? Worf? Did these guys even watch the same shows we did?

As for being unrealistic: At least classic Trek made *some* attempt to have plot logic and consistency and some grounding in real science. They didn’t always succeed, but they tried.

That’s unlike NuTrek, where people just beam over from planet to planet at ludicrous speed, Kirk drives ’60s automobiles off cliffs to the sound of the Beasty Boys, and Khaaaaaaaan is some comic book superman who can leap buildings in a single bound (and has magic blood which can revive the dead).

Compare to THAT, even TOS would be considered the pillar of realism and hard sci fi.

(just remembered how the Horta eggs from “Devil in the Dark” had the exact brownish color associated with certain silicon compounds in the real world. God, I love that show)

karatasiospa
Thursday, June 22, 2017, 4:01 am (UTC -5)

I agree with Brandon. It’s on the stories and ideas that Discovery will be judged

James
Thursday, June 22, 2017, 8:38 am (UTC -5)

I just found out that Fuller is no longer in charge of the show! Is this true? Does this explain why the trailer looks so generic and similar to the feel of the movies? Wasn’t Kurtzmann involved in those too?

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thursday, June 22, 2017, 2:19 pm (UTC -5)

Yeah, Fuller leaving the show is very old news.

Mitch
Friday, June 23, 2017, 3:39 am (UTC -5)

@Brandon
“I don’t have the money.”

Neither do I, but luckily it’s airing on the CTV network up here in Canada, which is a free over-the-air channel (much like CBS, NBC, ABC or FOX in the States). In otherwords, fully expect it to be available freely in downloadable form.

@Omicron

“There’s also “a Word of God” from Roddenberry and the production staff of TOS that the arrowhead symbol was intended for use aboard all Starfleet starships, and that the few counterexamples we’ve seen were mistakes. ”

Interesting about the arrow head Starfleet logo. I had no idea the different badges were simply production errors! I always though it was unique to the Enterprise NCC-1701 crew, and because of their special and unique merits, it was later adopted by Starfleet in the future. OK — scratch that particular nitpick about Discovery!

@Dom

“Precisely this. Trek at its core was about optimism, adventure and exploration in the fun sense of the word, liberal humanism. At a time when people thought the nuclear superpowers would destroy the world, Trek said that there is a future and it is bright. ”

Well said! And that precisely explains the part of my nitpick about the look and feel of this new show.

Ironically, the world today seems to be once again at the same crossroad it was with regards to the nuclear superpowers destroying the world. And so much more really (climate change/crash, daily terror attacks, extinction of animal species , record breaking temperatures, droughts, famine, floods, etc). If ever you wanted Trek to paint a bright future and give hope, now would be it! Maybe the show reflects how little optimize there is in 2017 for our future?

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Friday, June 23, 2017, 6:06 am (UTC -5)

Well, as yous said yourself, it’s not like the people of the 1960’s were exactly optimistic about the future either…

If you look at other shows of the ’60s, you’ll see that TOS was a pretty unique thing. It wasn’t a wild success when it aired, either.

The real difference is that Roddenberry made TOS to make a specific impact on the world. He didn’t cater to the public opinion of his time. Sacrificing the vision for ratings was simply not an option for him.

Today, CBS (and Paramount too) treat Star Trek as just another cash cow. They don’t care about “making a difference”. They care about $$$. So they make generic sci fi in the hope of appealing to the mainstream audience.

(and funnily enough – it turned out to be a bad move financially. ST2009 and STiD were far from the blockbuster successes they were meant to be. Beyond barely broke even. THIS is what happens, when TPTB don’t know what their brand is all about)

Dom
Friday, June 23, 2017, 5:49 pm (UTC -5)

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi, I mostly agree, but with one nitpick. Roddenberry did make some compromises on TOS. After rejecting “The Cage,” CBS wanted to inject more action and sex appeal into the show. Hence, Kirk gets into a shirtless brawl with someone or seduces some alien chick every other show. But your point is well taken. Roddenberry had a vision. To him and the people working on it, Star Trek was about more than just a convenient way to make money. There was a creative vision for what the show was about.

I do think it’s surprising how given the cynicism and polarization in our culture today our pop culture hasn’t really done much to appeal to our better angels. It seems like the trend is to lean into the cynicism. Even recent superhero movies like Captain America: Civil War and Batman vs. Superman seem to suggest that heroes aren’t always admirable. Wonder Woman was a pretty refreshing contrast because Diana was both a superhero and a decent person.

Eric
Friday, June 23, 2017, 5:51 pm (UTC -5)

Is this supposed to be the flagship show for CBS All Access the way Voyager was for UPN? One would really think the execs would learn.

I too am tempted to skip this. Corporate-mandated lowest common denominator safeness has pretty much destroyed the franchise. Of course, that really began when Berman fired Ron Jones way back in 1991.

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Saturday, June 24, 2017, 2:56 pm (UTC -5)

@Dom

“After rejecting ‘The Cage’ CBS wanted to inject more action and sex appeal into the show.”

Surely you mean “NBC” rather than “CBS”?

At any rate this doesn’t contradict what I’ve said. I was talking about Roddenberry himself rather than the network.

And there’s a difference between making concessions to specific demands by the people you are directly working with, and changing things to conform to the general public opinion. The Great Bird sometimes did the former, but he never *never* did the latter.

Mr Fixit
Wednesday, June 28, 2017, 3:11 pm (UTC -5)

Frakes is apparently directing an episode of Discovery.

NCC-1701-Z
Wednesday, June 28, 2017, 4:22 pm (UTC -5)

arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2017/06/new-star-trek-series-will-abandon-gene-roddenberrys-cardinal-rule/

Basically, they’re getting rid of one of Gene’s big rules that main characters “were not allowed to mistreat each other or have conflicts that weren’t quickly resolved”.

I kind of see why they’re doing that, but I just have a gut feeling that they’re ripping the heart out of Star Trek with this decision. The main characters are *supposed* to be people we want to emulate. They’re *supposed* to represent the best of humanity. Like other comments stated above, Gene Roddenberry wanted to make something that would stand the test of time, not something that would make $$$ in the moment and nothing else. Sometimes he succeeded, sometimes he failed, but the point is, he tried.

If you want BSG-style darkness, watch BSG. Don’t drag it into Trek where it doesn’t belong. (speaking as someone who enjoyed BSG) I guess this move will open up story possibilities, but I personally want main characters who can be good role models and I’m fed up with this “anti-hero” trend, but that’s just my opinion and if others disagree, that’s fine.

Thoughts? Agree, disagree, punch your computer screen (as Jammer once put it)?

Submit a comment



Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post

◄ Blog Home Page