BREAKING: “Star Trek: Discovery” To Be Set 10 Years Before TOS, Will Feature Female Lead, Gay Character

Star Trek: Discovery showrunner Bryan Fuller revealed today that the new series will be set ten years before The Original Series, essentially bridging the gap between Enterprise and TOS. The show will focus on an event in Federation history that has been talked about but never explored. Fuller also confirmed that the show will feature a human female lead (a lieutenant commander, not a captain), a gay character, and lots of aliens.


Fuller speaks to the room at #TCA16 (Photo: @StarTrekRoom)

In a panel presented today at the Television Critics Association summer press tour, Bryan Fuller announced that DSC will bridge the gap between Enterprise and The Original Series, with the new show set ten years before Kirk’s five-year mission. Fuller teased that there was an event in the history of the Federation that had been discussed, but not explored. When asked if it was set during the Romulan War, Fuller said “close, but no cigar.” Fuller also denied that the show will revolve around the battle of Axanar or Section 31, but he hinted that the clandestine Starfleet organization will pop up in DSC.

As we’ve known for some time, the first season will be serialized. Fuller confirmed again that the 13-episode season will feature self-contained stories that contribute to the larger arc but wrap themselves up by the end of the episode.

First gay character for Trek on TV
Fuller confirmed that DSC would feature a gay character, more aliens than any other Star Trek series, and robots.

“Absolutely we’re having a gay character,” said Fuller.

Fuller remembered working on Star Trek Voyager and noted that he kept a file full of hate mail that he received after it had been rumored that Voyager would have Star Trek’s first gay character.

“We’ve come a long way since then. I feel like actually gay rights have come a lot further in that time that race issues and women’s issues.”

Discovery to have female and male leads
Fuller announced that DSC will have a female lead who has yet to be cast. Fuller hopes to cast a minority actor for the role. Commenting on the female lead, Fuller said that DSC will, “explore a woman’s journey that will teach her to get along with others in the galaxy.” Fuller believes that for a protagonist to truly understand something alien, she has to first understand herself. However, Fuller noted that the female lead would not be the captain of the U.S.S. Discovery.

According to Entertainment Weekly, the female lead will have the rank of lieutenant commander but with “some caveats”.

“We’ve seen six series from the captain’s point of view,” Fuller told the audience. “To see a character from a different perspective on the starship… it gave us richer context.”

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Discovery will feature 7 lead characters as diverse as we have come to expect from Trek since The Original Series.

“Star Trek started with wonderful expression of diversity in its cast: a Russian, a black woman, an Asian, a Vulcan… we’re continuing that tradition and our lead of the show is going to be subject of that same level of who is the best actor and what can we say about diversity in every role we’ll have on the show,” he said, noting there would be a few more aliens in its fleet than previous incarnations of the franchise. “We wanted to paint a picture of Starfleet that’s indicative of encountering people who are much more different than we are.”

TVLine is reporting that one of Discovery‘s original alien characters will be named Saru.

Discovery on CBS All Access
Commenting further on DSC, Marc DeBevoise, president and COO of CBS Interactive points out that he expects Star Trek: Discovery to get about 15 million viewers for its series premiere on CBS. He noted that Star Trek TV shows tend to average 2-to-5 million viewers for their first two years as reruns on Netflix. “We think this is a pretty good bet for us to make to grow our subscriber base next year,” he said.

CBS confirmed that All Access will have advertisements, but those ads will constitute a “limited commercial load”, which equates to roughly 25% less that what is seen on broadcast television (or about 12 minutes of ads per hour of show). When asked why viewers have to pay for CBS All Access when there are advertisements, DeBevoise said “the value is the depth and breath of the service that you can’t get anywhere else.”

Sort by:   newest | oldest

I never bought into or could get into the TOS prequel series Star Trek Enterprise. Now we have another TOS prequel series. I’m a bit disappointed and frustrated with this announcement, but I still want actually watch the show first before judging it. However, if it doesn’t bridge the gap to TOS looks wise, I doubt I will watch much of it.

I didn’t buy into ENT because Scott Bakula is one of the worst actors they could have cast for a lead in a Trek series. And he set the tone for the whole misguided series and horrible stories. The time period had nothing to do with it … In fact that was the best part about it.

ajde ne seri budalo…

Hehe, malo kulture prosim

I don’t understand all the Captain Archer disappointment, because I never felt it to any memorable extent. I didn’t see him as a great, great captain, but nothing to cringe at. I was watching some NCIS crime drama that has come out recently (I think) starring an older Bakula. I enjoy watching him act as the leader of that team. He radiates thoughtfulness and leadership, I think.

I have to say I don’t really understand given the chance to do a new Star Trek series that they not choose to set it after the existing series, giving it a clean slate. Cramping in another series before TOS, I’m really not too sure about it. Enterprise was a huge failure at being a prequel series, the nuTrek movies are a huge failure at cringingly wanting to be like TOS, I’m at a point where I would’ve liked them to stop meddling with existing canon and build on it instead.
I will also watch before judging, but I do hope it’s not like the nuTrek movies where they essentially do whatever ignoring/changing existing canon for no good reason.

The problem with Enterprise wasn’t that it was a prequel. It was that it was frequently poorly written.

Enterprise was continuing on the legacy of TOS with the namesake ship. And it was cast and handled poorly. It never came close to being what TOS was until the 4th season, and by that point it was too late. I would have loved to see what they would have done for a 5th season to see if they could have made the turn.

But this actually has the chance to create new canon totally unrelated to anything we’ve seen before during THE GOLDEN ERA of exploration. Just put the ship in a different sector of the galaxy, and tell the same stories that TOS told but with new planets, threats, aliens, and enemies. Maybe they’re facing different threats from Klingon and Romulan deep space exploration missions, than Kirk faced, if we have to see them at all.

I think there has to be a relevant reason for making it so close in time to TOS. Enterprise chose that time because it was far enough away that they didnt have to deal with TOS characters running around. This is awfully close to a time when we could see Kirk,, Spock, Pike, etc. Will we? I’d have to think its in the back of Fuller’s head at least, if not the forefront.

A wise comment that I agree with, especially about the “cringingly.” There are only so many pandering references to green Orion women that I can take before I start wondering why the thing that sort of looks like Star Trek totally lacks the human condition core of Star Trek.

The “trying to be like TOS” issue also makes me concerned, in this re-make/re-boot world, about whether Paramount is playing it safe by just riffing endlessly on recognizable stuff.

It seems unimaginable today that they could release something as bold and different as Next Gen. But maybe?? I’d rather see something different and new and futuristic than another Saurian Brandy decanter.

Nu Trek is a huge failure at cringingly wanting to be like TOS? Hate to burst your bubble there but they’ve been overwhelmingly successfully in this regard. Critics and viewers alike have expressed how successful Star Trek Beyond has been in capturing the spirit of TOS.

I have not seen Beyond yet, but I have heard that it is the best of the three and does well at the “spirit of TOS” thing. But being the “best of the three” after those offensive unTreks is not saying a lot. In fact, after those movies, I think longtime fans were shell-shocked. They were actually very good as scifi movies. And people who loved them love them for a reason. They were fun, but not directed at the existing fan base, or if so poorly done (as far as I can tell).

Øystein Håvard Færder

I found Enterprise a good and really interesting series. It was contributing a lot to the Trek time line. There’s a lot of events happening prior to TOS, much undiscovered history. I think it’s interesting with a story 10 years prior to TOS. It could really dig into the Earth-Romulan wars or at least the aftermath of it.

Bakula is a good actor but didnt work on Enterprise mostly due to writing. It never lived up to or embraced its premise. it was like an 8th season of Voyager with a new ship and crew and same old same old writing.

Dont think of this is as a TOS prequel. Think of it as another chapter in Star Trek lore. Star Trek is meant to be “our” future (not an alternative universe that doesnt matter like the the JJ films). Since Trek is the future, a series set before TOS isnt so much a prequel as its just another slice of life in the future.

Your comment made me smile. This is a refreshing ang wholly positive perspective. Thanks :D

“Bakula is a good actor but didnt work on Enterprise mostly due to writing. It never lived up to or embraced its premise. it was like an 8th season of Voyager with a new ship and crew and same old same old writing.” That was my impression of ENT too. I gave up on it after about 3 episodes. It just liked like more of the same, like VOY, another iteration of TNG. It’s not that it was bad, but I’d seen that show twice already. I loved TNG and I liked VOY, despite it, like ENT, never truly “embracing its premise,” as you said. Anyway, again, I agree with you and you put it well, TUP. I’m hoping Fuller’s new show is good. I think it will be. It sounds like he really wants to, at least, change the way the story is constructed told, telling it from a subordinate officer’s POV and with the serialized story-telling. Maybe it will just be more gritty. Plus, being set only 10 years before TOS, that allows them to have younger iterations of the original TOS characters, i.e. an early 20s Kirk and Spock and a 30s McCoy as well as Amanda Grayson (who should already have an adult son). They’d be facing the same issue of recasting those iconic roles again, and I don’t see any way they could get Pine, Quinto, etc. on their show, but it’s a distinct possibility. Hey, now that I think about it, 10 years before… Read more »

@DrH – agreed. It will be interesting to see if they resist the urge to stunt cast with younger “Kirk, Spock” etc. Im all for Bruce Greenwood as Pike. And in this universe, George Kirk is running around.

Bruce Greenwood as Pike? What are you talking about?
In DSC, Chris Pike is a teenager. lol

“The Cage” took place 13 years before season 1 on TOS as specified in “The Menagerie. Pike is out there in command of The Enterprise.

The problem is by placing it 10 years before TOS, the ship design should be like in TOS. It isn’t. The ship interiors, other ships they meet, all should match what we’ve seen in TOS. JJ was smart enough to reboot the franchise, to go back far enough in time to change the timeline, and to have that change of timeline influence the development of everything, so that by the time we see the crews and ships, they can be different from what we’ve seen on TOS. This however will be placed in the same era as TOS, and should thus honor it all. Klingons have to look like the augment Klingons. Ships need to look like they do during TOS. They need to look vintage by our sensibilities. The show should look like ST Continues. Yeah, not going to happen. ENT was far enough in the past, and they’ve done a good job of designing a ship and world that was believably in between our reality and 2265… TOS. But DSC is too close to TOS. I wouldn’t mind a show that is closer to ENT… there is a lot going on in that time frame, and designs close to the NX-01 would not look like a relic from the 60s. They could also show the NX-01 refit flying around, which would be cool. Or a show that plays after Kitomer. Again, ship designs at this point are modern enough for our sensibilities. Or ideally a show playing after… Read more »

@kadajawi – Sorry, they won’t be using cardboard TOS sets. LOL.

Exactly. It doesn’t have to be a prequel. In fact, I sort of wish it had nothing to do with the events we know.

Exactly how I feel. Exactly.

Why do I get the feeling this “event we have all heard about” is… Axanar?

And again, as Fuller made clear, the event is NOT Axanar.

They also said that STID’s villain wasn’t Khan. The only unexplored “important event” other than Axanar that I can think from that era is the Vulcanian expedition (referenced in TOS “Court Martial”). And if it’s Axanar, that certainly explains all the recent interest in shutting down Star Trek: Axanar.

Maybe not Axanar exactly, but it could be the stories surrounding it. Similar concept imo.

Just because it’s a prequel doesn’t mean it will be bad. Enterprise had its issues, but I love the 3rd and 4th seasons. The 4th season in particular has some of the best episodes in all of Star Trek.

Open you mind and give it a chance.

But it looks like Fuller intends to break with continuity, and that pisses me off. Enterprise did everything to keep continuity, and while they failed in minor areas, they did a good job. From the ship design to the alien design to the plots.

But Fuller has got some explaining to do when you look at the Discovery. And to me he has an impossible task in front of him, because it will be impossible to have the ships have a modern interior AND not piss off fans because they have modern interiors.

Oh, relax.

You just have to roll with it. It’s a difficult balancing act, to, on the one hand pay tribute to the original aesthetic of TOS and, on the other hand, reflect current technology and style. You can see that they essentially did their own thing in the Abrams films. But, y’know, they kind of also re-interpreted the ST universe for the original TOS films as well. Everything had a late 70s and 80s look, there were no remnants of the 60s design aesthetic.

You just have to rationalize it all by thinking this is what it would look like if it was done today. I think a perfect example of this was the new Klingon makeup that debuted in ST: The Motion Picture (and was modified in ST III). No explanation was really necessary for the change imo. They were able to have more elaborate makeup and costumes, thanks to a larger budget, so they made the Klingons look different. I certainly never questioned or had a problem with it when I first saw it.

Very interesting. I didn’t think it would be so close to the original series. If it’s in the prime universe they’ll need to be especially careful not to contradict the original series storylines. I thought of the Romulan War myself but that was 100 years prior to Balance of Terror (2156 to 2160 by most accounts, including the Romulan War books). My guess is it involves the Klingons. They did hint to previous skirmishes with the Klingons prior to the original series, and I seem to remember Axanar being mentioned as a point of contention between the Federation and Klingon Empires.

Wow, imagine the hornets’ nest they’d pop if they went anywhere near the Axanar storyline.

Axanar was 2245 – 20 years prior to TOS

Plus, Fuller specifically said at the meeting that it’s not about Axanar.

Honestly I didn’t know Axanar was a real Star Trek thing until now lol. I thought it was just something the fan film created.

If only they were that inventive.

The Axanar people, I mean.

“Honestly I didn’t know Axanar was a real Star Trek thing until now lol. I thought it was just something the fan film created.”

You HAVE seen TOS, haven’t you? It was mentioned several times.

Nope, in TOS, in that awful episode with the by-then-insane Captain Garth, it is mentioned that Garth was the genius who wond the battle at Axanar. As I recall, there was also an Axanar Medal or other award named after that event.

So, no, Mr Peters, for all his bleating and bluster, did NOT create Captain Garth or Axanar.

The Axanar even appeared on Enterprise as a species.

DoctorHu: Axanar mentioned several times in canon? Aside from the ENT species which may or may not link up, were there any references beyond the Garth episode?

Betcha ten bucks that’s exactly what they’re doing

They aren’t going to bother not screwing up canon stuff. Fuller is quoted as saying at the panel:

There’s so much about the history that once we get through this first season and establish our own Star Trek universe with the crew that going to be reimagining a lot of Star Trek elements…”

So prime timeline isn’t true and he’s introducing a third universe as well as reimagining Trek.

I agree; I feel pretty confident that Discovery has to do with the supposed cold war between the Klingons and the Federation. It’s mentioned in “The UnDISCOVERED Country” that the skirmishes began 20ish years before TOS. And we don’t really know what instigated the conflict or how it was fought (except the few times Kirk ran into Klingons). Setting the series in a covert, cold war-ish setting can also serve to insulate it from the rest of the canon by making things more “secretive.” That way they can also drag in Section 31 for espionage and deepen that whole Cold War vibe.

Good point. Politically we’re entering a cold War-ish period, and Mr Meyer drew much from the Cold War in Star Trek VI. Would be interesting. To me personally, the ‘submarine’ POW of some TOS episodes were the most exciting ones.

Not to get any nerdier. But wasn’t there also a maybe-sorta Klingon-Romulan alliance around the TOS era? No idea how that ever happened and it could be good material. There seems like a good chunk of Klingon and Federation stuff we don’t know that Discovery could explore. Fuller’s emphasis on a “clandestine ” organization also makes me think they’re going down this route. Maybe Discovery goes out around the Neutral Zone and rallies allies and stirs up some Klingon beef, dunno.

The Klingon-Romulan alliance occurred during TOS, not before.

I was going to suggest the Klingon-Romulan alliance as well. The fact there were ships that came out of that Alliance (to save money on TOS) could mean the actual alliance began years earlier. The only problem with that is they have to be awfully careful not to create canon conflict.

And the fact they’d choose a time that practically butts up with TOS would indicate to me a desire to be really careful and respectful of Canon. Its tough because their production design has to “fit” with TOS but obviously with a modern take.

Also, doesnt this mean there is an Enterprise under the command of Captain Pike with a Mr Spock as science officer?

If Im the producers I have an idea in the back of my head to eventually have a little run in with the Enterprise. Would be a great cliff hanger to end season 1, especially if they want to cast Bruce Greenwood in the role (heck, could use Quinto as Spock too).

I would really love that, TUP, but must point out that Mr Greenwood and Mr Quinto are now nearly 10 years older than they were when filming Abrams’ Star Trek in 2007. Alas, Greenwood has become more “distinguished” with facial lines of experience &c. and Quinto is also looking a bit different than in the 2007 filming days.

ENT managed to stick within canon. They stretched a little, and made some stupid costuming decisions wrt Romulans — going for the different-from-Vulcans foreheads and the Giant Shoulder Pad foam-rubber-looking Romulan tunics from TNG, rather than the original look for the Romulans from TOS. [sigh.]

Will the Klingons have smooth heads?

Nah.

ENT was very careful not to contradict the original series [and subsequent series, for that matter]. Except for the silly business of “Vulcans don’t touch their food” … whut.

Basically in order to keep canon they need to make everything look like TOS. Including the 60s style bridge of the Enterprise, and augment Klingons. After all Klingons only find a cure some time after 2270, long after DSC.

Of course, they already break with canon with the Discovery, unless they find a good explanation.

Not all Klingons were affected in the first place, so they could run into either type.

Not only TOS – but the CAGE style TOS.

“ENT was very careful not to contradict the original series [and subsequent series, for that matter].”

Apparently, you didn’t watch the show. The writers weren’t careful at all–they contradicted the other series left and right.

@DoctorHu: worst examples? I only watched up until they brought in the Xindi. The Xindi are an example of something far-fetched to fit into canon but eh I rolled with it.

Well, when I assumed the lead would be a captain my vote was for Gina Torres. Now that we know it is a Lt. Commander, I think Nicole Beharie would be an excellent lead (She’d be a bit young for a captain).

They cast Gina Torres, I would wet myself with delight.

But, I was really hoping for Nathan Fillion for the captain/lead tbh. Oh well. Disappointed a bit by that and also that it’s a prequel. BUT, I’ll hold out judgement.

If the lead isn’t the captain, there’d still be a chance for Nate to sit in the center seat.

BSG reboot had an older Deputy Commander. Maybe that’s where this could come from. Age could be something different in this series.

Isn’t Ms Beharie still filming “Sleepy Hollow”?

Besides, Gina Torres would be totally boss as a LCDR. She could be a battle-hardened officer who came through some heavy stuff and didn’t always get along with senior officers [thus, a lower rank], which would be interesting and different from the usual fresh-scrubbed junior ranks depicted in Starfleet. Or she could be someone graduated from “enlisted ranks” to officer ranks via Officer Candidate School.

Personally I’ve always found it silly that Captains and Commanders in Trek skew so young in age. In today’s military a 33-y/o Naval Services captain [such as ShatKirk] would be a rare “bird” indeed, and TOS Kirk was stated in TOS to be the youngest captain in Starfleet.

They killed off Nicole’s characters during the season finale of Sleepy Hollow.

Paid service and it includes ads? That’s pretty ballsy.

Hulu does it so they (CBS) probably figures they can get away with it as well.

@James,

“Hulu does it so they (CBS) probably figures they can get away with it as well.”

Except that Hulu has A LOT more content from TV series to movies.

I heard they have a non commercial option one can pay for. True?

I thought initially there were going to be two tiers of service on All Access. Cheaper, with ads, about $7/month; more expensive, no ads, about $10/mo. Could have changed in the interim.

Indeed, I don’t think they understand why people PAY for Netflix…it’s not only the convenience, it’s because they’re not inundated with ads. Lame.

And the quality of the disc is so much better than the low quality of streaming.

Like going to the movies. You pay and get to watch ads too.

Not in the middle of the showing, though.

Thats sort of a good point. You can always show up late and skip the ads but we pay a lot of money to go see a film and ten minutes of commercials (and growing) before each showing.

I’d be annoyed if Netflix paused for commercials every 15 minutes or so. But I cant manufacture outrage since Im Canadian and will be watching on Space (and thus my PVR where I will skip the commercials).

@c d,

“Like going to the movies. You pay and get to watch ads too.”

No, it is not the same. They don’t show ads throughout the movie.

Okay, they don’t, but it’s still demmed irritating. Personally I’d show up late and skip the ads as TUP suggests, but my movie-going friend insists on being there at the “start time.” I’m thinking these days the start time of the feature film is about 20-30 minutes after the time shown in the papers, counting ads and previews.

I have never counted movie trailers as “ads”. Some chains show ads after the theater darkens. I avoid those chains like the plague. If you want to project ads while we wait, fine. If you want to project a commercial while we wait, again OK. But once the theater darkens I don’t want ads.

I don’t mind watching ads for the most part, but being interrupted in the middle of the story is intolerable part.

MAN, IS THAT IRRITATING AS HELL OR WHAT. After shelling out $8 – $12 or more per ticket? Talk about ballsy!!

Marja & ML31,

You think THAT’s irritating? They’re called “trailers” because they used to play them at the END of a movie.

Yes.. I am well aware of the origin of “Trailer”. Back in the day they would show a cartoon and a newsreel in front of the movie, too.

ML31,

Re: a cartoon and a newsreel

Neither of which are ads.

Your point being? You were the one who brought up the old days of trailers at the end of the feature rather than ahead of it. I was just continuing along that path.

ML31,

Re:Your point being?

You mean beyond that unlike for you, they are ads to me which unnecessarily delay the start of my bd movie or in theater presentation, i.e. there’s just far too many of them these days. And as an A/V geek from way back I rather prefer that they return to the original practice in theater and on bd?

Disinvited,

Unless you consider the trailers to be ads it doesn’t delay the start at all. At least, not in the theaters I frequent. I do know of one local chain that will run actual commercials when the room darkens at the start time. I avoid their screens. To me, that is unacceptable. But I don’t mind trailers. In fact, I often look forward to them.

ML31,

Re:looking forward

Well, they are definitely NOT part of the feature presentation no matter how you spin it, and I don’t appreciate unneeded delays – my local theater shows 20 minutes of non-feature content. And nothing you have offered in response is an argument that declares they MUST precede the main feature as I am certain that you and others who feel as you do will enjoy them just as much, AFTER.

And the one time when the delaying content might have been of benefit to me as I was running late for a show, the projector broke down prior to my arrival, eliminating even that nicety, i.e. technical difficulties before I made it to the theater allowed me to catch the entire feature and I got free passes to boot, and no delaying extraneous content too.

Coincidentally it’s approximately the same (just a tad later) timeframe as Axanar.

Yeah, it IS a coincidence, as Fuller specifically said at the meeting that it’s not about Axanar.

I see this now. Kayla updated the article not long after my post.

So, you pay for a subscription, and still get commercials. That’s the shitty news.

I won’t be paying any extra for it. If my service provider throws it into a package and my bill doesn’t go up, sure, I’ll take CBS’s All Access. But my bet is they’ll still sell Blue-ray disks at one point. I’ll get them then.

It’s fair to vote with your hard-earned dollar, but consider that if you just subscribe for the length of the season (13 episodes with one episode airing on CBS Network proper), that’s $6/month x 3 months = $18. If you think CBS will try to screw you somehow for a fourth month, now that’s $24 dollars. The cost of the Blu ray upon release will cost *at least* that much, but probably closer to $30 or even $50 dollars. If you don’t mind waiting a very long time for sales on the Blu-ray or choose to just be a jerk and pirate it, then so be it, but at least consider that if you’re willing to pay and want to see the show sooner rather than later, then it’s cheaper to pay the subscription.

Heck, you could even wait until all the episodes have aired and just subscribe for a month and binge watch. $6 for 13 episodes. That’s a bargain.

Heck, you could even wait until all the episodes have aired and just subscribe for a month and binge watch. $6 for 13 episodes. That’s a bargain.

Exactly which is why this is all so overblown. I get people hate the idea of paying for it but my god CBS isn’t going to make you pay $100 a year for it. If you don’t want to pay that much for it NOR want to illegally download it, wait until the season is over, spend $6 and binge watch it over and over again for a month.

Its too much ado about nothing to be honest with you. CBS isn’t locking anyone in a two year contract, its a month contract, thats it. If you watch from the beginning and the show is not doing it for you, then cancel the next month. CBS knows its going to have to really bring it to keep us around so as long as its good I will happily pay. You’re talking to a guy who spent $45 to watch Beyond twice and I didn’t even love it. I will happily pay $18 if I’m getting a quality show. If not, then I stop paying, its that simple.

Tiger..

Except… I don’t want to stream my shows. The quality is terrible. It’s crap. I might tolerate the low quality stream if there were no commercials. But the fact that we cannot avoid the adds in addition to paying for the low quality service is just irritating. It’s not the monthly fee that is turning me off. If CBS made a disc rental of each episode available on a weekly basis I would pay more than $6 a month for it. The problem is not the price. It’s the method of delivery and the commercials on top of that.

Somehow, I’m imagining CBS is aware of this strategy and will do something to counteract it, like require a minimum 3-month subscription to see original programming.

Or… If CBS makes the discs available to Netflix you can just get the discs in the mail. Plus the waiting and paying more for the season set would mean you are paying for VASTLY superior quality and the batch of extras that come with the disc. Hell, if the series isn’t going to be available on the Netflix I may consider purchasing the season. If the show is terrible I will just sell the set and get back perhaps 50% of my purchase.

Try in the 70 range or more. This is Star Trek they always over charge .

Grumpy, I think there are a TON of people who are feeling the way you do. In fact, I suspect more people will wait for the discs than will pay for the service on a month by month basis. In fact, I suspect that of those who pay for the service will wait for the season to end then get one month so they can binge watch the season.
This format will crash and burn but CBS will blame Trek for it. Bank it.

And Ghostbusters didn’t loose 70 million dollars because it was shit. It was because of those evil misogynists!

Not a good analogy at all. The quality of ST DSC might be awesome beyond belief. But the method of delivery is going to keep the audience for it small.

ML31,

In the US, yes. But it already has commitments to air around the world outside of that narrow audience channel CBS is providing. The U.S. audience isn’t needed to make DSC a financial success as it already is. Its sole goal in the US is to make ALL ACCESS work. Les would have to be a fool to cancel it if it finishes season one outside the U.S. with everyone there willing to make the same financial commitments or to competively bid more for season two.

That is a good point. The show is amazingly restrictive in the USA but far more available outside the US. Which I find a bit odd as internationally ST has traditionally had a hard time finding legs. Particularly in non english speaking countries.

Ouch, ML31.

Naahh, I don’t think the majority of fans are that fussy about visual quality. I’m not sure I personally could tell the diff between streaming and video picture quality. I’m more interested in storyline, characters, and so on.

Not a connoisseur, in other words, just a fan.

Marja, Perhaps not those who are accustomed to low quality. I actually can stream fine on my phone and it looks good. But the screen is so small it’s just irritating to watch. My laptop screen is bigger but I still find it way too small to watch shows on. And besides, at that level is where the streaming quality ends. It seems like the larger the screen the worse streaming gets. I want to watch ST DSC on my huge TV. Not on my tiny phone. I guess that puts me in the minority…. But I cannot imagine there are enough people out there willing to put up with crap quality to make this a worth while endevour for CBS.

It’s gotta be your internet provider and speed, then. Because streaming can look identical to Blu-Ray on a larger screen here in Phoenix, AZ. Don’t blame CBS for poor quality streaming at your end; it’s not their fault.

I’m not blaming CBS for the unreliable nature of the tech. I blame CBS for relying on unreliable tech to deliver their product.

ML31,

Re:crash and burn

The ALL ACCESS thing, maybe, but the series has already covered the cost of the pilot movie and the 13 episodes all on non-domestic syndication and non-domestic subscription cable and non-domestic streaming deals. AND turned a profit.

So with its financials all taken care of, it can only crash and burn in the courts of critical and public opinions. CBS stands absolutely no risk of taking a bath financially on its current commitment to the series itself.

How do you figure they have already made a profit? There is no evidence of that whatsoever. What have I missed?

ML31,

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3992999-cbs-corporations-cbs-ceo-leslie-moonves-q2-2016-results-earnings-call-transcript

“As a result, Star Trek: Discovery, our new series, is profitable and we haven’t even begun production, and we still have additional windows to sell the show in second and third cycles down the road. It’s also safe to say that Star Trek will lead to a significant bump in subscribers for CBS All Access here in the U.S.” — Les Moonves CBS CEO, ‘CBS Corporation’s (CBS) CEO Leslie Moonves on Q2 2016 Results – Earnings Call Transcript’, Jul.28.16

If those are the words of Les Moonves then it must be taken with quite a few grains of salt. Particuarlly that part where he speaks of “significant bump in subscribers for CBSAA”. Then again, I suppose it is possible we would differ on the definition of “significant”.

It doesn’t make sense for Les Moonves to lie to the company shareholders about profitability. He also wouldn’t have gotten this far in his career if he was only a snake oil salesman. He’s been quite successful from a business standpoint.

Mudd…

I said nothing about lying to shareholders about how the company is doing. I only commented on the fact that Les could very well be just putting a positive public spin on this particular endeavor. He’s done it before.

ML31,

You don’t think a little outfit like the SEC might be interested if Les is misrepresenting the profitabilty of his enterprises in his ‘CBS Corporation Second Quarter 2016 Earnings Release Teleconference.’, especially when the SEC fillings arementioned?

As for his ALL ACCESS projections, well only time will tell.

Disinvited…

See my above post to Mudd.

ML31,

Re:Positive Spin

Well, he’s in an industry that can be accused of doing a lot of that. However, the financial facts of CBS versus VIACOM, parent of PARAMOUNT, is that V/P is in a deep financial crisis whereas CBS is not. And V/P has been spinning so much lately that it’s a wonder that there’s any blood in its coporate head to remain conscious.

The Redstone family drama and Moonves’ jockeying for power against the various heads of V/P hasn’t helped matters much, either.

Three words: Battle Of Axanar.

One word: nope. At the meeting, Fuller specifically said that it won’t be about Axanar.

Yep, just updated the article to include that!

I was ahead of Kayla. :)

it won’t “revolve” around it, but as someone else said, i bet it will be same time and it will be mentioned or otherwise in the background. that makes the lawsuit make so much more sense.

It is my experience that when someone says, “nothing could be further from the truth,” they are lying out of their lower body cavity.

Disappointing to hear it’s a prequel, but will watch the premiere and judge it afterward.

Just Another Salt Vampire

I had the same reaction re: it being a prequel. Fuller keeps talking about needing to do new things with Trek, which another TOS prequel seems not to be on the face of it. Maybe he has some significant story tricks up his sleeves?

I just don’t get the point of going back? What does it achieve other than filling in blank to stuff we vaguely know. I will at least give the KT films credit that since its in an alternate timeline it frees them up a bit. But here they just purposely locked themselves in to canon on an extreme level. I pretty much assumed it was going to be a prequel but I had no clue it was going to be just a decade off from Kirk’s 5 year mission.

I really loved the idea when we heard it could be set after TUC. There is so much history there to mime and you had 80 years between TOS and TNG and could basically do whatever you wanted. You were handcuffed a little but not that badly. Here they will have to follow canon closely. They are still free to do tons of things but there will also be things that will totally be off limits. At least Enterprise was set before the Federation even began so story wise they had wide berth.

Ugh Im so tired of this “going back. going forward” nonsense as if it HAS to mean literally going back or forward in time. Seems there are people here who would choose a lousy show that was set after Nemesis than a good show set before TOS because they cant wrap their minds around the idea of exploring a specific time.

I love the idea with one caveat – they have to really want to be respectful of TOS. Its close enough to TOS that the production design has to be similar. The politics have to be similar. The diplomacy has to be similar.

Im guessing it involved Klingons if for no other reason than Nick Meyer’s involvement and “Discovery” is sort of a take on Undiscovered Country.

@TUP,

“Seems there are people here who would choose a lousy show that was set after Nemesis than a good show set before TOS because they cant wrap their minds around the idea of exploring a specific time.”

And how did you come to that conclusion? How would you know that a post NEM show would be crap while a pre TOS is going to be great? By looking at your crystal ball I presume!

@Ahmed – dont be silly. As much as TOS era matters not, neither does Nem. Thats the point. The whiners are complaining about the era and demanding the silly “moving forward” beyond Nem without any idea of whether this show is good or not.

Not the point. maybe just maybe people are tired of anything close to TOS. I think people are looking for something really different instead we keep getting ”the play it safe Star Trek” Star Trek is suppose to be about taking risks and all the series did. Big deal ,we get a gay character now ,yep when its cool .But how about when it wasn’t cool. TOS did that back in the 60’s with the interracial kiss, DS9 did with DAK kissing another woman. I’m not Gay ,but come on if you want to do the Roddenberry thing , then you do risking shows when there risky!!

THANK YOU Thomas Vinelli, you hit it on the head. Yes I’m sick of the TOS period. We basically got it on Enterprise and now we had 3 films that did a direct retread of it. Now we have a new series that wont BE about TOS but basically revolve around the same issues. When Fuller mentioned Spock’s mom might show up I literally rolled my eyes. I don’t want to see Spock’s mom, I already seen her in 2009 thats enough, I want to move ON with new conflicts, species and concepts. I was hoping we go post Voyager because I loved the idea of a show that would just take us to another galaxy altogether. You can’t do that with a pre-TOS show. Like it or not it limits, thats just the reality. It doesnt mean they can’t come up with great stuff but it does mean since you have to follow canon it we can never see the Borg, the Cardassians, etc. And before someone starts typing I’m not saying I WANT to see them or have to I’m making the point you can’t go too left field because the audience will be questioning it. Again Enterprise had this same problem with both the Suliban and then the Xindi. If the show was set in the 24th century or beyond no one would’ve blinked and thats what is being discussed. Again I go to Gene Roddenberry himself on this. He was offered to make a new Trek… Read more »

“production design has to be similar” … NX-01 looked a lot more advanced than the TOS Enterprise. Not sure how they will navigate that. Maybe they will bring in more color, but the old toggle switches and speakers and such are going to have young people scratching their heads.

It did not. The controls were very hands on still… sure, they had displays, but that’s the only concession. The ship looks way older than the Constitution class Enterprise. It is rough around the edges, it has parts sticking out everywhere, … The Constitution class is smooth, elegant. But yes, DSC will have to have a Constitution class-ish interior. The ship itself is already way too… non-Constitution class looking. It doesn’t look like anything from this part of the Federation. A show set after Nemesis… or rather after DS9 could be absolutely awesome. It represents a time similar to what happens after WW II. Romulans could decide to make use of the weakened Federation… they were the last to join the war and thus have suffered the least losses, while the Federation and Klingons have lost most of their forces. Then, 1-2 years later Voyager appears… they can show the limited communication between Voyager and Federation from the other side, and then have the Voyager rejoin the fleet. The discoveries and alliances made by Voyager could inspire the Federation to send ships towards the Delta Quadrant. Having it set 10 years before Kirk’s 5 year mission will very much limit what they can do. We know how the story continues, and the looks is very limited if they try to stay believable… and if they do, new viewers will be confused as hell why this new Sci Fi show looks like it was made in the 60s. If not, fans… Read more »

I too was hoping for something after Voyager. I know many made comments like that after we found out a new show was coming. This is again proof they don’t really listen to fans ,at the same time they say they do. Who is kidding who.

TUP they can still make a lousy show before TOS, according to you they already did that, it was called Enterprise. So what’s your point?

Yeah I DON’T like going backwards, I think prequels generally suck, in ANY form of entertainment, sue me.

But as I said I will give the show a chance but if its not doing it for me I’ll simply stop watching as I did Enterprise. Sure you can have a bad show going forward but no one is saying a show is good or bad in the time period its in, we are simply saying we don’t want another prequel. And yeah MANY people are saying that. It doesnt mean they won’t give it a chance but if this fails like Enterprise did they can’t be too shocked. Hopefully they took notes what they did wrong in that series and improved on it. And yes I like the fact it may be a major scuffle with Starfleet and the Klingons and when you add in Section 31 I’m more intrigued. So I’m not saying I can’t be won over but yeah currently I’m skeptical, thats all. Hopefully all of that will change after the first episode.

What does the time period have to do with doing new stuff? The thing a lot of fans need to realize is that it is the not the purpose of the show to give you more fake facts about a fictional world.

@Brian. Exactly. What canon do they have to follow, really? They can’t report seeing a Romulan (although maybe they did and it never made it to the test of the fleet). That’s about it.

It would actually be fun if they could do some of the united earth space probe agency stuff, but I think Enterprise quashed that.

It’s a short, serialized season – we don’t need history, politics and more minutiae.

And thank goodness because Romulans just got old. We kept seeing them, and didn’t even really learn much about their culture for it. Bleah.

@ fascinoma
Romulans got old?!!
KLINGONS got old.
The way Romulans were written in TOS made them a hellalot more interesting than the Romulans in TNG. JMHO.

It’s a short, serialized season – we don’t need history, politics and more minutiae.

Its funny you say that Jack because based on Fuller’s comments it sounds like thats exactly what we’re getting. The first mention of the show direction after he took over mentioned The Undiscovered Country and thats as political as you can get. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised this will deal with a confrontation with the Klingons and how the cold war between the two really started. Enterprise sort of hinted at it but it was never dealt with head on. But just speculation.

Jack, LOL, can you imagine the reaction of some Trek nerds to any disregard for minutiae …!

LOL well thats sort of what people like about fictional entertainment Brian. Ask any comic book or sci fi fan. We like to see the universe filled in and how stories play out against that backdrop. If we didnt care we wouldnt be watching. No one is saying they have to put it in a certain time period to be entertaining only that people want to see new centuries and time periods, maybe stuff we DONT know. Sure we dont know much about this era but we also know it can’t go too far without destroying the all important canon either. I always give DS9 as a great example, but when that show started they had no idea of the Dominion or there would be this wide expansive war arch or there would be a war with the Klingons. Thats the beauty of going forward you can do whatever you want with your stories. When you set it up in prequels like this it just handcuffs you. I’m sorry it does. How many complaints did people say about Enterprise because it showed the Ferenngi, the Borg, bought in the Xindi and Suliban that people called foul on because they were never mentioned before? And they didnt have to be mentioned before but the point is their pressence felt shoehorned in. If you set them in the 25th century no one wouldve blinked. Of course I’m going to give it a chance…as I did Enterprise. I have faith in Fuler and… Read more »

That’s part of the fun, Brian. That’s why I watch anything Marvel puts out (with actors). All movies. All TV shows. I like the world building. I like how everything interacts. Yes, they tell interesting stories, and have great action. But many do. I don’t care much about DC, even though their shows are supposed to be good too. But they aren’t connected to the movies.

A friend was pissed off with the decision to drop the books in the Star Wars universe that were canon. He considers The Force Awakens as non-canon.

I care about the Star Trek universe. Stories are one thing, but other points in time allow for great stories too, without all the problems that 10 years before TOS brings.

It won’t be a believable show if the Discovery won’t look like a Constitution class ship. All Federation ships from at the latest 2240 to 2300 or later have the same look, except for the Excelsior, but there is a still a strong connection to the Excelsior. Now comes a ship that doesn’t look anything like it. Then the interior… at least until 2260 or 2270 they all look like the original Constitution class… unless you move closer to the NX-01 in the timeline. 2255 is way too close to the ship seen in TOS.

Kadajawi, Yes the world building and continuity is fun, but it should always be secondary. My problem with many fans is they have raised continuity over everything. If fans wonder why the producers don’t listen to them, it is exactly that attitude.

One thing I never see discussed among fans is a serious retcon in the middle of TOS’s 2nd season. Through the 1st and the 1st part of the 2nd season, it was pretty well established that Spock’s parents were dead. Then along comes “Journey to Babel.” I can imagine many of today’s fans tearing into that episode because it violated canon.

“All Federation ships from at the latest 2240 to 2300 or later have the same look, except for the Excelsior, but there is a still a strong connection to the Excelsior. ”

What are you basing this on? Considering we only saw a handful of ships in the original series and the first few movies, I don’t see you you can draw any conclusions about what different ships looked like.

Like I tweeted here- https://twitter.com/kingjames104/status/763537150025412608 I am quite mixed in reaction to this news. I am both excited and wary with some of his way of going about it. Like I linked it almost seems like his goal is to have a “Checklist” and check off every PC related thing he can think of all for this Diversity feel I guess. Maybe he just wants to break down walls or maybe he wants this to be the attention grabber that gets his show an audience. I just seem to have more questions now than before he announced the show at SDCC.

You say that like diversity is a bad thing. I am always surprised at Trek fans who forget about IDIC and how it applies to the real world. It’s not about having a PC list of things to check off. It’s about making sure to include the very core ideals of what makes Trek so much more compelling then all other scifi on TV. If you can’t get your brain around that, maybe you’ve completely missed the point of Trek all these years.

Me too Burn me too. I’m a black man and it was Star Trek that taught me diversity was a positive. But after the Beyond craziness where people were shouting over having a gay character and now the idea having a woman lead is somehow bad is disturbing for Trek fans. I dont get it, Star Trek is suppose to be one of the most progressive shows around but listening to its ‘fans’ its like they seem to think its really suppose to be a white boys club and everyone is just visiting. Just odd.

Sad so many bigots are here. Weird that bigots would identify as Star Trek fans of all things.

Bigfoots? XD

Nah, Tiger and Burn, I don’t think it’s the woman lead that’s James’s problem. It’s that gay character. Tsk, tsk! Showing life in its variety is not what some people are into; they can’t accept diversity. ‘Tis weird indeed, guys.

Like button. PC is pretty much a pejaritive way to refer to people who are not bigots. It’s hard to think of any other meaning.

Yes!

Yep, and you can include any idiot who says “SJW” as well because those “SJW” is why we no longer have segregation and people like me can vote and go to school with whites along with fighting for women and gay rights or anyone marginalized in society. It kills me in 2016 we still have people who think this way but its also why we have someone like Trump as now a Presidential nominee because he based his campaign on people like this. Its still sad.

“Diversity” is a “bad things” if it is used just for marketing purposes. Oh, btw? Ease up on being overly-sensitive. Trying to read something into a statement says more about YOU than the person making the original statement.

Diversity *is* a bad thing when it is forced and done for the sake of diversity. Let me give a somewhat convoluted geopolitical example: Europe is very diverse by nature; you have completely different culture every few hundred kilometers. The British look, speak, act and think differently from the French, who look, speak, act and think differently from the Dutch, who look, speak, think and act differently from the Danish, who in turn look, speak, think and act differently from the Swedish – and so on. Now, diversionists insist that Europe should import North African and Middle Eastern people “in order to become more diverse”. But, what happens when you import a large group of people and spread it all over Europe? The natural diversity actually decreases: no matter if you go to Britain or France or Germany or Netherlands or Denmark or Sweden, you now see the same black and brown people everywhere, loudly speaking their weird accents, eating their pungent foods, practising their foreign customs with little or no respect towards the natives. Under the pretext of “diversity”, individual European countries now look *more* like each other. In the mainstream entertainment, it’s basically the same. Nowadays, pretty much every show has blacks, Asians, gays and strong females; even the shows set in eras where it is historically incorrect. Star Trek could have been unique and daring by NOT having any gays and blacks and Asians and strong females, by NOT subjecting itself to the omnipresent “diversity” narrative; because… Read more »

Paul,
That is probably the weirdest comment I have ever seen on a Trek board. Shame that all those black and brown people ruined Europe for you.

“The natural diversity actually decreases: no matter if you go to Britain or France or Germany or Netherlands or Denmark or Sweden, you now see the same black and brown people everywhere, loudly speaking their weird accents, eating their pungent foods, practising their foreign customs with little or no respect towards the natives. Under the pretext of “diversity”, individual European countries now look *more* like each other.”
– natural diversity? Weird accents? Dude, we are all human. Get over yourself!

Look bottom line ,its about ratings and really the tone of the country and world we live in. Star Trek has always done that. Current events in the 23,or 24th century. So the producers and writers look at the world now and what is happening and there you go a new Star Trek show PC and all.

Ugh. Enough with the anti-diversity rants already. A female lead and a gay character are ‘every PC-related thing?’ What bloody year is this?

Trek has never had a gay character until blink-and-you’ll-miss-it-Sulu this summer (which some are saying, dumbly I hope, explains Beyond’s box office). They’ve been talking about it for decades. Fuller is gay. Gay characters can be as interesting as straight characters (esp one in a 23rd century context where there’s supposed to be zero stigma – we’ve never seen that on TV before [although maybe aliens will be bothered by it]).

Again, you could make these sane gripes (why do we need a female bridge officer/doctor/captain? Why do we need a black communications officer/engineer/captain/helmsman? Etc etc) with all of the other Trek shows.

Never mind, I see all the Trump tweets.

Yes I’m a Trump Supporter. Now you can Judge me and hate me. How very PC of you. I’ve mentioned before I was okay with diversity. It is just how he is presenting the show. It seems (optics) that his primary goal is that of diversity. Primary goal should be a compelling story with a compelling cast behind it. The fact that he doesn’t even have a lead cast member and hes 2 months away from shooting shows his priorities are skewed.

The \'Great Bird\' never dies

I agree. There is such a thing as being too progressive, and highlighting this gay character in every interview is getting old, and he’s starting to seem obsessed with ‘His’ own interpretation of Gene’s vision. There is no evidence either way of how homosexuality will be perceived in the 23rd century. We know Asians will be fair-skinned with slanted eyes, we know blacks will not be blue in Star Trek’s era, but are we absolutely certain that homosexuality will even exist?
What if it was eliminated in the eugenics period, along with cancer, manic depression, bi-polar disorder, autism, obesity, etc. It’s a valid argument, and therefore a subject best left to other modern contemporary media.
Please forgive me for angering anyone- which I’m sure I have. I have researched this subject quite a bit, and I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a gay character- of sort’s. It would be more practical, and more “progressive” if the character in question was an alien from a planet where the species is propagated by members of the same sex, and is therefore biologically inherent of them to be gay- accept, they perceive themselves to be normal while everyone else seems different. It would be a unique way for people to see homosexuality through the eyes of someone who’s gay.

It’s more progressive for gays to be eliminated, is that what you’re saying?

Jack, apparently it’s a sickness or genetic defect. Ironically, some of the same people insist it’s a “lifestyle.” Go figure.

It’s not a sickness or genetic defect. Its how people are wired which is totally different. I’m not Gay but I will defend them.They are people for Christ’s sake, human beings, something Star Trek would embrace in any century. There has been much research for years and still going on ,on how the brain is wired. If successful they could rewire the brain in certain areas that would cure ”bipolar” ”Cancer”etc. Without harmful drugs which don’t cure anything. But I don’t see ”Gay” on the list of being cured. In the animal kingdom i know of fish born male ,breed ,then turn female. Maybe ,just maybe that the way nature is.

Didn’t the eugenics wars happen between 1992 and 1996? This means TOS was actually an alternate timeline or alternate universe from our own. So, in my opinion anything goes. There can be an infinite number of alternate universes, and a series can choose any one of them. To satisfy me, Fuller can do anything he wants, as long as it’s a good, compelling show, with up to date cgi at least on par with Axanar, and some other fan productions.

” It would be more practical, and more “progressive” if the character in question was an alien from a planet where the species is propagated by members of the same sex, and is therefore biologically inherent of them to be gay- accept, they perceive themselves to be normal while everyone else seems different. It would be a unique way for people to see homosexuality through the eyes of someone who’s gay.”

This would be a very Star Trek-y way to do it. In fact, when I read they would have a gay character that was my very first thought. That the character could very well be alien with those kind of circumstances.

I don’t think a lot of folks understand what PC or tolerance means – I’m not PC. I believe in treating people with respect. And I believe in equality. There’s room for disagreement and criticism there.

I’m not hating you – but Trump’s platform is based on fear.

And wasn’t trying to target you personally over this – there’s just been a lot of this stiff on this site lately.

I’m pretty sure Roddenberry would be accused of PC pandering today.

Gene Roddenberry’s primary goal was diversity when he created the series. Any Trek series that doesn’t turn an eye toward those considerations right up front is doing it wrong.

Sounds like this one is doing it right.

Masončina….

Grow up. The “primary” goal was to make money.

Two points: 1. While I too am troubled that they don’t seem to have finished casting yet, it is ridiculously unlikely that the holdup is related to diversity casting. 2. Roddenberry deliberately cast a black woman, an Asian man, and a Russian character. The fact that you don’t find that shocking is a good sign of progress and a hint that maybe your modern biases (imagine if they cast a Muslim character!) will also look silly in the fullness of time.

James, you can have a compelling story and a compelling cast, “even” if diversity is part of that. It’s as if you’re saying TOS would’ve been better without that Vulcan, that black woman, and that Asian guy. Roddenberry cast Nimoy, Nichols, and Takei in an effort to make the Enterprise look like the world, not just the Hollywood interpretation thereof.

As to your support for a certain politician — it is your candidate that will be judged, and those who follow that candidate usually agree with that candidate’s expressed views, yes?

How can you be a Trump supporter after all the dumb things he says. Do you understand Trump speak, because I don’t ,it sounds greek to me.

*same gripes (heh)

I had a huge issue with them forcing Sulu into being a gay character. Even George thought it was a disservice to the character. I have zero issue with them creating a NEW character for this TV show and making it gay, trans, male, female, whatever. It’s a new character so I don;t like it or hate it until I experience it. People on BOTH sides of the discussion should look at it the same way. We shouldn’t criticize OR defend characters or casting until we see the product! It should be about creating an entertaining hour of TV.

That said…for every 1 good thing I read about the show.. I get real concerned about another. This whole All Access thing is going to be a dagger through the heart of the show. It’s a shame that they had to make STD the sacrificial lamb for their wanna be netflix/hulu

At the 50th anniversary con in Vegas, George said he was dissapointed that they didnt make more of the “gayness”…seems he is a hard man yo please. Doesnt want Sulu to be gay and when they make him gay, the character is not gay enough *sigh*

I don’t give a flying fig about “what bloody year it is”. The show is set in 2200, it shouldn’t have to conform to today’s sensitivities.
“Gayness” is a fetus development disorder caused by specific chemical environment in the womb. By 2200, medication to ensure healthy development of a child will be readily available for all pregnant mothers. Outside of fringe communities and decidedly isolated colonies, there won’t be any gays left in the future. Here’s your explanation why we haven’t seen any gays on Star Trek yet. Any more questions? :P

Can we get rid of redheads, short people, baldness and idiots too? Oh I guess not.

Redheads is a genetic or developmental anomaly? Here I was thinking it was perfectly natural since my wife had a normal pregnancy and yielding a beautiful red head little boy (and his pretty blond sister).

Wait!! hold the (cell) phone I’m not gay , but your comments and others make it sound like it is a bad thing.It’s a defect because were so called ”Normal” really?? “Gayness” is a fetus development disorder caused by specific chemical environment in the womb. Really, who made that up??

I think it’s one of the current theories about the causes of homosexuality, i.e. that it’s either caused by genes or fetal development.

@ Paul…maybe we can get rid of that freaky mutant recessive gene thing that created Caucasians too. How utterly stupid to conclude that being homosexual is some kind of genetic abnormality. Some of the most creative minds in history from Socrates to da Vinci to Alan Turing were gay. By the way, entire cultures such as during the Golden Age of Ancient Greece and Alexandrian Macedonia encouraged, as well as celebrated, male homosexuality as an ideal expression of masculinity, and not just in a pederastic fashion either. Sigmund Freud believed that all humans are essentially bisexual in nature and are just acculturated into these polarizations of sexuality by religion, political and other social fabrications. Often positive direct affectional and/or physical preferential experience creates a leaning towards one side or the other — but that is not always the case. There has never been conclusively proven a biological component for sexual orientation. Male heterosexuality has just been “encouraged” more, that is all — essentially for breeding purposes, but also for the subjugation of females in the past, as it still exists in some parts of the world today. Sexual orientation diversity is innate, you will not breed it out of anyone. Try your Dr. Mengele act some place else. I doubt that a future born of enlightenment and egalitarianism would welcome that kind of narrow-mindedness masquerading as rationality.

My issue with “PC-Trek” is that Trek used to tackle issues like race, gender, and sexuality in a very creative manner. Take Dax for example. They tackled homosexuality by having her meet her host’s past wife. Or how TOS looked at race and war in Let That Be Your Last Battlefield. DS9’s Far Beyond the Stars was another classic that examined race and gender in a very creative way. It just seems sloppy to me throw a woman in command and a gay character at her side to check the PC boxes then have “female-in-command” and “gay-relationship-trouble” stories as a way to explore them. It’s very un-Trek. I was hoping the show would be more clever than that, but I’m fearing it won’t be. I’ll wait to make the final judgment until I see the premier episode, but right now CBS definitely can’t count on subscribing to see it. Which is sad, because I was really excited about the show. (The ship design didn’t help much either, classic artist or not.)

I doubt that this female lieutenant was just thrown into command. What’s with this gay character being at her side? Surely, they should have him/her at the other end of the bridge… No one forced Sulu to be gay. TOS Sulu’s sexuality was never really discussed or hinted at. Sulu in TOS could have been anything – hetero, gay, bi, asexual. On the other hand, KT Sulu appears to be raising a daughter with gay partner. Yes, (Jack, you’re right) another blink-and-you-miss scene in another ST movie has many people getting their tightie-whities in a knot – again. So ho-hum, so pathetic. TOS was so un-Trek as well, because it had black female (a racial/sexual minority) on the bridge of the flagship of Starfleet, the USS Enterprise. Then they had that guy from Russia (at a time when the US/USSR were involved in a major cold war, with MAD etc) and that Asian guy (while US was paying heed to the words of cleric Malcolm Muggeridge who exhorted “Go kill a Communist for Christ!” – I kid you not) and we all know that Russians and Asians all sound and look alike. TOS was also rather “PC” for its time as well. It had to be. Sexuality was not handled at all well in TOS, especially when it came to Spock (ref: Amok Time). The episode reeked of immaturity and occasioned irresponsibility and self-centredness from one of the show’s main characters. A disgrace but no doubt, deemed “PC” in its… Read more »

Thanks Rose. I do understand part of Takei’s objection – that the closet shouldn’t exist in the 23rd century because nobody will give a damn either way, as it should be – but I don’t agree with him that it was established that Sulu was straight (and, anyway, this is an alternate universe).

And I’m not trying to bring politics into this – but I think/hope we’re on the cusp of change and all this Brexit and Trump stuff is an overreaction to that.

I also think Roddenberry had the sex drive of a 14-year-old and would have been happy withnpolyamourous coupling (and more) all over ship (his TMP novelization hints a little at that).

I agree with it not being established in TOS that Sulu was straight, if anything I think it was heavily hinted otherwise, after all Sulu was a slightly camp, cape wearing (when no other character ever wore a cape) fencer who was into botany. Not that any or all of those thinfs indicate sexual preference, but the presence of all 3 increases the liklihood in my experience

What are you going on about and why so obsessed with sexuality? Seems you have an issue with gays.

Just to point out, Keachick….

The reason Amok Time handled Spock’s Pon-Far the way it did was mostly due to network standards and practices limiting what they could actually say. Not because they were immature or irresponsible.

It was creative by necessity – they weren’t allowed to show this stuff. Also note that all Dax’s past hosts were straight (and all the same-sex stuff was between wonen – and sort of titilating).

Again, would you complain that they weren’t creative about the myriad straight relationships and dalliances shown over the years?

I didn’t complain about the short skirts or Troi’s boobs or Seven’s heels – or about 50 years of straight smooching. We’re talking one gay character out of hundreds of peopke shown on these shows, and people complain. It’s disappointing.

Federal, you’ve gotten your mental gymnastics workout for the day.

They were so creative because they had to. They wanted to show something about race… but had they done it, the show had been cancelled long before they had the chance to air it. They wanted to show people can be gay, but without having the person actually be gay! They wanted to show that it was ok for interracial relationships, but in order to be even able to air it, they had to make it look like Kirk was FORCED to kiss Uhura and vice versa. Janeway was more manly than most men… certainly than Picard. Why did they write the character that way? Why was Janeway a violent bully, more akin to Kirk? Writers felt Janeway had to show that a woman could be a good captain, by being manly.

All these “creative” ideas are because society wasn’t ready, and that was as far as they could go without having people torching down the TV stations.

However in our current society, or at least in the TV landscape, having openly gay characters or interracial relationships are nothing special. As such, if a new Star Trek show would chose not to do it, not to have such characters even though statistically they should be there, it would be more bigoted than even mainstream television.

Don’t obsess – just accept them simply as members of the crew and get over it. Not everyone has to look, act, think or be like you. A garden would be a far less interesting place if it only one kind of flower in it.

Don’t forget that Fuller himself is gay, so there is a personal reason to be inclusive to that community. Also remember one central tenet to Trek IS diversity, so I can’t believe there is any Trek fan scratching their head. #IDIC

Unless the gay charactervis camp, how can you tell they are gay? In my military workplace, unless someone talks about their partner, you have no idea about their sexuality.

Walls?? most of what he wants to do ,the walls have been broken. We have seen the plot many times before .Saru the lead character ,trying to learn how to get along with other people or aliens ,nothing knew there. I was hoping for Star Trek beyond the 24th century. I’ll watch the new show ,however disappointed.

James– Are you serious? You have SEEN this show called Star Trek before, right?

What I like: The focus on a “lower decks” character is different than having it on the Captain and the Bridge Crew. There was an episode in TNG like that. They could probably pull it off.

WTF: A subscription service that still has ads in it. I can’t even.

Except in that ep they were still all officers. Star Trek is a universe that is all chiefs and no indians. As an enlisted Navy vet that always annoyed me.

O’Brien?

50 years of Star Trek and only one enlisted … but yeah, O’brien :)

Johnny, I think the enlisted in TOS wore those dreadfullly floppy coveralls and were called “Technician” … and the history of enlisted in Trek is odd indeed. In “The Making of Star Trek” Roddenberry says that every person going into space would be an officer, maybe because of ’60s contemporary NASA?

Then in TNG we have Chief O’Brien, who doesn’t seem to supervise enlisted staff, so it’s a mystery. And his engineering expertise exceeds that of Geordi LaForge [of course, as enlisted, I sometimes trained officers, as did my ex-husband, a Chief, whom the junior officers affectionately refer to as a Sea Daddy]. The matter of enlisted/officers could have been much better handled in honor of all the enlisted who serve.

That was something that bugged me about TNG too. Everyone was an officer. In TOS you saw a lot of what appeared to be enlisted men and women running around. Even Chief O’Brian spoke about his Academy days. I thought that graduates of the Academy were officers and Chiefs weren’t officers. Am I wrong? I suppose it is possible the Chief never graduated and then enlisted….

Star Trek Enterprise (albeit wasting time on a ‘temporal war’ that was never explained and having the most insulting and unbelievable finale episode) has already been done. It wriggled around uncomfortably, changing style, tone, theme song – and it flopped, and pretty much killed Trek on TV. Why we are doing another prequel is beyond me. Especially strange, when you’re inhabiting a similar era in time to the Rebooted movies. And especially strange, if just 10 years prior to TOS, you’re stylistically going to be tied to TOS design and uniform… If I had faith they would recreate things perfectly without messing up, I would be all for it – but knowing TV today, they will try and sex it up. One long season of ‘Trails & Tribulations’ style attention to detail would be great… But I don’t see it happening. If Fuller wants to fanboy-out and tell stories from TOS era, then he could use time travel in a few episodes – but we all wanted Prime Universe, and Post-Nemesis. The JJ films can screw around with Trek, but the TV series was supposed to be for the fans. I PRAY that somehow this series will evolve and move forward in time. It shouldn’t be a prequel. What the hell is the point? Tell us new stories, from an uncharted, unknown future – we move forward. This should of been set 15 years after Nemesis. The universe is huge, why do writers insist on going back…

@Ralph
“we all” who, dude? Some of us would’ve been perfectly happy with a show set in the Kelvin Timeline!

“The fans” are not monolithic. They include me and other Trekfans who like all versions of Trek.

Marja, “we all” are Star Trek fans. You are a fan of the three JJ movies. There is a huge difference. You can not be emotionally attached to 50 years of continuity AND want a new TV series to feature in the JJ-verse. One or the other. I voted Brexit by the way.

Love Trek. Would be happy with a new show in Kelvin timeline – because a) none of this is real and b) it would theoretically be more open-ended

Ralph, shame on you. I do not know you or this Marja, but who are YOU to tell Marja what they are a fan of or what being a Star Trek fans consists of. I guess I’m not a Star Trek fan (despite all my time with the franchise TOS until now) because I’d have rather seen a Khitomor-era Captain Sulu Excelsior show.

I agree Ralph ,they are playing it safe and why this series maybe great ,but won’t make any new roads in the Star Trek world.

Interesting updates. And 2255 had the Sheliak Conflict…

I’m getting very frustrated that these producers from Paramount keep looking into the past… Gene was a visionary and for its time when star trek began it gave the people hope and interest to their future. When the next generation came out again it was set in the 24 century continuing the voyages of the original with a new crew. Deep space nine and voyager was riding from TNG coat tail and became its own entity with a cast we all appreciated and loved. I don’t now about every one but I would rather see something set after generations vs past been there done that. Look at enterprise lasted 4 season the rest 7 ……The worst part is we have to pay to see it

MOST people would, I dont get why they keep going back??? TNG, DS9 and voyager all took place in the 24th century and all had 7 seasons. They set Enterprise back in the 22nd season, the only one btw, and it was cancelled after 4. So the thinking is “Hey that worked out so well last time, lets try it again shall we?”

And I dont understand why set it SO close to Kirks time? At least Enterprise was seperated by over a century so didn’t have to worry about bumping into canon that much. Here they give themselves the headache of not contradicting anything in that time. Sure it will be a seperate story so they are relatively safe but I ALWAYS say this with a prequel you can’t go BIG. It being so close to Kirks time we already know there are many things that instantly get ruled out from doing. But yeah I’ll give it a chance.

Looking to the past? What part of ten years before TOS takes place in the past?

@TUP,

We already watched shows in the 24th century, and now they are going back to the 23th century, and that is the PAST in the Trek universe, clear?

We’ve seen Star Trek run the gamut from First Contact era to Nemesis so what is “past” in the Trek universe? Nothing. Its all our future. Is that clear? lol Good story is more important than feeding the silly idea that Trek “must go forward” by literally moving forward in time beyond the latest film.

@TUP,

“Good story is more important than feeding the silly idea that Trek “must go forward” by literally moving forward in time beyond the latest film.”

Well, I bet that Berman thought the same thing while they were working on ENT!

Despite what some say, ENT was a good show. I think it found its “spacelegs” by 2nd season, but a lot of people just tried a few and scarpered off.

I’m fine with a real prequel. Enterprise never really looked or felt like one – despite the ‘we don’t have replicators and transporters and can only go warp five, guys!’ It was really a sequel to TNG/Voyager.

Show me a prequel that looks/feels like the Cage/WNMHGB/first season TOS (or even those Kelvin scenes in Trek 09).

If there’s no grand Klingon/Cardassian etc political arcs, they can have all the adventures they want without it affecting continuity.

That said, I’m still hoping they don’t use that McQuarrie ship.

@ Jack:

“Show me a prequel that looks/feels like the Cage…”

Yes! One that REALLY looks and feels like The Cage (with the added PLUS of diversity amongst the characters). I would PAY to be able to see something like that. (Although personally, I love the McQuarrie ship!)

@Jack – exactly. My ONLY concern is that this be true in spirit to a series taking place that close to TOS. it has to look and feel the same with the same politics etc. A modern take on the SFX, sure, but it has to look like it could be a contemporary to TOS.

If this would really end up looking and feeling like TOS… fine. But I’m 110% sure that it won’t. They can’t do it. Studios won’t let them. Imagine a ship that looks older, and more outdated than the 1960s Constitution class Enterprise. Where light bulbs and buttons are everywhere, and screens barely exist. With big communicators that look outdated compared to any smartphone these days. Good luck finding new viewers. Whatever they do, they’ll piss off someone. Make it look outdated, fans will be happy, new viewers will be thinking what the hell? Make it look modern to us, and fans will go mad.

“Show me a prequel that looks/feels like the Cage/WNMHGB/first season TOS ”
– that would look absolutely ridiculous.

“If there’s no grand Klingon/Cardassian etc political arcs, they can have all the adventures they want without it affecting continuity.” – that would be absolutely great.

No, cause even the ship design matters. The ships in The Force Awakens look exactly like they should. To hell with having to look modern. The ships in Ep 1-3 also make sense, because that is before the fall of the Republic, society and technology.

If you place this show right in front of TOS, it has to look that way. That is why you shouldn’t do it.

They have to show the ridge-less Klingons. They have to worry about not showing Romulans (which stayed amongst themselves). They have to worry about introducing new races, because why didn’t we see them during the 200+ episodes that followed? The technology. They have to run around with huge communicators. And on, and on, and on.

You want to get rid of (some of) these issues? Keep some distance from TOS!

“To hell with having to look modern.”

That’s what was wrong with ENT right out of the gate; the “Akiraprise” as it was called at the time.

They should just put the thing on Netflix in North America – but maybe the budget is too steep?

Trek is the “family jewel” [LOL] that Moonves is using to start a new CBS streaming network. He doesn’t want to sell it to Netflix, because he’s keeping CBS current with today! Yeah, baby!

Yeah, I do get that. Wishful thinking took over and I lost my head.

I’m going to go home and turn on UPN.

I do not like any of this at all.

In reading the news, it feels more like they’re trying to check off arbitrary boxes rather than actually coming up with an interesting premise and then casting the best actors – regardless of race, gender, etc. I have no problem with a show that happens to have a female lead. I don’t care for a show where the producers say “we need to have a female lead” in some misguided attempt to pander to audiences and look progressive.

Setting it pre-TOS also once again raises the old problems of maintaining canon (and all the storytelling handcuffs that brings with it) and dealing with a show where the technology will probably look more advanced than it should to keep its internal history consistent.

The notion that the show will explore “a woman’s journey that will teach her to get along with others in the galaxy” sound a lot of what they tried with Archer in Enterprise. It was clumsily handled there and I have no desire to see another attempt at it.

I also didn’t care for a “it will have more sex than seen on one of these shows” comment I read on another site. The source is io9, the link is: http://io9.gizmodo.com/star-trek-discovery-will-likely-have-a-female-lead-1785119736. Check the 8:30 update.

They’re making it way too easy for me to save my money.

Doesn’t that time frame make it contemporary with Christopher Pike and his female first officer on the Enterprise?

I’d dig a Christopher Pike show with his first officer being a woman and leading the away teams and being the main focus of the show. Maybe have her have a relationship with the capt ;)

The show’s about the Discovery, not the Enterprise. So nope. :)

Mather Pfeiffenberger

It definitely takes place during Pike’s captaincy, which started in 2252, and during Kirk’s early Academy years. Would be cool to have any of that brought in.

No, Kirk was a Lieutenant aboard the USS Farragut eleven years before “Obsession”. He would have had at least a year or two as an Ensign before that.

Mather Pfeiffenberger

Yes, correct. So I was slightly off, but the Memory Alpha article on Kirk states that he began a five-year officer training program at the Academy in 2252 and that he was promoted to ensign in the mid-2250s, about halfway through his program. still “early” in a sense. If DSC takes place 10 years before his first five-year mission that would place it in 2255, at about the time that Kirk was promoted to ensign. He finished his Academy training in 2257, was promoted to lieutenant, and then began his official service on the USS Farragut, 11 years before “Obsession” in 2268.

Yup, seems too obvious to not include a storyline that at least meets the Enterprise under Captain Pike. Cast Bruce Greenwood please.

Bruce Greenwood Pike would be incredible. I think a Kirk appearance is likely too, given that nearly all Memory Alpha references to the 2250s revolve around Kirk and information from TOS. This is of course assuming the writers are truly paying attention to timeline minutia, which we know they don’t always do, and not always well.

Memory Alpha blew it then. Lieutenant is a higher rank than Ensign, but we know Kirk was a Lieutenant on the USS Farragut, and an Ensign on the USS Republic (the Finney incident.)

Captain Garth the famous explorer, with the female lead being part of SG-1..err.. I mean away team…I mean landing party…it would be a good change in point of view for Star Trek…engage time warp factor two… hey maybe Pike or TOS / Cage characters could guest star if this isn’t totally Voyager like…

I like the choice of time period. To me, that era is still the most ripe for exploration, before the Federation got too, well, federated. I’ll watch the premiere, then if it’s halfway decent, wait until the 13 week run is over to subscribe for a month and binge it. I don’t foresee CBS All Access having enough “depth and breadth” to keep me subscribed the other 11 months of the year.

You won’t be able to binge. Rumor is each new episode will only be available for 7 days.

Ah-HA!
I knew CBS would have an answer to those who planned on binge-watching. Tricksy.

SAndrews – Has that been confirmed? Where did you hear the rumor?

There is this thing called the internet and personal computers and software…. just sayin…

How bout the fact that the Lead is not only Female but a “Sensitive Hero” WTF?

Maybe she’s from some backwater and she’s afraid of diversity.

Shows have to have drama and character development, dude.

This is starting to sound like the Ghostbusters nonsense.

This is overall good news and I’m still hopeful for the stunning Angela Bassett who would perfect for DSC. She has the talent and the grace.

Agreed. Although maybe a little too stately for a non-Captain?

Agreed as well but it depends on the set-up, though it sounds a bit like a relationship reminiscent of Kira and Sisko. I’m looking forward to the announcements.

She has said she has other commitments.

My money is still on Sarah Shahi being the star.

Please no.

See- it’ll be about Axanar. Now it makes sense that CBS was suing them. If they just went to the higher-ups with Axanar, and were like, “Hey we’re already making that. Could you guys stop and maybe even help us make ours?”

No, we’re going to sue you and make all fan films suffer.

Read the article. Fuller specifically said it’s NOT about Axanar.

I am intrigued! I do hope, however, that at some point down the road we get a series that’s set in the 25th or 26th century; at a time when intergalactic travel is possible.

So let’s see. We had the first African-American lead in a Trek Series and they made him a Commander- only promoting him to Captain when the Dominion came into the show. Now from what I’m gathering, we are going to have possibly an African-American woman as the lead, and she’s an even lower rank of Lt. Commander? When all others were Captains, why are the people of color of lower ranks? I thought it sucked when it was Sisko, and I still think it sucks now.

I suspect something happens early in the pilot episode where the Discovery’s Captain and First Officer are killed, leaving the main character in command.

So all the white people had to die to give the black character an opportunity to lead? Lol

That’s how Kirk did it on the Farragut. But we don’t know this character will be black. I’ve said before, my money is on Sarah Shahi (Iranian ancestry.)

It actually bugged me thst TNG etc seemed way more white (and male) than TOS when it came to casting extras and guest stars. How many white, paunchy Admirals did we really need?

Exactly, Jack. I find it funny when people complaining about “political correctness” in the casting of women and non-Caucasians. The fact is that white men have been way over-represented in all the series. I’ve observed that when I walk the skyways of Minneapolis, I see more Asians than I see in the corridors of the Enterprise. (or Voyager, DS9, etc).

If you want to realistically depict what the human race is going to look like two or three centuries from now you need to make an effort. Just look at the leads of the 5 live-action series.

80% were men. 50% in real life.
80% were white. Around 15% in real life
80% were from the USA. 5% in real life.

Yes! Thst was the other thing that bugged me – mostly Anerican and mostly with WASPy names. If it’s a united earth, why would everybody be American? (a bigger issue with the Bermanverse). And why would so many Federation ships be named after 20th century US naval ships?

Sulu, Uhura, Chekov, Picard, LaForge, Bashir, Chakotay, Kim, Torres…

The whole point of Star Trek is that it doesn’t make any difference what color, size, shape, or even species someone is. They are all part of a crew who work together to get a job done. Complaining that it has too much or not enough of this or that group is missing the point entirely. We can’t Boldly Go until we get beyond all this tribal nonsense.

It is a matter of verisimilitude. If you take your premise, the fact that there are a disproportionate number of white Americans implies that 1) there is something inherently superior about them, 2) At some point in the previous two centuries, 75% of the world’s population was wiped out, or 3) the producers make the common mistake of assuming what they see around them is typical of the world in general.

Considering that one of the TNG episodes had an alien deduce that Dr. Crusher’s ancestors came from the Americas because of her pale skin and red hair makes me think 3 is most likely.

Or, perhaps, it’s the product of an American company that is targeting a primarily American audience. So of course Americans will be “overrepresented” just like Indian people are in Bollywood films, or, I’m sure, say, Japanese people are on Japanese TV.

Rosie, So you admit that the casting of white Americans is pandering to the audience?

I wouldn’t go so far as to use the word pandering. But it is a commercial enterprise. It is geared to its audience. If the audience can’t relate, they won’t watch. Ever seen that awful Turkish Trek knock off? It’s full of Turks. Because that’s their audience.

Yes, except we’re talking about a show that’s supposed to feature an international crew – and, heck an interplanetary crew. Again, TOS took great pains to show non-white extras and bit players (and give the international names). Later, that faded.

I don’t have any special insight into the writing or production process, so this is all speculation. But I think it was a conscious decision during TOS because at that time, yes, it was necessary to push the boundaries of what we saw on tv. And it worked beautifully. By the time of TNG, the tv landscape had changed and I just don’t think it was considered a priority.

For the same reason everyone is British on Doctor Who.

Is it possible that this could be set in the Kelvin Timeline between the time travel appearance of Nero and the alternate timeline events of ‘Star Trek’ (2009)?

A timeline between ‘The Cage’ and ‘Where No Man Has Gone Before’ could be interesting for historical referencing story telling, but you’d think it would be preferable to move forward in the established (prime?) timeline rather than revisit the past yet again.

It’s set in the Prime timeline, not the Kelvin timeline. Fuller made that clear.

I Khan Believe It An\'t Butter

Sounds like the Earth Romulan War

That was a century before Kirk, not 10 years.

No, it clearly doesn’t since it’s set 90 years after that conflict.

Lord, already think this series is NOT going to last. They would have been better off either doing something a few years after TNG, or just after the ST 6 film. That and the 1st impression trailer, the ship sucked

If Klingons are used, I’d think they’d have to be TOS Klingons, since this is only ten years before TOS.

They can always be Klingons who weren’t infected by the Augment virus.

Not exactly excited about the era or Fuller saying “new Star Trek universe” and “re-imagining.”

I haven’t watched commercials since about 2001. Of course this is CBS so I’m not surprised. I won’t be watching it on their service.

Another prequel. Disappointing.

Ok what I like and don’t like.

Likes:

-As known, set in the Prime universe
-That the Captain or whatever will be a woman and maybe even one of color
-Section 31 involvement
-That it sounds like it will be self contained stories after all, just with a bigger arc happening around it like DS9 basically.
-Sounds its going to be a bit more grittier, one of the advantages of not running it on a network. And if anyone watched Hannibal on NBC that Fuller developed, well strap in. ;)

Disliikes:

-Being yet ANOTHER prequel, now our third straight one (yes I count the KT as a prequel basically)
-The fact that its set so close to Kirk’s time.
-The ship still sucks (big time)

So so far there are more likes and dislikes so thats a positive. But I REALLY hate the dislikes though. I just can’t get excited about Enterprise: The Next Generation but I’m a Star Trek fan I give it all a chance and I believe in the team working on this. And yeah we all wanted a show again so if this is it this is it. Hopefully when real stuff starts coming out like casting, characters, more artwork etc I might feel better but it sounds like so many people are disappointed in yet another prequel show and for good reason.

The captain will not be a woman.

Damn. Thats what I was really excited about.

The lead character will be a woman. The lead character just isn’t the captain.

Hmm lead character is an agent of Section 31, unbeknownst to the Captain, and has to balance her commitment to that organization with doing the right thing.

The lead character is an agent of Section 31, together with everyone else on the ship because it is a Section 31 ship using stolen technology and even ship parts going on secret missions to assassinate, manipulate and commit genocide. Spying behind enemy lines. Discovery would be a rather ironic name, but otherwise it’d make sense. The ship design would make sense. And the diversity on the ship (remember that in TOS there was no diversity. Even Vulcans and Humans tended to serve on different ships… the Enterprise was entirely human, the Intrepid entirely Vulcan).

I do hope to see this series, if they actually do it, but Gene would be spinning in his grave so fast he’d create a black hole with Red Matter.

Kadajawi, If any of that is true I would love it lol. Honestly I don’t feel that excited about what has been proposed here but I really love the Section 31 angle. I just always liked espionage type of stories and it would be a new direction for Star Trek. Of course I dont want the show to JUST be about that, I still want it to be about exploration, seeking new worlds, etc but yes if its about secret missions and covert characters I think it will be fun because it would be different although sure I know it would bother people because it goes against the basic ideals of Star Trek. But that was always the beauty of Section 31 to me because its a real world equivalent. You want democracy, freedom and a progressive society, yeah wonderful only we don’t live in a world where everyone shares those beliefs so if you want to keep it you have to do some shady things that goes against those very values. Section 31 is the cold war equivalent to the ideals of Federation and I will go as far as to say that organization would actually make a lot of sense to see active in this period since there are bigger tensions with the Klingons and Romulans not to mention who knows what else? But yeah Gene would be spinning pretty hard (although he was cremated lol) so it may not go to the level you’re describing but it… Read more »

I think for a 13 episodes a series with story arc show we can stick to espionage and evil stuff. In that case I’d hope Discovery won’t stay the only Star trek show, so that the other show can take care of the actual discovering stuff.

To me this is the only way how they can explain all the things Fuller talked about, in 2255. Before that, after that, fine. But in 2255… Also, the ship design only makes sense if it is a Section 31 ship, like the Vengeance from Into Darkness. Just instead of being developed by an augment, it is developed using things they obtained on covert missions.

Imagine stories about some agents on Romulus, trying to find out what the Romulans are on about. Agents on Qo’noS. etc.

I also always loved Section 31 stories (guess why I like Into Darkness), but it’s not really Star Trek… then again the Romulans had Tal Shiar, the Cardassians the Obsidian Order, the Vulcans apparently V’Shar, and the Kligons had the, ahem, Klingon Intelligence.

There’s no reason both the lead character and the captain won’t be women. Fuller hasn’t said anything about the captain’s gender (or even necessarily that they’ll be a character that we see).

Now, Star Trek should be progressive and innovative. Being politically correct is none of that. I hope there will be diversity, but in ways we normally do not expect. Gay characters were expected and are rarely unusual in popular culture today. Would be really cool with a Russian or German captain, for example. Still though, they’re gonna have to work really hard in order to look more modern than The Expanse.

Conplex gay characters who aren’t just the gay character’ are still unusual in popular culture.

Sad but true. Their sexuality should be *part* of who they are, not *who* they are.

Jack and Marja, that’s actually the point some people are making. If you build the character from the ground up as “the gay character” , then of course their sexuality will be their defining trait.

No, not necessarily. That’s like saying that any straight character you build from the ground up has their sexuality as their defining trait.

You can have a solid complex character – who is also gay… or not gay.

But if the first trait you assign to the character, before any intelligence, principles, experience, compassion etc. is heterosexuality, then you end up with Zapp Brannigan.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think we both agree that there’s a difference between a character who is gay and a “Gay Character”.

You’re right, there’s a difference between a character who’s anything and the Anything Character.

But where’s the evidence that this will be a Gay Character? It sounds like he keeps getting asked about it – so he’s talking about it. Who know’s maybe they’re writing all the characters and then pulling straws to see which one ends up gay.

There’s also no evidence that the female character will be the Female Character.

It just seems like these objections all amount to “they shouldn’t add a gay character, it’s a publicity stunt/liberal pandering and there are enough on TV already.” If it’s just about characterization, then why s the word “leftist” popping up?

There was just as much similar yelping about black Hermione, gay Dumbledore, a black stormtrooper and lady Ghostbusters. I’m a white dude, and I’m not threatened by any of those things. What’s wrong with girls/non-white kids/gay kids having a few heros like them to look up to – there are a lot of heros to go around.

You’re right. I don’t know what the writers are doing or how they’re fleshing out the characters. I’m just speculating based on the big honking deal that’s been made of all of this. My instincts tell me that there was pressure from CBS suits to publicize it in order to take some of the heat away from the criticism of the perceived lack of diversity in their upcoming fall lineup.

I’m all for characters of every shape, size, species, color, and, yes, sexual orientation. I’m also all for it not making any difference. I’d really like a future where such things are about as relevant as, say, one’s shoe size.

It’s not fair for anyone to throw around terms like “leftist” or “agenda”. But neither is it fair to call people “bigot” or “homophobe”. Diversity means diversity in all things, including thoughts and ideas.

Jack,

Re:I’m a white dude, and I’m not threatened by any of those things.

Same here. Also one, whose education taught him from its origins from Ancient Greece to Shakespeare’s time to the late 1600s all roles were played by males. So, for at least men, men kissing men on some form of dramatic stage just isn’t as new or shocking as some suppose it to be and has an over two thousand year tradition in the performing arts before women were allowed to change it up for the next 400 or so years

In light of that, calling for its absence from the cinematic stage appears to be more a form of political correctness trying to deny the existence of a 2000 year tradition and history than those decrying its appearance says it represents.

Well, the timeframe has me cautiously optimi… cautiously pessi… cautiously unsure.
I always like the early/mid 60s vibe from The Cage and WNMHGB and the early TOS episodes. I hope it can have somewhat of that kind of feel, even with all the elements they are putting into it.
I hope they are consistent in terms of uniforms and ship interiors and other style elements. Otherwise, it will feel like a retcon.
The female Lt. Commander angle sounds great.

They already said the look of the show will look more up to date like Abrams movies are. So its going to completely clash with the look of TOS which again why do it? It probably won’t look as sleek as the KT but its not going to be like a 60s retrovibe either.

I wonder if CBS bought the STID sets and put them in storage which helped finance some of the new sets being built in Vancouver?

Maybe but it does sound like everything being built is new. That was actually one of the big pluses of shooting the films and shows all on the Paramount lot, think how much money they saved just bringing out old sets and uniforms from the various shows and films. They probably saved so much money on the various shows that way. Now being in Canada basically everything will be made from scratch sadly. I love going on memory alpha and reading how such and such prop used in TNG was refitted from TSFS and stuff like that.

Maybe they did save something from Beyond though and using it for the show.

Its important that it doesnt clash with TOS. I am fine with a modern update to the SFX but only to a certain degree. For example, the Enterprise bridge in JJ’s Trek is horrible. The Enterprise in Enterprise is pretty decent.

And thats exactly the issue for a lot of people because trust me its going to feel too updated and way more advanced for a lot of people out there since Fuller has already said the look of the will be up to 2016 standards and stated aliens will be reimagined, ie, look different than what TOS showed. The funny thing is none of this personally bothers me because its just a reality to keep a modern show, well modern and fresh. But I suspect a lot of people will be moaning about it but hope I’m wrong on that.

Discovery is in Toronto, not Vancouver.

Wait. STID had sets? ;)

It can be retro and still up-to-date, techwise (they don’t need rotary chronometers).

When they were making Enterprise they said it was going to go that direction as well and it DID but it was clearly a much more updated look. And the KT films the irony about that when everyone heard they were doing a TOS reboot many thought Abrams was going to update the 60s look and make it as close to the show with some modern updates and instead he turned the Enterprise into an Apple store.

In other words I’m not really holding my breath. It will probably be a bit closer than Enterprise was and waaaay closer than the KT films but its most likely going to be its own thing with a bit of 60s flair wherever they can highlight it without it sticking out of place for a modern audience.

No. The NX-01 looked older than the Constitution class. It isn’t sleek. It’s a ship with lots of bits and pieces glued to it. And if there had been a season 5, it would have received a secondary hull, like most subsequent Federation ships. There is a clear design lineage. The interior too has a contemporary, “2000” feel to it. It is right between the design we’d have now, and the design of the TOS Enterprise. It features plenty of buttons and manual controls, and screens that aren’t properly integrated. That Klingons looked post-TOS Klingons was explained, and made sense. Andorians were visually upgraded, sure, but not by much. Subtle changes are fine. But it sounds like Fuller is going for JJ Trek style changes, and if he wants to do that, please, for the love of god, DO IT IN THE KT!!! I wouldn’t mind if it were playing in the KT, if it doesn’t care about canon anyway. I’d be more inclined to watch it if it plays in the KT, than in the PU.

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition # 155.7 – Make em pay to watch, then stick in commercials anyway!

The Ferengi stole that rule from Hulu.

Well most of those are old proverbs anyway….now we know the source of one! :)

With Fans Like These...

I’m gonna take a stab at reverse engineering Fuller’s clues.

The show will center on a Trill symbiont that get released from prison to be joined with an unwilling Trill female host who is an ensign in Starfleet (possibly the first Trill in Starfleet?) and gets the rank of Lt. Commander as a condition of the Trill symbiont’s release.

This newly commissioned Lt Commander Trill leads the newly designed Discovery into territories as yet unexplored by any Starlet vessel. Some may be highly dangerous, because, to me, the ship looks like it has been built to handle some abuse in a battle. No skinny neck connecting the saucer section and no flimsy nacelle pylons.

The symbiont is maybe a former assassin, a murderous version of Bender from Futurama. Cigar smoking, belching, womanizing, gambling and doesn’t like certain races.

So, right away, you’ve got an internal tension inside the main character… who needs to be on their game to complete this mission… and the female host Trill suddenly likes the other female members of Discovery, too, right?

That’s all I got.

We’ll see if I was close in 5 months.

Nice Theory.

No.

That is an interesting theory but don’t hold your breath lol. That said I would love to see a Trill on this show. One of the things I DO like about a prequel show is that it can tie things in we know later and one of the things are like later aliens that was introduced in later shows.

My guess would be something to do with the Klingons. Don’t they mention something about a cold war starting between the federation and the Klingons less than 20ish years before TOS? In that scenario, it also makes sense why we’d see more of Section 31 (covert operations and so on). Plus, doesn’t the Discovery kinda give you that TOS-era Bird of Prey vibe?

Cautious optimism here! Diversity IS Star Trek but if every production decision is driven by a PC agenda, this could end up a mess. And paying for commercials? For the first time since they’ve announced the new show, I’m not 100% sure that I will subscribe.

Again, what agenda? It’s one bloody gay character. Did Roddenberry have a Scottish agenda? Or a Black agenda? Or a white agenda?

Do the Irish have an agenda with St’ Patrick’s Day parades?

Jeepers. There’s never been a gay character in Trek. Why is including gay humans in the mix suddenly part of an agenda?

Are you that threatened that you can’t take one or two gay characters out of the hundreds of characters that have been on these shows?

“PC Agenda” is just code for subtle homophobia from the “I dont have a problem with gays, just dont be all gay around me” crowd. Similar to the “I dont have a problem with blacks as long as they dont date my daughter”.

Star Trek has tried to be reflective of modern sensibilities, especially TOS which took place during civil rights movement and featured a black character on the bridge, the cold war and featured a Russian etc. A new series having a gay character makes a lot of sense. It HAS to be done right, similar to how TOS never pointed out how progressive Starfleet was to have black women and Russians. A character being gay has to just be gay and not have it matter.

TUP, and, “I don’t have a problem with women, as long as they don’t try to be equal to, or in charge of men” …

@Marja – exactly.

Get a grip. Labeling those who don’t agree with your “sensibilities” as a racist or homophobic is ridiculous. I was referring to Hollyweird’s usual habit of knee-jerk overreaction to any PC issue. What should matter is the quality of the story — not the studio’s intent on overcoming their recent bad press over the racial makeup of their proposed fall lineup.

Star Trek has never had a gay character THAT WE KNOW OF. Kevin Riley could be gay. Or Kyle. Or Admiral Nacheyev. Or Keenser for all we know. But knowing their sexuality is irrelevant unless it drives the story. Believe it or not, if someone doesn’t care what sexuality someone else is, it doesn’t make them a homophobic bigot.

@Redshirt Rosie
Pathetic excuse. You literally see straight couples and sexuality all the time throughout Star Trek. You KNOW when a character is straight, because you see their heterosexuality on display. Nobody says anything about it because it’s the ‘default’. It’s ‘normal’. Which means that yes, you actually have to go out of your way to make a homosexual character. You have to purposely make them gay. Does it have to serve the story? No. A lot of the heterosexual couples and their displays of intimacy on screen aren’t totally relevant to the plot or story. You could argue that the interactions themselves may serve those, but unless a male character is getting a female character pregnant, or if there is some specific reason for the characters to be male and female, then the heterosexuality element isn’t necessary. So just as heterosexuality isn’t always needed, neither is homosexuality. This is about purposely representing it so that homosexuality gets acknowledgement. So when somebody tries to make an argument against purposely including homosexuality, they are in fact showing their bigotry. There is no argument against including a character like this other than ‘I don’t want to see that’. Sure, it’s personal preference, but Star Trek is for everybody.

@Ashley
There are plenty of characters that we don’t KNOW their sexuality is the point I was making. I never assume a character is straight. If one assumes that “straight” is the “default” or “normal” setting, that speaks more to their prejudices than it does for someone who doesn’t give a care.

Exacept we’re not talking about ‘not caring’ – we’re talking about people here saying they won’t watch the show because they’re revealing that a character is gay – and I assume it would be the same if Riley or Kyle or Keenser was gay.

@Jack well, that’s their loss then.

Deep down, though, I bet they’d still watch. It’s Star Trek, and we’re fans after all.

Are you serious? What agenda? ROFLMFAO!!!

PC Agenda – politically correct way of expressing bigotry and feeling smart about it. Not fooling anyone.

I’m in, cant wait to see what they come up with. And who knows its possible we can get a cameo or two from Kirk and crew. TREK is back on TV people, freakin A!!! :]

For those fans upset this story is set close to TOS I get it, but I think the studio is going with what they think is the safe bet. Typical studio think. But I think if the stories are good it wont matter in the end.

And to those very few people trashing TOS and being rude to me in the Beyond thread…eat your freaking hearts out! The series is set close to the TOS timeline, boo hoo.:]

And before anyone thinks I’m being childish (honestly I’m being sarcastic more than anything), let me say I was told by the above mentioned folks to shove my opinions you know where and another “fan” was calling TOS in effect silly, obsolete and you were to if you liked it.

Uh I guess this is partly aimed at me although I never ‘trashed’ you or TOS and I never said it was the time period itself that was the issue, I was SPECIFICALLY referring to the characters of Kirk of Spock. My point was, and still is btw, Star Trek can do just FINE with other crews. Thats all I was saying. Notice I never said I had issue with the time period, I was only saying the 60s show itself come off hokey and outdated because yeah, for most people under 20 it would. YOU were saying that Star Trek can only become popular with Kirk and the crew. I personally said I’m excited about Discovery because its not a TOS retread. Everything about the show itself is 180 degrees different from what we heard came before. THATS what I want to think outside the box and not reboot the same 7 characters and ship over and over again.

So its a bizarre argument you are holding because you were the one that kept going on about how those specific characters from TOS is what brings mass appeal when its clear this show is going a completely different direction with its characters and personalities.

Wasn’t talking to you Tiger.

*about

@Hugh – isnt it true you wanted the series to take place in the KT universe?

Some of us did. Would definitely “free us from canon” ;^)

Which is why a lot of us wanted this show farther in the future. Believe me the same people are ‘happy’ about this time period will be the same people moaning the second it goes against some obscure bit of information they know because someone threw out a line from TOS or TNG in episode whatever and will be whining how it goes against canon. You set it farther down the track you can do what you want but we’ll see.

I don’t get this “free us from canon” BS. Why be a fan of a 50 year franchise and loath the 50 years of story telling? Create a new series call Space Trip and have at ‘er.

Not this series, but I think it would be cool to have both. Like I said the 90’s all over again. Hell look at the CW and other networks putting out Super Hero shows left and right, with some set on earth, alt-Earths and so on. If this series is a success spin off into the Kelvin TOS timeline, throw in a post TNG era series for good measure. Go for broke imo

Ok, sorry for overreacting lol.

It’s all good Tiger lol

And Fuller said it will take place in that time period but the look will be updated like the Abrams films were which again I dont see the point of having a prequel and then just overwriting its total art direction because it would clearly feel too outdated for most people. But hey I was fine the way Enterprise looked AND how the KT films look so I will probably be fine with this too.

Thats definitely something that makes me nervous. Updating SFX is one thing, not respecting the production design is another altogether.

NX-01 could look the way it did because it is far enough away from the NCC-1701. There is a natural progression from what we have now, with lots of single monitors placed everywhere, and buttons and dials etc., to the sleek and more abstract NCC-1701. Same with the exterior design. The NX-01 is form follows function. There’s all sorts of stuff sticking out of the ship, it all has a very functional, rough looks. Plus with the proposed season 5 refit of the NX-01 we would have seen the ship gain a secondary hull, that would make it look more like later ships with an external engineering section. During the 4 years in deep space they realized that the ship needs more power, so they attached another warp core to it. The NCC-1701 is sleek, it is actually designed, form matters.

The KT Enterprise can look so different, because roughly 30 years before that ship the timeline was changed, infused with paranoia and technology from the 24th or 25th century. Those things tend to change stuff.

But this plays exactly during the time the NCC-1701 was developed and built. It should follow that design. If it doesn’t, it does not make sense.

ENT changed some things, but gave explanations.

I’m curious about this trainwreck called DSC, but I doubt it will be good, or at least that it will make sense. It would have been better to place it in the KT, instead of the PU.

I disagree with your notion that a ship built 10 years before the TOS-era NCC-1701 has to look and feel the same as on TOS. It doesn’t have to, not at all.

Just look at the NCC-1701 from The Cage and the Refit version from TMP. These versions are actually very much alike as far as bridge design is concerned, the colors, uniforms etc… still there is the freaky TOS version with its primary colored uniforms and orange doors in between. Why?

Well, think of the TOS era as the Flower Power experiment of Starfleet history. These chnages and experiments didn’t last, after about a decade the Hippies in Starfleet Corps of Engineers and uniform designers were on their way out again and they picked up where Starfleet had been 15-20 years earlier… The Cage.

This is why TMP and The Cage desigs (interior, uniforms etc), along with the Kelvin ship designs should be what DSC should look like… darker, less colorful, more serious… it’s still compatible with Trek canon… pre-TOS and post-TOS all did it like that…

It could also be sn even older ship, no?

@Hugh Hoyland,

Wait, is the show set in the Kelvin Timeline as you were demanding ?

comment image

After seeing the Kelvin in the opening of ST09 I craved a show to run with that exact aesthetic, tech, and everything but that being said it wouldn’t feel like it fit in line with the rest of the prime universe. It’s unfortunate because that bit of cinema excited me more than a lot of Trek had in most recent times. I’m still excited about this series I just hope they don’t go too left field with it.

@PEB – I agree. The Kelvin was the best thing about all three KT timelines.

Never “demanded” it, just really want one. Still cool its set really close to TOS era Trek, don’t ya think? :]

Don’t care…I won’t be paying to watch this new ST show and a bunch of crappy CBS shows WITH COMMERCIALS. CBS has balls of steel to force commercials down the throats of paying customers.

If I was going to watch, I think I’d be disappointed that this new program is a prequel…Not to say a prequel can’t be great, but I think I’d prefer a post Nemesis timeline.

Well if people didn’t think we got enough Enterprise references in Beyond, look out!

I still think its funny the one show that got cancelled and people didn’t like will live on the most via the KT movies and probably this show. I don’t have any issue with it, just kind of ironic.

I hope any gay characters aren’t identified as such before the show is even broadcast. I’d like to see them portrayed as characters who happen to be gay and not THE gay character. Their sexual orientation should only be revealed when it’s necessary to the story.

Yeah.

Yawn. Not excited. Yet another step backward.

Worst of both worlds: a pay service with ads. If I have to pay anyway, I don’t mind spending a couple extra bucks for an ad-free option.

So frustrating, So depressing.
After all the high hopes, another damn prequel. I wish all of this was just a bad dream

Less a prequel (it’s not about how the Enterprise came to be) and more just a new show set in an earlier time.

Would prefer “Captain Kirk: Little House on the Nexus.”

Mary Ingalls: “I can’t see, Pa” (gets handed a VISOR). “Oh.”

Jack, LOL!
And instead of Pa having to drive the wagon into town for supplies from Olsen’s store, he could just order up everything on a replicator

Ha.

EMH: “Please state the nature of the medical emergency.”

Half-pint: “I have laren-ghee-tis.”

I like the slightly-pre-TOS setting. I like it a lot, and I’ve never really understood the problem with setting things before other things. This is a new story with different characters; unless they specifically tie into established storylines, I don’t consider this a “prequel” any more than “Master and Commander” is a prequel to “Run Silent, Run Deep,” and I wouldn’t object to a TV series being set during WWII just because I know how things turned out.

Exactly.

And would JJ need a royalty for Kelvin? Hemsworth would probably be available for a one episode or two episode arc. Actors doping these 13 episode critically acclaimed series is sort of en vogue. It fits their schedule and they get to really act. If they wanted him and there weren’t legal issues with using George Kirk, I imagine they could get him.

I’m good with the setting too. The TOS era is a great era to play in and revisit. I’d be very pleased to see prime universe equivalents of historical characters and ships like the Kelvin, Robeau, and Admiral Marcus get mentioned too.

USS Kelvin that wasnt destroyed is a GREAT idea. How much would Hemsworth cost to revisit the George Kirk role in a mini-arc on TV…?

Oh … Kelvin in the PrimeVerse? Though I doubt they could get a commitment for TV from Hemsworth. Because, Marvel.

Robeau … hmmmm! Maybe ….

What if the lead is the 1st female Andorian Lt Cmdr in Star Fleet? I can probably be ok with everything so far except the look of the ship. Ugliest ship EVER…

Don’t Andorians have four sexes?

I would suspect the female lead will be human or human looking. If we are to go on this journey through her eyes, she would most likely be reflective of us in general. Easier to identify with.

More than likely so, but I didn’t think the Andorians were too far off in appearance. If not the lead, a regular then. I thought in Enterprise the “pink skin” comments were interesting that they saw Caucasian humans in a different way. It could be explored further to parallel “today’s” issues.

There ya go, they could kill two birds with one stone. Alien *and* “gay”.

Andorians being one of the Federation’s founders, it’d be pretty messed up if it took this long to get a female Lieutenant Commander.

Agreed, however wasn’t Spock supposed to be the 1st Vulcan Star Fleet officer? Vulcans were also founding members and we’re talking a similar time frame.

” wasn’t Spock supposed to be the 1st Vulcan Star Fleet officer?”

No, he wasn’t. This is a bit of fanon that has no support from the series. The fact that there was a whole ship manned by Vulcans. (Vulcanned?) suggests that he wasn’t.

Why should i pay to watch commercials?

You don’t have to, that’s the beauty of it. I will and hopefully enjoy it, I think it’s a terrific value. You don’t, and will wait on the blurays or skip it altogether. Nothing wrong with that.

The same way you pay for commercials with cable?

Thank you Trekk,

People are already paying for a service with commercial, it’s called cable. I’m watching one right now in fact lol.

Again I get peoples point but its not like this is the first time you paid for a channel to watch commercials and most of us are paying $80+ a month for it while locked in a 2 year contract. But yes if you dont think its worth $6 a month, I get it, but the silly hand wringing over it is too much. THAT said though yes this could be a major concern for CBS if enough people feel they are being cheated and won’t sign up. So while I think the hyperbole over it is ridiculous it could have real consequences for that site as well so CBS better figure something out if people are refusing to sign up over these issues.

Because its the only (legal) way to watch Discovery when it first comes out, and you’d have to be insane to pass up on new Star Trek.

Legat Damar,

Re:its the only (legal) way to watch Discovery

No it isn’t. One could vacation or get a gig, in Canada and watch it for free on their OTA broadcast CTV. Or by clever knowledge of CTV’s signals crossing the U.S. border just move to areas of the U.S. where CTV can be received and watch it for free via that.

One might have to brush up on Canadian compatible TV tuners to know whether their home entertainment rig can already handle it. At most an external tuner might need be purchased.

Of course, CBS is counting on the fact that most in the U.S. will find it easier just to subscribe than try to avail themselves of such options.

Dis, LOL, moving or buying a Canadian compatible TV tuner will save on those monthly subscription costs

Legat Damar,

Sorry, I was wrong about CTV caring the whole series. It’s going to air the pilot only.

So the only option is to reverse snowbird up to Canada to watch it on some cable bundle carrying SPACE.

wpDiscuz
Advertisment ad adsense adlogger