EXCLUSIVE: Star Trek: Discovery Producers on Ship’s Design, Show’s Themes

Trekmovie.com yesterday attended a press event immediately following the announcement of Star Trek: Discovery at San Diego Comic Con that featured Discovery executive producers Bryan Fuller, Heather Kadin, Rod Roddenberry, and Trevor Roth as well as Star Trek stars William Shatner, Scott Bakula, Michael Dorn, Brent Spiner, and Jeri Ryan. Trekmovie.com also conducted exclusive interviews with Kadin, Roddenberry, Roth, and Dorn.

The Discovery’s Design

During the press conference, Fuller responded to a question from Access Hollywood’s Scott Mantz regarding how much influence an early conceptual design for Star Trek: The Motion Picture of the Enterprise had influenced the U.S.S. Discovery by stating “[it was] to a point where we legally can’t comment on it until we figure out some things.” When Trekmovie.com asked Kadin if the teaser for Star Trek: Discovery featured the final design of the ship, music, and logo, she laughed and said “NO! I was surprised Bryan didn’t say that, actually. I mean, we had three weeks to throw that together. We wanted to show fans…we’re super-excited by the score that this amazing composer, Fil Eisler, threw together as an audition and he did an incredible job. The concepts of the ship are totally what we’re going for and they’ll be honed up until, I think, the day we deliver.”

The Importance of Continuing to Push Boundaries

The Hall H panel on Star Trek’s 50th Anniversary and the press conference very much focused on the franchise’s role in pushing boundaries and promoting a better future, which is something that is clearly on Discovery showrunner Fuller’s mind. He said, “The state of this country right now terrifies me and saddens me and I feel like we need something like Star Trek to remind us that, collectively as a human race we’re going to get our shit together, and we’re going to build a better future, and we have to start working much harder on that today.”

Kadin confirmed to Trekmovie.com that Discovery would feature female, minority, and LGBTQ characters as she felt modern television did not accurately represent those groups in television shows featuring predominantly-caucasian casts. On the subject of LGBTQ characters specifically, Kadin commented that “is something that’s very important to Bryan [Fuller], and very important to all of us to portray.”

During a press conference, Kadin told TrekMovie that she feels a strong responsibility to make sure that women are represented both on and off the screen during the production of Discovery:

TrekMovie’s Kayla Iacovino caught up with the stars on the red carpet. You can find video and transcripts of our exclusive red carpet interviews below:

Star Trek: Discovery Executive Producer Heather Kadin

Trekmovie.com: I would like to hear more about what your role, specifically, is in making of the new show.

Heather Kadin: Sure. I’m a non-writing producer, so I run Alex Kurtzman’s television production company called Secret Hideout and we do everything from hire the writers, bring on Bryan Fuller, help pick out the director, interface with the studio, sit on set…I mean, we’re involved in every single process. So we’re more the steerers of the creative…I mean, I’m not a writer so I’m more responding to the creative and helping to steer it and conceptualize.

TM: All of the news that has been coming out so far about all the people who have been brought on board have been really well received so well done on that front.

Kadin: Thank you. That’s been a really important goal for us.

TM: I think it makes the fanbase optimistic about the new show.

Kadin: Totally…and hiring Bryan was the key. It had to be someone who was a fan first, so we couldn’t be happier. He’s amazing.

TM: Star Trek hasn’t been on television for over a decade and what was talked a lot about in the junket and in Hall H is the effect Star Trek has on people, and breaking boundaries, and pushing social boundaries. How in 2017 do you think Star Trek: Discovery can succeed in carrying on Star Trek’s vision?

Kadin: I think, sadly, still if you look at most television today, it’s pretty caucasian, and I’m fortunate enough to produce a show called Sleepy Hollow and in our first season there were more African-Americans in our cast than there were caucasians, and a lot of people talked about that. I think, at the time, it was called groundbreaking, which is sort of sad because it really reflected our country and so, on one hand, I think Gene Roddenberry’s original vision reflected what the world looked like more than what a lot of television does today. So hopefully our show can remind people that it should be that way and, hopefully in the future, we can all be together.

TM: Can we be expecting any LGBTQ characters on the show potentially?

Kadin: Obviously that’s important to Bryan, so that’s very important to all of us to portray.

TM: For the promo materials that we’ve been seeing, as the new trailer was released today, is that stuff the final versions?

Kadin: NO! *laughs* I was surprised Bryan didn’t say that, actually. I mean, we had three weeks to throw that together. We wanted to show fans…we’re super-excited by the score that this amazing composer, Fil Eisler, threw together as an audition and he did an incredible job. The concepts of the ship are totally what we’re going for and they’ll be honed up until, I think, the day we deliver.

Star Trek: Discovery Executive Producers Rod Roddenberry and Trevor Roth

TM: So Star Trek: Discovery, which has just been newly announced. You’re both producers on the show. What is your measure of success for the show? Let’s say…after the first season is over, it will be a success if…?

Rod Roddenberry: Just because this is how I’ve lived my life, it’ll be someone coming up to any one of us and saying “that was awesome.” I never looked at it that way, but I’m now inspired to do something different about it, you know? Someone who’s just inspired to live a better life.

Trevor Roth: Yeah and I think that’s a fair point and I think the idea of being able to somehow influence, transform, or change any given person…if not, hopefully, a lot of people. To make them think, to make them act…that’s the key to Star Trek.

Roddenberry: If they’re just entertained, I don’t think we’ve done our job.

TM: Since you two are representing Gene Roddenberry, do you feel a responsibility to make sure his vision is properly represented in the new show?

Roth: Yeah, no question. I think that doing our best to think about, okay, what’s allowable, and what continues what Gene created, and when also we have to say “it’s a different time…it’s a new evolution…it’s a new incarnation.” Things have to change as well, and progress. I think it’s difficult to figure out exactly where that leads, but we’re doing our best and we’re really excited about where we’re going.

TM: Star Trek hasn’t been on television for over a decade and it’s all about, as we heard from the panel, pushing boundaries, and inspiring people. How, in 2017, do you continue to push those boundaries?

Roddenberry: I think, in many ways, the first one is the way it’s being put out there, through CBS All Access, is one way. I think they’re really going to push a lot of boundaries with characters and with stories. Bryan knows Star Trek, and he’s an incredibly smart guy so he gets it, and he’s going to do it justice. I have no doubts.

Roth: I think that you push boundaries with Star Trek by continuing the tradition of Star Trek, which is to deal with circumstances or issues that really explore the human experience.

TM: What would you say is the mission of the U.S.S. Discovery?

Roth: Is it too obvious to say, to discover?
Roddenberry: Sure, and I’d say not just discovering aliens and new planets necessarily, but discovering things about ourselves. Star Trek has always been about that, so I think you’ll get a lot of that in the new show.

Star Trek Star Michael Dorn

TM: Talking about the new show and how it is really going to carry on the Star Trek legacy, yourself and the rest of the cast and crew talked about in the junket how Star Trek is all about inspiring people and pushing boundaries. As Star Trek hasn’t been on television for over a decade now, what, in 2017, new boundaries should we be pushing in the new show?

Michael Dorn: I think they had it correct. We’re at a place in our society where there was a lot of hope back in the 60s and 70s about where we would be in the 2000s, and I think we haven’t lived up to that hope. I think that that is, from what I hear…this is the first I’ve really heard from the producers about what they want to do…I think that’s very important. Science Fiction in the 60s always pushed boundaries because it was science-fiction, and it wasn’t mainstream so it was kind of like relegated to, yeah, you know, b-movies, but The Outer Limits and The Twilight Zone really, really tackled some major issues and I think that’s what the original Star Trek did, and that’s what these guys are going to do because they really have a passion for it, and I think it’s a good idea because if it’s not going to come from science-fiction, then it’s not going to come from anything else. I think, hopefully, they’re going to be allowed to push those boundaries as much as you can and, you know…personally, I think the boundaries need to be pushed always. I think that we think of New York and LA as America, but that’s not America. America is the center of the country and it seems that they need their boundaries pushed.

TM: I always say that Trek seems to work best when the network are biting their fingers over what the producers want to do…

Dorn: Oh my god, yes. Like, you know, “are you sure you want to do that?!” And the thing is, they [the networks] have to realize that the world is not going to get sucked into a black hole if you see a black and a white woman kissing. You know, I’m sorry but…I went to school in San Francisco from 1973 to 1976 and people were gay and it was no big deal. And people now go, “did you see that interracial kiss?” “Did you see that two women were kissing?” And I’m going, “Are you kidding me? That’s not weird.” And here we are in 2016 and people are freaked.

TM: Hopefully we can change that.

Dorn: I think so, and if Star Trek can’t change it…then I’m moving to Australia, I don’t know…

Sort by:   newest | oldest

Very encouraging overall. Trek is not Trek unless it’s saying something positive about the world. Also glad to hear this trailer is a thrown together mock-up because it’s so poorly executed. I’d actually rather see nothing until they’ve got something better, than to be confronted with a cartoon CG version of what I hope will be an important show.

But these days, don’t show something at Comic Con and the internet starts freaking out and speculates that there’s trouble.

Obviously, their CGI isn’t going to look like this. And it was a fun nod to that famous, unwieldy McQuarrie design, down to the asteroid starbase.

Is it positive though? I’m not sure. Star Trek used to be about universal human values. This sounds more like leftist values. And not leftist in a good way (as in “From each according to his ability to each according to his need” and “Kraft durch Freude”), but leftist in a twisted, destructive way (as in unisex bathrooms, lowest common denominator, Barnevernet, everybody-gets-a-medal, 72 different genders, safe spaces, or saying “parent 1” and “parent 2” instead of “mother” and “father”).

As I see it, the world needs less of “safe space” and more or “Kraft durch Freude”. Less dabbling in marginal, largely subjective nonsense like ethnicities, genders and LGBBQWTF, more actual cooperation, progress and embetterment of the humankind as a whole.

Again, Star Trek was about showing all of humanity. Is showing a gay character or a black character leftist?

I’ve had some sad conversations here over the years – there was a complaint that the court challenge of prop 8 was an assault on democracy (the majority shpuld be able to decide on the roghts of a majority, was the argument). Another, very well-meaning comment on how awesone it must be to be gay because you don’t have to worry about finding a person to spend your life with or raise a family (again, well-meaning).

At the end of the day we’re all people. And, to me, Star Trek has always been about trasting rach other with respect. Is that leftist?

Jack, I think I understand where Paul is going and I have to agree with him there. It has absolutely nothing to do with being gay or black as a mean to distinguish between left or right. The way I see it, no one should care less about anyone being gay, black or whatever. And that’s just it. Those things are pretty normal, by the way and I’m worried that they’ll be something of a central theme in the series as opposed to being treated as something as normal as having a coffee in the morning. I mean, we tackled those issues on Trek before, right from the start when those issues were a huge, groundbreaking discussion. Treating them as ‘just another day in the office,’ IMHO would, nowadays, have a much higher effect on the audience than having them depicted in a shocking manner. It’s not like we don’t see that kind of thing on regular TV anyways, on several mainstream shows. Trek has to go further than that. There are a number of current, more pressing and important issues than racial or gender trouble, something which, IMHO is more fuelled by the media than anything else. Being an election year in the US in which the media is playing the race/gender/homossexuality card more than often than not, I can understand the feeling of expressing something about it, but believe me, I do sincerely think it’ll blow over once the elections are through. As a non-american who doesn’t live… Read more »

So she is Rick Berman this time out. Damage control, trains running on time.

I think an even better analogy would be Bob Justman.

Did you ever meet Bob Justman? We can only hope you’re right!

I think she’s probably closer to Jeri Taylor, who used to full-produce shows before TREK,where she’d be involved in production as well as writing.

Not a fan of TaylorTrek AT ALL.

Yes, she must be like Jeri Taylor, ’cause vagina.

SMH

Jeri Taylor was a writer. This woman is not.

As I indicated, Taylor’s pre-TREK producing was as a full producer, involved with the shooting as well as the writing. Berman was mostly a non-creative (really?) producer, though he got his hands messy when he did get into that end, to very little gain imo.

Maybe that means you want to include Lana Wachowski in there too if you’re being that vague?

So because she’s a woman, she’s automatically like Jeri Taylor?

:::headshake:::

No wonder your name is kmart.

Read the CONTENT of my posts, moron. There are different jobs some producers do, and some do all of them. Doesn’t matter what sex they are except when they’re dealing with jerks, same as rest of the world.

Note I didn’t include DC Fontana in my reply, because she was strictly a writing producer so far as I know on TAS.

I am glad they clarified the situation with regards to the design. Personally I love its aggressive/Klingon-esque/1970s sci-fi art aesthetic.
I think too many fans have been too quick to dismiss the look without first understanding the context. Granted, I don’t understand the context yet myself ( we all will when the series comes out ), but I actually like the TMP/ 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY sensibilty of the ship – the clue’s in the name ‘The Discovery’.

Yes, but all the more reason not to rush that thing out. CBS should have never allowed it, because it jeopardizes not only a new show, but the very network they’re counting on it supporting!

I’m obviously missing something, because the ship looked fine for me. Okay, if I am going to be an EXTREME nitpicker, some things looked a little flat, but I understood that it’s just a few seconds of a teaser, clearly.

Take our word for it.

I agree, it didn’t seem that bad. I mean, it is a tv show, not a high-budget movie. For a tv show, it was good.

Same here.

Seriously – can you imagine Kubrick letting out a teaser for 2001 in Feb 66 after a month of shooting? You couldn’t even have shown the moon monolith in wide shot, because it was ‘held take’ for a year to add the surrounding landscape in miniature.

Well, in 2016, if he hadn’t, we’d be flipping out wondering what he was trying to hide.

I think we’re overreacting. It’s TEST FOOTAGE.

And, man, if they hadn’t shown something at Comic Con, then the Internet would be speculating that they’re hoding sonething and therefore the show will be terrible.

Well if that’s the case, they should have just gone with the Daedalus design. It’s already established but hasn’t been used, it’s retro, and it’s an explorer. Depending on the time-frame, I’d say it’s a no-brainer. I’d personally much rather see the Daedalus than what they’ve come up with so far.

Yeah, but spheres don’t always photograph well. Dykstra didn’t like being stuck with a ball for the death star, because it didn’t look good moving. Even Trumbull said a ball on a stick is still just a ball on stick, regardless of angle, and that was the 2001 DISCOVERY he was talking about, a 50′ model!

The Pasteur was a nice Bill GEorge model as seen in AGT, but it didn’t look that great in most angles.

Agreed. The Daedalus would have been more in keeping with the design we know.

I think too many fans have been too quick to dismiss the look without first understanding the context. Granted, I don’t understand the context yet myself… nuff said

Do we have composer confirmation? And is possible that she said Fil Eisler? (Can’t find any info on a composer named Phil Eisner) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1135983/

Good catch – a quick look at his twitter confirms he did score it.

https://twitter.com/fileisler/status/756980947409444864

Very good catch. It was difficult transcribing from audio given all the background noise. Thank you so much for catching that.

Personally I didn’t care for it. I think that the Trek scores should always been graceful. This sounded to militaristic, so I hope he has more up his sleeve if he gets the job full time.

That said, I wouldn’t mind them doing what they did on Voyager and go to a cinematic composer for the main title theme.

So nothing really new, other than hammering away at the LGBT angle yet AGAIN. It’s as if it’s their main priority. Yes- it’s Trek we ASSUME it’ll be inclusive, but please, let’s not let the pc tail wag the dog. Tell us something we DON’T know. And the ship is still ugly. And- they’re stupid for even putting the thing out.

Hammering away? TrekMovie specifically asked the question “Can we be expecting any LGBTQ characters on the show potentially?” and Heather Kadin said yes. It was hardly the focus of the interview. Strange that you’ve focused so much on one question (and I repeat, a question TrekMovie asked of the production team).

Keep your homophobia elsewhere.

He is allowed to express his opinion.

Then please allow gay people to express an simple opinion like saying “I love this man” or so… Is that too much?

Being allowed to express an opinion doesn’t mean it is a correct opinion and should go unchallenged.

When an opinion is a hot-button one, tension does ensue. If Israel is part of a topic, negatives will inevitably be considered anti-semitism, even when that is not the tiniest factor. Try looking up the events surrounding when Israel attacked the USS LIBERTY in international waters, jets strafing with missiles and napalming the ship, then boats machinegunning liferafts and torpedoing the craft. (sidebar: it is one helluva sea story.)

I’ve never understood even the premise for anti-semitism, but this deliberate action by an ally was war-crimes worthy … and yet still nearly a half-century later you can’t go anywhere with this story to discuss the facts and issues without having folks sympathetic to Israel (but apparently uninformed about THIS particular incident) attack and dismiss.

And we’re allowed to disagree with it.

Cuck

Wow!!
Are you “in the closet”?

Cuck

When I saw the LGBT question, I was wondering how deep into the comments I’d have to read before someone complained. Four comments. Internet homophobia is as reliable as ever.

Yeah well you’re going to call me homophobic to, I call it a life that’s pleasing unto God why do they have to cram the homosexual scenes down our throats yes I know there are a lot of lgbt stuff going on these days that doesn’t mean I want to see it on my TV screen but I certainly don’t hate anyone I simply believe that all fall short of the glory of God and this is what the homosexual is doing actively falling short and no I absolutely don’t hate them at all I love them as a fellow human beings hope they have happy and productive lives but I will continue to pray for thier misguided ways as I don’t want anyone to burn enternally, further I probably will not watch the show if it’s going to actively have lgbt themes and it is not because I’m a hateful homophobe but because i have morals and standards moreover by watching this I’m passively endorsing homosexualality and telling my children that’s it’s okay and I was really really looking forward to a new trek but if this is the theme they’re going to be portraying leave me out because I’m guilty in the eyes of God if I don’t teach my kids the difference between right and wrong. When is people going to understand that we don’t hate the homosexual it’s his(or her) lifestyle that we disagree with. And yes part of the problem is some Christians or at… Read more »
James\'mymiddlenameis gay\'C

You can tell a child being gay is wrong but it’s so innate you could never stop them actually being gay.

Representation is terrible on TV, gay characters have the odd chaste kiss, and are rarely allowed to be as passionate as straight ones, one quick kiss and the camera pans away.

I would brace yourself as we, the homosexual mafia, will not rest until when there is complete parity.

One final thing, it’s for God to be judgmental not you. Isn’t it a sin for you to be publically espousing who might or not be eternally damned. You are not allowed to judge, or surely you risk damnation yourself?

God judges, humans love and forgive. Tip top job. Good Luck.

As a member of the LGBT community myself, you have no idea how hateful and offensive your above post is, no matter how much you try to disguise it.

Cuck

Funny. You are talking about characters in a fictional future outside our world and wonder if it pleases god…*roll eyes*
How do you explain your kids that vulcans, klingons, romulans don’t pray to YOUR god?
“y watching this I’m passively endorsing homosexualality and telling my children that’s it’s okay”
You already have passively endorsed zoophilia by watching Kirk mating an alien, bajorans matzing with shapeshifters, Amanda having a child with Sarek. How did you explain THAT to your children? How is THAt ok?

” if I don’t teach my kids the difference between right and wrong.”

Have you ever asked yourself how your kid would feel, if it was gay? And don’t say “that can’t be” – this has NOTHING to do with education!!! They are gay or not. And if, they might suffer a lot. Do you know how much damage such parents cause to gay children?
LGTB kids commit suicide because they are told by the parents to be wrong…

” we don’t hate the homosexual it’s his(or her) lifestyle that we disagree with”
Racists don’t hate coloured people… They only disagree with their lifestyle… *roll eyes.*

“I was really really looking forward to a new trek ”

And so do other people, hoping for a better future were they are not being judged for the skin-color, their gender or their sexual orientation. If you don’t want to be part of this future, you are free to stay out.

sixtiesplastictrektableware

Another ship coming in at high warp!
They’re targeting the doomsday machines dogmatic generators!
Track those explosions and fire reason in a wide spread of logic!
Helm, prepare to bring us clear of judgement!
Make it so engaged!

“as I don’t want anyone to burn enternally”

And that is the reason to make their life hell on earth?!

Exactly. We’re obsessed with punishing people for things that have no effect on our own lives.

@ Tony B.: You obviously haven’t seen the TOS-episode “Let that be your last battlefield”.
@ Ted C. in how many percentage of all Star Trek Episodes has that “tiny little percentage” ever been represented? I bet in an even more tiny little percentage which is nowhere near the actual tiny little percentage of LGBT in our society.

No matter how you veil it, it still sounds homophobic. This “love the sinner, hate the sin” shit. Is still imposing your judgement on what God would want for his children. Organized religion is still part and party to a major portion of wars and conflict throughout history. Don’t think Christianity is a violent social order, read up on the crusades. Chock full of murder and torture in the name of God, pretty fanatical if you ask me. Society is always evolving and sticking you head in the sands of ignorance won’t help you or the world. By the way, I’m a gay man with plenty of good morals and a spiritual love for God. Just can’t stand the damage organized religion does to people.

Cuck

I find it amazing that 50 years after humanist Roddenberry created Star Trek, we still have co called Trek fans ramming God and religion down peoples’ throats.

“God” is man made fictional nonsense to a lot of people. But tolerance means that we respect your right to believe it nonetheless. Similarly, tolerance means you should respect the choices and identities of others if they represent no harm to you. which LGBTQ.

You should allow your children to make up their own mind on LGBT issues, not decide it for them, By doing the latter you are teaching them intolerance….and I find it amusing you’re worried about what they might think of the issue, where you’re here right now ramming the “love of Jesus” down our throats. SO clearly you think promoting your dogma is okay, but promoting acceptance of difference is not.

People like you are nothing short of an embarrassment to the spirit of Star Trek.

Listening to people like you is why I love being an atheist. And I’ll teach my kids that being gay is perfectly fine because they are human beings who should be acknowledged, accepted and loved for being who they are. I learned that from Star Trek. You should watch it, maybe you’ll learn something.

This is truly one of the best fan videos on Star Trek I have ever seen. It sums up everything that this show holds dear. I say watch the whole thing but pay attention to 3:30 and 4:30 specifically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe7axuTmoUg

That’s Star Trek. What its always been.

Cuck

Cuck

@TonyB

I too, try to follow Christ’s teachings.
Your post, however, is hateful at worst and misguided at best.
I submit to you that love is love, no matter what form it takes. Love for one’s spouse, one’s neighbor, one’s pet- well, you get my meaning.
Were homosexuality a real problem, I’m certain Jesus would have covered that topic on his Sermon On The Mount. He did not.
I’m pretty sure it would have made the 10 Commandments were it that much of an issue.
If someone gambles, is he or she ostracised, had their life threatened or denied their basic human rights like someone in the LGBTQ community? They are not.
The gay lifestyle presents ZERO threat to yourself, your children or your lifestyle.
If God does create us in his/her own image, that includes people of varying sexual or different sexual orientation.
Please devote your efforts to serving all humanity.
Help clothe the cold, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless.
Do the work that Jesus did.
Your argument love the sinner, hate the sin holds zero weight today.

You sir, are like a stain on Christianity.
Your views do not fit in with the teachings of Christ.

sixtiesplastictrektableware

The homophobic torpedoes were only an opening volley!
It’s the religious doomsday machine!
Reason is under heavy fire!
Reinforce critical thought integrity!

Teaching children that loving someone is wrong is a perfect example of child abuse.

Your children should know that it is okay.

If they’re gay, they should be able to live their lives. If they’re not, the existence of gay people has no effect on their lives.

Gay people exist. What’s the point of hiding that from kids. If they’re not gay, nothing will make them gay.

You don’t have to practise it yourself, just like watching Uhura doesn’t nean you have to become a black woman.

Is this a put on? This kind of rant only ranks as funny because you include the phrase ‘cram the homosexual scenes down our throats.’

Do you have that problem with Red Lobster then? Shellfish are forbidden and are mentioned four more times than homosexuality in the bible. But I’m sure you already know this. So my next question is: do you believe everything in the book or do you pick and choose those sins you’re against.

I complained to Mega.

If you don’t like a tv show that is progressive maybe you shouldn’t be watching Star Trek.
Just a thought.

Cuck

Hi Donald

I agree Dr. Image. I see it as nothing but pandering to a tiny percentage of our population. I knew it was coming as soon as Fuller was announced. You might as well not expect to many white straight male characters in this show. I’m surprised it’s not titled Star Trek: Inclusive.

How many tiny percent of our population are human characters who mate with alien species which is way beyond human sexuality and closer to zoophilia?
Why was that tiny percent of our population pandered the last 50 years?

Cuck

You know. I really am tired of the LGBTQ community speaking for everyone else. This is a TV show. Star Trek has never been about overt sexuality (with the possible exception of James Kirk) who was played as a ladies man, but even then, that aspect of the character was second to the fact that nothing and no one was more important to him as his ship and his crew. As a TV show, this is supposed to be an escape from reality. No one is saying the LGBTQ community shouldn’t have equal rights. And if you want to have mention of LGBTQ character’s fine, as long as it doesn’t become the focus of the show. The problem today is that whatever the issue, writers, actors, producers, etc. feel the need to shove their personal opinions down everyone’s throat. If you are writing an opinion column for the New York Times, then by all means go for it. Otherwise, cut the crap. You can have episodes with social commentary relevant to the present day without it being overtly obvious the first second it appears. The best episodes were the one’s that snuck elements in and then made you go back and think about it or re-watch it glimpse the actual meaning(s).

” No one is saying the LGBTQ community shouldn’t have equal rights. ”

Just as long as they shut up and stay indoors, right?

Disgusting.

Cuck

Yes NX59650,

Star Trek has never been about sexuality, unless you don’t count all the people having sex on the show or going on dates or getting married or having children for the last 50 years. Other than that, what sexuality right?

And you don’t seem to know anything about Star Trek since Star Trek has been ‘shoving their personal opinions down everyone’s throat’ since 1966. Do you have a clue who Gene Roddenberry was? He was a lefty liberal who hated religion and thought corporations and government was a blight on the world and was a big component of equal rights in the 60s. Listen to anything Kirk or Picard say about equality, racism, facism, greed, war and capitalism and you are basically listening to Gene Roddenberry. Thats why the show has the philosophy it has today. Roddenberry was the ultimate SJW people like you love to put down and yet seem to think Star Trek was anything but. Hate to tell you this but Star Trek practically invented the ideals of SJW.

Why is it always ‘shoving down our throats’ when it comes to gay stuff?

And what does it have to do with overt sexuality? If we’re talking full-on game of thrones sex (of any gender combination), I don’t really want to see that either in Star Trek. But if we’re talking families and relationships – all the Trek series had various M/F liasons (and some longer romantic relationships).

Star Trek was/is about representing what humanity actually looks like. There are gay humans. And, in 2016, they can still be fired, denied housing and denied services in some states for being gay.

Did you see Beyond? Was Sulu’s pat on the back to his partner too real for you?

For me, it was a big deal. A show that was all about championing diversity had, after 50 years and hundreds of hours of tv/movies,finally acknowledged that I exist. And that it’s no big deal.

They’re speaking for themselves. It might be nice for some gay kid somewhere to see that he can be a helmsman someday – and not just the comic relief or peverted child molester or AIDS patient (roles gays were often in on TV).

There have literally been hundreds of characters in Trek over 50 years – and now we’re talking about one or two gay characters, and people are threatened…

Yeah, James T Kirk. He was hardly relevant.

Okay, are you just being a troll now?

Or do you actually mean this? Because I don’t understand how including others is a bad thing.

The vast majority of main characters on TV and film are still white and male. We’re probably talking 95% or higher.

In Trek so far, we’ve had:

TOS: 5/7 white, 6/7 male,

TNG: 5/7 white (not inc Yar or Guinan), 5/7 male (not inc Yar or Guinan).

DS9: 5/7 white (not inc Worf or Jake), 5/7 male

Voyager: 6/9 white, 6/9 male (incl Kes and Seven as just one).

Enterprise: 5/7 white, 5/7 male

All 100% straight.

Are you threatened by those numbers too?

Moaning about things being “too PC” is just to moan about not being able to accept people different from yourself.

When it comes to social issues, Star Trek has always been a liberal and progression show. If you can’t learn to accept difference than you’re not really a fan of the core idea of Star Trek.

LGBTQ issues are the one thing that Star Trek has only really touched on briefly in the past. Where we are today, it is entirely correct that Star Trek now embrace this community among others. I’m sure it won’t dominate the show, just be part of it. Star Trek will, no doubt, continue to also promote colour blindness and fight against the fear of other cultures.

If people can’t handle tolerance and inclusion then they should go watch something else. They don’t really deserve to call themselves Star Trek fans.

Hear hear. I don’t know who said it, but there was a great comment about how PC can usually be translated to ‘treating with respect.’ And what’s wrong with that?

I’m still astounded by people who say they’re being attacked simply because someone points out that their statements are racist or sexist or what have you. They’ll even say they’re victims of reverse-racism and sexism – and spout nonsense like ‘you guys preach tolerance but you can’t tolerate my opinions.’ Or they’ll say that people who talk about real racism are, in fact, racist.

It’s fantastic that they’ve been able to live without encountering real prejudice against them – and I get that it’s difficult for them to understand how real intolerance effects people.

I’m not black or a woman – but I like my Trek to tackle all prejudice (racism/sexism).

They were ASKED a question about LGBT and they answered it. Its sad to me that just discussing gay people and society is a four letter word to Trek fans. They exist and should be acknowledged JUST like you. Get over it already.

Agreed though, ship still looks ugly.

Cuck

Ah ha hahahhaha…the internet alpha male…. ah ahahhahhahahhah

sixtiesplastictrektableware

Small group of fighters coming in fast at an obtuse angle!
They’ve fired homophobic torpedoes!
Raise shields! All power to forward reason!
Engage it so!

Dr. Image, Star Trek clearly isn’t for you–it’s intended for positive, open-minded people who embrace differences and optimism. Try another franchise. You’ll be happier.

Okay everyone who is so High and Mighty. Do we live in a land where we can speak freely or not? —And “LMAO”-You saying CUCK every other comment is stupid. — Now look we live in a very diverse community in the USA and abroad. We have transgenders, gays, lesbians, and all different kinds of different ethnicities from Native Americans to Chinese. But what is everyone so focused on in the Media, Hollywood, News, and your normal progressive? LGBT and Bathrooms. Now before you start typing away hate against me let me finish. I agree that more diversity should be introduced into Star Trek. But it needs to be done in a smooth and normal manner. Not just for shock value or because we have a loud minority screaming they want gays on tv. Being against such a forceful push for LGBT that it seems to be above everything else is not being homophobic. Bryan Fuller made comments that were not answers to questions by TrekMovie but were part of his panel that he would be pushing these things in his way to be more progressive. It is even hinted that to be more progressive they will be having a Black female Captain. Something that if people looked has happened already in Star Trek IV. She wasn’t a starring role but she was in the film. In my opinion I have no problem with gay characters being in the show. Heck they can even be in a main role. But… Read more »
James, you’ve made it abundantly clear in every thread that mentions the new show that you are extremely uncomfortable with any form of LGBT inclusion whatsoever. We get it. Really, we do. Honestly, you’re not going to convince anyone, and it seems we can’t convince you. But let me attempt to get you to examine your own thought processes. Do you really think there’s some sort of Big Media Conspiracy to push a gay agenda on the world? To listen to your logic, LGBT people are a ‘tiny minority’, historically discriminated against – but they still somehow wield incredible, dangerous power – surely both can’t be true, so which is it? Isn’t it more likely that the world is simply becoming a more just and equal place, because compassion, logic, reason, and ethics are overcoming fear, hate, tribalism and superstition? That the arc of history bends towards justice, even when – especially when – it is a difficult and unpopular decision? Your comment on how “everyone is focused on LGBT and bathrooms” implies you sorta kinda acknowledge the *existence* of LGBT people, but you do not value them *as* people, thus, you don’t have to expend an iota of empathy towards them, their lives, or their struggles, nor are you willing to listen to what they’re telling us, the majority straight white dudes, about what they want and need to feel valued and accepted. It is this dehumanization and rejection that many LGBT people face from their own families, their… Read more »
You won’t be seeing Ensign Bill giving Captain Dave a blowjob, James. Don’t worry. It’s tough to understand why this matters if you’ve never experienced it – I grew up as a gay kid in the 70s and 80s hearing that I didn’t belong in society (or heaven), that I was disgusting and a child molester and that God created AIDS to wipe me out. Even just being perceived to be gay could get you beaten up. You could still end up in jail for a consensual gay relationship. Not that long before my time, people could still be institutionalized. And you could (and can still) be legally fired from a job, denied access to your partner if they’re in a hospital (and barred from getting i surance or even being able to attend their funeral) thrown out of schools and apartments… the list goes on. The only gays in movies were villains and perverts. You see that, and you think you have no place in the world. As a teen, I was thrown out of my house and had family and friends stop talking to me. I tried to kill myself. We grow up in the same world as everybody else – imagine thinking it’s disgusting to be gay and an affront against God, and then realizing that you might be gay. And wantingvto do anything you can to change that – just so you can be normal and get married and have kids and not be an outcast.… Read more »

A forceful push? By fighting in courts for decades for the right not to be arrested or fired from a job or to have basic rights in a relationship?

Yeah, I hated how Star Trek hammered away the black, Asian, Russian, Scottish, Vulcan, female officer angle.

Yet again? Like all the times they didn’t mention it over the last 49.75 years?

Good that it’s test footage, but very disconcerting that its the direction, that ship is terribly ugly, and I don’t mean in terms of the Star Wars Rebels-like cartoon rendering quality and general lack of detail, but the entire hull section and nacelles look utterly awful, as if the designs for the 1960s TV klingon ships was “good enough for them then so its good enough for us now”. It isn’t. At all.

The entire thing including the music and logo gives off a “fan made video game from 2005” vibe, including the far too heavy and repetitive scarring on the insignia.

Agreed. Where is CBS’s marketing department — CBS is usually very good at this type of advance marketing?

I wonder if they are aware of the irony of having a ship clearly designed for combat (smallest front cross section of any Federation ship – bar the Defiant) and calling it ‘Discovery’? Perhaps it was created for a war that didn’t happen or something like that.

Yay! Another prequel!
– said no one, ever.

Awful basis for a ship design and has killed the hope I had for this being a success. Whatever’s going through their minds isn’t on par with expectation.

Exactly.

I don’t quite understand how not liking the ship design kills all hope for the show. What about the quality of the stories they tell? I can still accept the shaky sets and papier-mache rocks of TOS if the story is good.

It shows to most of us that they are completely out of touch with expectations.
I for one was never a fan of TOS, yet now we’re about to get a 2nd prequel after the first failed so publicly to live up to expectations.
And so, here we go again. My interest in this has just dropped through the floor. You can’t make a show in set in the future seem any way futuristic if it’s hundreds of years before the other futuristic stuff we’ve seen. There’s a reason why TNG was set 80 years after TOS and that’s it.

I fear we’re going to end up with BattleTrek Galactica here, will fall flat on it’s face, not renewed and then another 10-20 years hiatus before someone else could even be considered to have another go.

Suddenly the feeling of this new show has dropped to a level in which most people don’t really care anymore as we’re watching another car crash unfold before our eyes.

Exactly, Dave.

Let me guess….you didn’t like the Enterprise D before the first episode aired either.

Am I right?

Have NEVER liked the look of the -D, not before debut, and certainly never after, though there was a lot of skill behind the camera used to make it look less awful than it was aesthetically. Did that dislike power my overall dissatisfaction with the show? No, it just reinforced it a tiny bit, but it does weigh against re-viewing any of them now.

I hated the D. And the costumes. And I still watched every episode for 7 years (except for the first quarter of season 3, but I caught up later).

Couldn’t agree more. If they use anything remotely like this design, I certainly won’t be paying to watch this series in any way. Maybe one day I’ll watch it for free. Maybe. Probably not, though.

“Kadin: NO! *laughs* I was surprised Bryan didn’t say that, actually. I mean, we had three weeks to throw that together. We wanted to show fans…we’re super-excited by the score that this amazing composer, Phil Eisner, threw together as an audition and he did an incredible job. The concepts of the ship are totally what we’re going for and they’ll be honed up until, I think, the day we deliver.”

I feel slightly better about this, given this explanation. I still am kind of shocked though that CBS is allowing them to just throw kind of amateurish-level stuff together to present at Comicon — that violates Marketing 101. I think it would been better to have a still shot of the ship and called it a concept shot. The two teasers so fare are just lame to watch (to the level of being embarrassing), and they certainly gave a number of us perhaps “the wrong impression” about CBS’s commitment to deliver a high-end new Star Trek show versus kind of a lame “Berman 2.0” Star Trek — which is what a number of us have legitimate fears about.

It was named as test footage on release though, it would never be a final shot based on that cgi quality.

To ne it seems like the equivalent of showing a few storyboards – this is not what its going to look like onscreen.

I think they’re just trying to create a buzz. Why release the registry number but little else. Seems like an odd bit of detail, unless they’re dropping clues and rattling cages.

Look the new Star Wars producers took over for George and good things are happening there .I think these new producers of Star Trek can do the new show justice ,I means let’s give them a chance before we go off and start the typical internet bashing and what not.I’m sure they mean what they say. And let’s remember the Tv show are different then the big screen Trek can shine like fans want it too.

The trailer is of poor quality, but..Agreed.. Similar but not the same in that the fans don’t “own” the content of the film or TV shows, even if we have grown to cult like ferocity in our displeasure with the “warlike” design of an imaginary ship in an imaginary mission of exploration. GL made the movies he wanted to make because he owned his creation. When fans hated it (especially Jar Jar), he said “screw it” and sold the rights. GR is no longer alive, but when he created TNG, not everyone liked it. Remember when you first watched Star Trek and you accepted what was shown and there was no internet to gripe about every detail. If you want that much control, create your own fan film. Otherwise be greatful its being made and enjoy it with your mind open, just like you did a long time ago…

Remember the fits people were having over the idea of a black stormtrooper? The drama over Ben Affleck Batman? The crying over Daniel Craig’s blonde Bond?

I don’t take too much stock of internet outrage until I’ve seen the final product and can decide whether or not it’s justified.

Producing the first trailer for the ship IS the chance they get. They’ve stuffed it up bigtime with that horrible design.

So what you want us to give them is actually a second chance. I’m perfectly willing! If they change the design of the ship to something less awful and ugly, then they will have shown that they have made a good decision and I’ll have the confidence in them to continue on and watch the show.

What I’m NOT going to do is just let them continue with this horrible, horrible misjudgement and pretend that it doesn’t make their show rubbish. Because it does.

Just watched these interviews. What I find worrisome is that they are all talking primarily about a positive view for humanity, changing lives, social justice….I agree with all of that, but it’s disturbing to me that they may be repeating the same formula here that GR tried when TNG rolled out — and which ended up with those two incredible boring initial seasons. If just of them had said, “our first priority is to create great science fiction drama,” then I would feel a lot better about this.

Unfortunately I am getting a “Berman 2.0” vibe out of all of this.

You’re not the only one, smart money would have been to take the well done Fan Film-makers under their wing and let them be creative, plus check out some of the ST stuff on deviantart.
http://lordsarvain.deviantart.com/art/Edward-Teller-Rebuild-Update-I-596537369

That wouldn’t be smart money, that would be good money after fool’s money.

There are already so many ‘invested’ in AXANAR that aren’t going to get any return, and probably weren’t ever going to get any SIGNIFICANT return.

It would also probably violate all sorts of guild and union regs as well.

Same here, regarding the Berman 2.0…a friend of mine always called TNG, “Melrose Space”, due to the lack of adventure and deep, inner, soul searching clap-trap that infested that whole era. Roddenberry started that “Human Adventure” humbug in The Motion Picture and was promptly replaced by Harve Bennett…who proceeded to watch all 79 episodes then recreate the formula better than it’s creator did on the big screen. Now days, there is this lofty, high-brow, elitist viewpoint that so many hard core fan’s have (mostly Next Gen era fans)… that is so utterly backwards from what classic Star Trek was really like. They honestly believe JJ’s films, which are more like Star Trek (THE Star Trek) than TNG and it’s spin-offs ever were, are not true. But they can’t tell you the fundamental differences between a real Klingon like Kor and the utopian poster child, Mr. Worf. Sigh.

Wow, there’s got to be something wrong here, I actually agree with some of this from my least favorite JB.

Well, up until the JJ part anyway.

lol Well, kmart, we can’t have a total agreement…when that happens, the next thing you know, cats are chasing dogs and Michael Bay starts winning oscars. I don’t think either of us want to live in that timeline!

I’ve seen a cat chase a dog … on an expressway! And I’m just happy I never saw the ‘exciting conclusion’ Right with you about Bay, it’s like he should have retired after THE ROCK (which if it had Cusack instead of Cage might have turned out to be my favorite action movie ever.)

Well done.

I’m not getting that vibe. TOS showed everything they’re saying – it showed professionals working together as equals (in a time when that wasn’t happening). There was still conflict.

This is the Trek we need right now.

By TNG, Roddenbery had replaced that with lectures about how man has advanced beyond contractions and conflict.

Let’s hope they’re really going to “push the envelope.”

I only half believe this was “thrown together.” You don’t show something incomplete to Star Trek fans. At best they are seeing the negative reaction to the poor quality of the trailer and are fixing it.

Hopefully they fix the look of the ship too. How about one that looks like it belongs to the Federation? This one is ugly. It wasn’t good enough in the 70’s and it’s certainly not good enough now.

The full Comic Con panel is now available officially:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HGsl8ovA30

So…Fuller, in the first few moments of introducing Shatner, immediately brings up his death and postulates (“for scientific purposes”) a resurrection… Kind of a funny thing to open with, considering the topic is well-tread. Do you think they’re trying to work out something with Shatner??

You would think so. No reason to go down that road otherwise

The nacelles are the wrong size.

Star Trek is doomed.

Unless your comment was tongue in cheek, I think you’re the sort of fan that JJ was referring to when he talked about “Nacelles Monthly” magazine.

Ha!

I hate to get political, but Fuller, et al need to get a clue. What’s going on now is the natural reaction when you attempt to change the social fabric of a nation. This is par for the course in EVERY society that has gone through upheavals. The last time this happened was in the 1960s and 1970s, when there were similar circumstances. So, these sorts of things are cyclical. The unfortunate thing is that everyone, no matter where you stand on the issues of the day, will just have to ride it out until things settle down. After all, any “birth” will be a traumatic experience for EVERYONE, which, years later, and quite ironically, will be looked upon fondly.

So FASCISM is a natural reaction? Not in my book. No way.

DIRTY HARRY actually kind of stops midway through (after the rape and murder by suffocation of a little girl by a guy who is about to let go because his rights have been violated) and points out that fascism has a gut-level appeal, especially if the system is outwardly and overtly broken. Not endorsing, just reminded.

Not saying, just saying?

yup … i guess.

Hear, hear.

What if the design of the ship reflects the Klingon Empire and the Federation working together? The logo seems to indicate the joining of the two powers, leading up to how it was in STNG. Lots of opportunities to tell stories about enemies learning not to be enemies. It would be interesting to have a mixed crew of klingons and humans and other races. Trying to continue what Kirk and crew started in Undiscovered Country.

“On the subject of LGBTQ characters specifically, Kadin commented that “is something that’s very important to Bryan [Fuller], and very important to all of us to portray.”” Sigh. I knew it. PC and pandering strikes again. Not excited for this series at all.

So long as they treat the sexuality issue the way they treated phasers in the original (i.e., just have it, not have anybody ‘explain’ it), it should be okay. If they start patting themselves on the back over it, THEN we have cause for worry, because they’re far too late to the party to become self-congratulatory.

Good. Don’t watch it. Was TOS pandering to Blacks, Asians and Russians?

I’m a little bit worried about them being overly preoccupied with political correctness. Like, when I hear the stuff about african americans (why are we even calling them that in a globalized future) and LGBT characters. Please for the love of f*ck don’t let political correctness overshadow the important stuff; good character development, good story writing and making it a FUN show to watch. Let Game of Thrones be your example; no taboos, and no political correctness nonsense.

Next it will be about the characters, then the costumes, then the sets, then the stories. Can’t stop the signal.

I was really looking forward to what the creative team for the new show would come up with and was met with utter disappointment. This has to be one of the most aesthetically unpleasing ship designs for Star Trek I have ever seen. The saucer section contrasts too greatly with the secondary hull and the overall ship looks clunky and awkward, like the designers said, “hey lets throw together random geometric shapes and see if we can make a ship out of it.” I understand they are using a design from the 70’s but simply using a concept design from the 70’s makes me feel like the producers wasted a great opportunity to create a new ship and design paradigm for the show that would contribute to the existing Star Trek universe but that could also expand on it with new ideas and concepts. :(

I really hope that they mean it when they said the design was not finalized!!!

I really like the design of the ship, it looks fresh.
Anyway, I’m more worried about it being a good show. I’ll even settle for watchable, which is more than I can say than for the last 2 series.

What I took away from this is that aside from minor tweaks, that’s generally how they want the ship to look like. Therefore I’m generally disapointed

The ship looks terrible. I’m not sure what they were thinking there, but it looks more like a Romulan Bird of prey with a forward saucer section than a federation ship. Come on guys, you’re trying to revive Star Trek, not KILL it. You could learn a thing or two from Axanar. At least their ship looks authentic.

Is Michael Dork involved in this?
Good Grief!!

I really, really don’t understand what I’m seeing. Everything from the ship design down to the animation is just embarrassing. I can only hope we are being punk’d.

Reading this type of information makes me very uneasy. Trying to please everyone never works out well. And when a series becomes too “self-aware” about how important and life-changing they are, it’s bound to shine through in the writing. I do hope Nicholas Meyer can keep these guys grounded. If they set out, with the explicit intent to show the world how superior and smart their Star Trek is, by incorporating the first _______ (fill in the blank with the controversial issue of your choice) I dread seeing what they come up with.

The design of their ship is hideously ugly. And I’m not talking about the bad CGI or little details, I’m sure what emerges from the end of the process will be a lot better than the test footage.

I’m talking about the basic design of a big flying triangle. They’re putting a saucer section and a couple of nacelles on an Imperial Star Destroyer and calling it a Starship.

It really does not bode well that their judgment is so poor that they could think that was a good design. Is there any way to ask that they change it? Seriously, the ship has always been something of a character in itself in these shows, arguably even one of the most important character. And they’ve fumbled this one, completely and comprehensively. It’s TERRIBLE.

Please change it, guys. It’s not too late. Please change it.

It shows to most of us that they are completely out of touch with expectations.
I for one was never a fan of TOS, yet now we’re about to get a 2nd prequel after the first failed so publicly to live up to expectations.
And so, here we go again. My interest in this has just dropped through the floor. You can’t make a show in set in the future seem any way futuristic if it’s hundreds of years before the other futuristic stuff we’ve seen. There’s a reason why TNG was set 80 years after TOS and that’s it.

I fear we’re going to end up with BattleTrek Galactica here, will fall flat on it’s face, not renewed and then another 10-20 years hiatus before someone else could even be considered to have another go.

Suddenly the feeling of this new show has dropped to a level in which most people don’t really care anymore as we’re watching another car crash unfold before our eyes.

Could’nt agree more!

Ya know I have been a Trekee for years and years… I am 54 years old and remember all the episodes of TOS. It was a different culture back then totally…a culture that we are continually losing more of in todays United Stes culture…and if they turn the Trek I loved so much through out the years into some kind of Sodm am Gommera Roman orgy party…with todays pop culture placed in what “they” want to believe will be the future well guess what folks it aint going to get much worse than it is today…hopefully God willing. Come on folks we really dont need all the sex to keep Trek going it talks for itself…keep it clean…smart…innovative…and push the boundaries were they NEED to be pushed technology…and macro-galatical-politics and new science in the mix dark matter dark energy stuff like that Yeap I would be fraked out if I say 2 girls kissing on Star Trek…and yes I will move to Australia if it happens dont destro trek….for Cryin out loud.

Spocks Apparition

What you’re describing isn’t really pushing boundaries. That would be the opposite.

Full female crew whit some being from LBGT roots? Feminism is strooooooooooooooonk.

Kadin confirmed to Trekmovie.com that Discovery would feature female, minority, and LGBTQ characters as she felt modern television did not accurately represent those groups in television shows featuring predominantly-caucasian casts. On the subject of LGBTQ characters specifically, Kadin commented that “is something that’s very important to Bryan [Fuller], and very important to all of us to portray.”

Boring. Try to have a completely international crew from all around the world. I’m sure the american audience couldn’t handle that as good as a female black actresses or a gay helmsman.

I have a bad feeling about this. Star Trek can be a right turn-off when it’s preachy and solely about exploration.

Jeepers. Everybody was complaining that the Abrams movies weren’t about ideas, issues and exploring – and now everyone’s saying those things are a turn-off?

I get it – Trek shouldn’t be preachy and just about issues (some of those allegory episodes were horrible), but this is Bryan Fuller here. Have you seen his shows? They’re not Touched By An Angel simplistic.

trek movie discussion threads: where homophobia and bigotry live on in the guise of “inclusiveness”.

trek movie discussion threads: where the moment you disagree with someone wanting to take trek down the path of pc domination you get accused of homophobia and bigotry.

What is that great Spock phrase… “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.. or the one” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1mE_lyVKRQ In this case I put that phrase to my own use. We need not focus on the cries of the few for PC when the Many are in no need of such overhanded Progressiveness.

So bring on the tale of how We Boldly Go.. and find our humanity in doing so.
Not Boldly Go.. and discover our sexuality. We are in no need of that being the focus.

So let us hope that all things being equal we get a nice story arc and these talks about Sexuality are pushed to the background where they belongs. Live Long and Prosper.

James,

Re:“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.. or the one”

Spock is a fictional character. Those words put together in that way are that great Nicholas Myer’s phrase.

So you’re translating that to say ‘majority rules’

Again. You’re obsessed with sex here. Why is it threatening to have a gay character?

“…where they belong.”

“So bring on the tale of how We Boldly Go.. and find our humanity in doing so.
Not Boldly Go.. and discover our sexuality”

Gay people and characters in fictional series don’t need to discover their sexuality! THEY ALREDY HAVE!!!They simply LIVE with the poeple they love. And that is as much part of them as it is part of straight characters.
The only one who obviously needs to discover his sexuality is YOU!!!!
You are obvsioulsy struggling with YOUR hidden sexuality, otherwise you would care about it!!!
Normal people aren’t obsessed with other peoples sexuality!
“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.. or the one”

And how would the needs of the “few” homosexuals outweigh the “needs of the many”?
HOW does it serve the “needs of the many” if the “few” homosexuals are forced not to live their SAME needs?
HOW do the needs of the few threaten YOUR needs? And why would YOUR needs be more important than those of others?

truth stings a bit, doesn’t it?

That’s what those words – homophobia and bigotry – mean.

If you’re saying you don’t want to see gays, blacks or non-eye-candy women leads in Trek, well, I don’t know other words in the English language to describe that…

How about some credit to Gene Coon who did more to actually flesh out Star Trek. Yes, Roddenberry created the majority of the show, but Coon created most of what we now consider the better aspects. I say give him a nod in the new series. Every time solo praise is given to Roddenberry, we diminish all those who helped.

Coon is truly the unsung hero. I remember Shatner saying that as far back as 79 in a book, that he was the most important behind the scenes contributor, and it isn’t like Shat is the guy to give credit away for anything.

He wrote the best BONANAZA ever, he wrote or rewrote most so much of trek that I really like, and he even rewrote QUESTOR (probably giving the antagonist his ethical stance, which always makes me tear up.)

kmart,

I believe Coon contributed much. But to be fair, he does have detractors:

http://normanspinradatlarge.blogspot.jp/2012_02_19_archive.html?view=classic

”NORMAN SPINRAD February 23, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Yes it could have easily been shot as I wrote it without Berle. I can’t can’t channel Coon, but I do know that the main reason he rewrote HE WALKED AMONG US was to obtain half the credit and therefore half the residuals. I know this because he did this with several other scripts before it became my turn.

And when I protested to him, he told me, with utter cynicism: “Play ball with me, kid, and you’ll be making $100,000 a year. If you don’t, you’ll not write for this show ever again.”” — Norman Spinrad At Large novelist, screenwriter, literary critic, political commentator

As much as I am impressed by Spinrad (mainly for BUG JACK BARRON), that is practically the only negative story I know about him professionally; well, that and George Clayton Johnson thinking Coon pinched the Horta from his own unsold pitch about the ship waking up and wanting to have babies. This quote also reeks of somebody embellishing the tale over time, as 100 grand at that point would be more sci-fi than the show itself contained.

As for the rewriting assertion … Coon rewrote a ton of stuff without taking credit too, but the residuals thing just doesn’t track for me. His screen credits on co-written shows are ones that he did contribute to massively, like SPACE SEED. Even with ‘half the residuals’ on a TOS ep, that still amounted to very little, given they were only paying decreasing amounts for what, the first four reruns? If there was a threat of being blackballed, it would be easier to buy into if Spinrad had claimed an extra ten grand being offered per year, not 100 grand.

kmart,

Herbert Solow said NBC expected (a common practice at the time) not to pay for the entire cost of a Trek episode and only gave them about $193,000 per episode which was 85% of what an episode would cost. Desilu was expected to deficit finance the rest which they would make back in overseas distribution and eventual syndicated reruns. That means each episode had an operating budget of $227,000.

I definitely don’t get from Spinrad’s quote that Coon was offering an additional 100 grand but was rather promising to steer 100 grand of writing work Spinrad’s way if he played ball. Also, to keep that promise, Coon didn’t have to do it all from the Trek production. He could also have recommended Spinrad for projects he became aware of from several of his industry contacts.

Dis,
Scriptwise, top of show for trek and WGA at the time was about 4500 for a story and teleplay, the inference would be he would be losing over 20 scripts PER YEAR. No way Spinrad could even write half that many unless he used the Great Machine from B5 to bring JMS back through time to help him. Points to how time inflates things when it comes to memory.

I don’t remember this 227 vs 193 thing (just the old 186,000 number), will have to go back to my books for that, but Desilu’s overhead was huge, so a lot of the budget didn’t go to what you saw but to the folks supposedly eating the overage. I keep thinking that 40 grand was the figure, but will have to look for a breakdown.

Lots of old trek numbers are erratic, and I wish there was more available like startrekfactcheck blog that really get to the truth of the matter instead of waving ‘production reports’ in the air while misinterpreting them or misrepresenting them, which seems to be the THESE ARE THE VOYAGES problem. Mike Minor was once quoted as saying THOLIAN WEB’s fx caused 90 thousand, but I think it was more likely 9000 or may-be 19,000.

kmart,

Re:back to the books,

Page 175 of Solow and Justman’s INSIDE STAR TREK if that’s any help.

Here’s what the Television Academy’s got on it:

http://www.emmys.com/news/mix/live-long-and-prosper

“Budget was always a challenge. NBC put up only about $193,000 (about $1.4 million today) per episode, and by the final year, that had dropped to around $185,000. Desilu resorted to deficit financing.” — LIVE LONG AND PROSPER; Jane Wollman Rusoff; EMMY.com; July 20, 2016

“There is trouble in the forest. There is unrest in the trees. For the Maples want more sunlight. And the Oaks ignore their pleas…..
And the trees were all kept equal by hatchet, ax and sword.”
All in favor of cancelling the new show say “Aye”!

Could the composer be FIL Eisner (not Phil)?: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1135983/

‘Star Trek’ isn’t all about the visual effects, but in this day and age most fans of the ‘Trek’ shows and movies certainly expect a lot better than what this preview showed. It can be argued by those involved that this was just a quick, ‘unfinished’ bit of effects work…but all it has done is flatten whatever early buzz the show was generating, and shows some poor judgement on those that okayed it.

While the effects team may eventually improve on the look of this overall ‘videogame cut-scene’ CGI somewhat, I have a feeling that the STAR TREK DISCOVERY show won’t be featuring the kind of top-notch effects work I had initially expected. I hope I’m wrong.

But here’s an idea…if the makers proceed with that actual ship design (no matter how much the effects are improved on), and the show turns out to be another clunker…then I’ll just look on it as being set in an ‘alternative’ universe to the classic ‘Prime’ TOS universe show and movies, and might be able to appreciate it a little better overall.

The \'Great Bird\' lives on

The construction contract 1031 may have been designated for another earlier vessel named ‘Discovery’. If the vessel was never deployed, and therefore never officially decommissioned, the contract number can be reused for a future vessel of the same name.
If a Starship is either decommissioned, destroyed, or more than 50% refitted a new construction contract number must be issued. Hence the original Enterprise that was never decommissioned went through a refit that was less than 50% of it’s overall structure remained NCC-1701, and could not be reused since it was destroyed. That’s the way I understood it since the 70’s. So, the USS Discovery: NCC-1031 is an all-new construction using a construction contract number that was still active.
Perhaps someone on this thread can help me understand it a little better. Any takers?

The \'Great Bird\' lives on

Another possibility regarding NCC 1031 may be that: If a construction project is put on hold for logistical, strategical, or political reasons, Discovery may be a project that’s been put on hold for decades but is finally being fully commissioned in the 24th century or later.

What’s “predominantly Caucasian cast”? I don’t remember Star Trek having all that many people from the Caucasus. If anything, Star Trek is historically quite short on those ethnicities. I’d certainly hope to see *more* Caucasians on Star Trek… an Armenian, an Azerbaijani or an Iranian here and there, you see. It would be a welcome change after all those Anglo-Saxons. :P

Paul,

Re:Anglo-Saxons

Good tongue and cheek. But I wonder how many realize that while the two lead characters, Kirk and Spock’s, human parents were written Anglo-Saxon, the two Actors playing their offsprings’ roles were actually of middle-eastern ethnic decent?

Please, please go to a comic shop. Find a 40 year old guy, and ask him for help with your new Star Trek show.
We dont wan’t another feminist voyager show. We dont want a show about relationships, we dont care what sex people prefer or what their race is, hell make it an alien captain with 3 genders like a Hydran or something. What we want is an cerebral episodic exploration tv show with SUBTLE contemplative moments that reflect modern day issues. Please dont slap us in the face with it constantly, and please dont have any romantic relationships of any kind on the show, shows are always ruined by that shit. Hint at it, tease. But that’s it. Next gen and tos were amazing and everyone loved those shows. Please make more of that.
PS unless your ship is a Klingon/ Federation Hybrid, that was pieced together out of necessity and is part of the story, dont use it, it sucks..

I just hope the producers make this quality work, no hush husg thing with a bunch of very young crew members all mixed perfectly make it look sophisticated but realistic!!!! Someone with a disability or a pretty old crewmember👍👍👍👍👍👍

please please please let whatever the final design is NOT resemble that eyesore. Im guessing [huge speculation] its incorporating warbird and bird of prey designs, which implies that the klingons and empire have joined the fed or at least are way more cooperative? Also, dumb name. “discovery” is a good name for a probe or somthing, “DISCOVERY IS UNDER ATTACK!” “DISCOVERY! BEAM US UP NOW!” all the previous names are cool, Defiant, Enterprise, Voyager annnd “discovery”. We don’t need it so literal lol.

Also, I’m going to watch it and probably enjoy it regardless. PS please refrain from having like every character from previous series return (like Scotty Kirk Spock Worf Riker ect) did randomly on Voyager DS9 and TNG

Oh no–those of us in Flyover Country aren’t as elightened as Michael Dorn.

At least I know where food comes from.

The \'Great Bird\' lives on

I have a theory on the possible direction of the new series:

In a parallel universe, the Klingon’s have joined the Federation, and Starfleet is filled with Klingon officers, along with other races. While the USS Discovery is chasing one of it’s enemies it get’s caught in the gravitational pull from a nearby massive star, and is somehow thrown into another universe- our own.

What do you think? I don’t care about the negative, just tell me what you think. And give me your own theory, i’d love to hear it.

Very excited about this show…

It’s been… oh.. almost 50 years since we’ve had a Star Trek series that wasn’t produced by Rick Berman. (No disrespect to the man) so I’m very eager to see a brand-new design concept.

GO STAR TREK ! ! ! Live long, and prosper… 50 years …and ‘Beyond’

I feel bad vibes about this thing. It has absolutely nothing to do with being gay or black as a mean to distinguish between left or right. The way I see it, no one should care less about anyone being gay, black or whatever. And that’s just it. Those things are pretty normal, by the way and I’m worried that they’ll be something of a central theme in the series as opposed to being treated as something as normal as having a coffee in the morning. I mean, we tackled those issues on Trek before, right from the start when those issues were a huge, groundbreaking discussion. Treating them as ‘just another day in the office,’ IMHO would, nowadays, have a much higher effect on the audience than having them depicted in a shocking manner. It’s not like we don’t see that kind of thing on regular TV anyways, on several mainstream shows. Trek has to go further than that. There are a number of current, more pressing and important issues than racial or gender trouble, something which, IMHO is more fuelled by the media than anything else. Being an election year in the US in which the media is playing the race/gender/homossexuality card more than often than not, I can understand the feeling of expressing something about it, but believe me, I do sincerely think it’ll blow over once the elections are through. As a non-american who doesn’t live in the USA, I believe that Trek could offer a… Read more »

I hope they don’t dwell on gay – lesbian issues or inner conflicts. Star Trek is character driven first but by pinpointing a particular social issue would be a big mistake. Simple acknowledgement is fine but it
like saying Black Life’s Count or Matter – whatever it was? All life’s and backgrounds – choices matter. Don’t kill the series – substance of the show by looking back or ahead while taking second guesses as this would weaken the foundation of the show. Center on characters and not their personal life choices.

Hello. Firstly, I speak as a very new Star Trek fan and a born Canadian. I understand the need to push boundaries and use Star trek to convey the message of tolerance and to further Gene Roddenberry’s vision. However, how is the acquision of an LGBTQ character progressive when they are depicted on TV already? I cannot speak for largely Caucasian depositions because I am a totally blind TV viewer so I ask this, not to criticize but because inquiring minds want to know. Thank you for listening and ps, I cannot comment on the ship’s design as I cannot see it.

Commenting on Brian Fuller’s comment that the state of “this country” terrifies and saddens him. not only the States but don’t forget other countries as well are going down hill. Why though, is this show so devoid of other nationalities such as Canadians? Women, LGBTQ members are depicted, The Original series had a African-American woman, a Russian and that is to be applauded but what about other countries? (Please note, I am totally blind so don’t know if any of the other Star Trek series portrayed ethnic minorities)

wpDiscuz