“Star Trek: Discovery” Story To Be Told In Television, Books, And Comics

During today’s Mission: New York panel about Star Trek: Discovery, writer Kirsten Beyer revealed that the series will have a very strong cross-media element.

Beyer divulged that a book from Simon and Schuster and new comic book series from IDW will be published concurrent with the premiere of the new series in January.  Beyer, known to fans for her Voyager novels, but be overseeing both projects, which are being developed at the same time as the series itself.  She announced that noted Trek author David Mack will be writing the inaugural novel.  The creative team for the comic was not disclosed, although she did say she’s working with writer Mike Johnson”to learn how comics work”.

Of course, that was not all that was said at today’s panel.  Beyer and Discovery writer/consulting producer Nicholas Meyer talked more about the show’s development, and what we should expect come January.

The panel began with a video message from executive producers Bryan Fuller and Alex Kurtzman, and Fuller elaborated on the signifigance of the show title:

One of the biggest responsibilities of a Star Trek series is to christen the ship, and this ship is called the Discovery for a few reasons, not the least of which is Stanley Kubrick’s contribution to the Discovery in 2001: A Space Odyssey, NASA’s vessel, the Discovery, and also the sense of discovery and what the word discovery means to Star Trek audiences who have been promised a future by Gene Roddenberry where we come together as a planet and seek brand new worlds and new alien races to explore and understand and collaborate with.

Kurtzman spoke of the challenges in updating Trek for a 2017 audience:

What we attempted to do with the films was to bring Trek into the modern age. Now that that has been done, we have a new bar. We now have to modernize Trek for television.

Fuller spoke of wanting to tell a Star Trek story in a different way:

We needed to look at life on a Starfleet vessel from a different perspective so we introduced a character who is not a captain, but is going to be interacting with the crew in a whole new dynamic which gives us an opportunity to tell a story about life on a Starfleet vessel.

The pair were asked about what is on their wish list for the series, and Beyer said that she hoped they would be able to integrate “the sense of optimism that has always infused Trek without painting too pretty a picture about the world we live in.  Rising to that occasion is my biggest hope…it’s a shared goal by everyone working on the show.”

DSC03595

Setting the series 10 years before TOS has unleashed all sorts of speculation as  to why that particular era was chosen.  Meyer indicated that the reason was fairly simple:

I think it’s about finding a space in the chronology where there’s room to maneuver and create stuff.  I think what Bryan didn’t want to do was use the same characters that had been used on other series.  So he looked and found this opening.

The announcement of any new Star Trek series carries with it an enormous amount of anticipation, and Meyer wanted to temper that excitement somewhat:

Everybody should lower their expectations. If you carry on in this way not only is there inordinate pressure being put on those of us creating it but you’re also putting pressure on yourselves, which is inevitably going to lead to some sort of disappointment.  You can’t please everybody, you can’t please everybody all the time.  Art is not done by committee. With all due respect, fans don’t know what is best for fans. All I’m suggesting is that if you go with open minds and open hearts, you may be rewarded. Whereas if you go with a set of impossible to realize expectations, which even you cannot specifically define, then we’re bound to fail. And so I’m saying, you know, get loose.

Other tidbits:

-There will be new aliens and “interesting life forms” who will be part of the new cast.

-The show will be a combination of serialized storytelling and standalone episodes.

-Progressive values will be manifest in the storytelling.

While they didn’t reveal a great deal today, there’s definitely some things to chew on.  Let the speculation commence!


More Mission NY Coverage:

Day 1 write up

Day 2 write up

Day 3 write up

Sort by:   newest | oldest

I’m not at all happy about this, because this is the sort of terrible transmedia stuff that results in stuff like Halo 4 & 5 and the Star Wars prequels, where the primary medium is compromised by the fact the writers assume you’ve read all the ancillary material. I’d rather have spinoff novels and comics set in the same era, have no connection to the show’s stories, and are never referenced at all.

I concur. There were things in the JJ Trek films that didn’t make any sense unless you read the comics. Which I didn’t. It’s just corporate double and triple dipping. I’ll cough up six bucks a month for the show, but there’s no way I’m buying comics. It’s not my bag, baby.

Also, I’d have thought they’d use this convention to break some REAL news about Discovery. What a wasted opportunity.

Agree.. Big wasted opportunity — hoped for casting annoucement esp since CBS all access paid huge advert siting/sponsorship fees for the convention this weekend

I suspect it will be more like the spinoff media of every other Star Trek show, where its available if you want extra Trek, but isn’t necessary to follow the story on TV.

The more I read about this show the more it sounds like Ally McNeal in the star trek universe.

I’d watch that. Seems like it’d be a better side dish than an entree, but after 11 years, we’re hungry.

Jason M Stone,

No, Ally McBeal is in the SUPERGIRL universe.

I have a sick feeling this show will be–

1- very dark/adult themes
2- talk a lot of progressive -liberal views and talk about about gay rights,etc
3- will not be kids /family friendly

Interesting. I have a very healthy feeling–or hope, anyway–that the show will be those very things. Funny how that works.

Look at the larger Star Wars fan base and ask “why” and how-disney/lucas is able to keep that franchise in healthy shape… Addtl doesn’t it bother Star Trek fan base that fewer and fewer kids attend Star Trek conventions whereas at Star Wars conventions you see thousands of kids ?

Nothing really to look at. STAR WARS does indeed have a far larger fan base than Trek. Always has. It’s a pretty straightforward tale of somewhat compromised good vs. pure, unreconstructed evil (and when Lucas tried, albeit clumsily, to make things a bit more morally complicated in the prequels, fans hated it). Which makes it easily translatable into just about any culture; the films are fun, move quickly, feature lots of cutting-edge visual effects, attractive young casts, and lavishly imagined settings that Trek (even BR Trek) could never afford. And because it takes place in that galaxy long, long ago and far away, and the technology doesn’t have to be held up against a plausible human future, its internal mythos has managed to remain far more consistent and timeless than Trek’s as well.

That said, what’s your point? That Trek should give up its mission statement of exploring the human condition and the wonders and possibilities of exploring the cosmos to become more like STAR WARS? Personally, I’d rather the Trek franchise close up shop in the next five minutes, forever, than go that route.

My point is: Star Trek needs to get a next generation of younger fans– kids and should consider an another animated series

Hey, I love kids! But with some exceptions, their tastes don’t tend to be all that sophisticated, and Trek doesn’t need to, and shouldn’t, pander to them. Fun and action/adventure are fine, but if anything made TOS unique at all it’s the fact that in a market full of shows like “Lost in Space” and “Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea,” its creator intended it to be, first and foremost, a TV space opera for ADULTS. In 2016, following the success of sophisticated narratives like those in “The Sopranos” and “Breaking Bad,” Trek needs to produce more shows at the level of a “City on the Edge of Forever,” not less. Otherwise, what’s the point? The world already had plenty of STAR WARS to fulfill the needs of children.

Michael Hall- well said

Great. Maybe they can license Disney to make the “The Star Trek Kids!”

Star Trek is Sciene fiction
Not a cartoon for kids
I’m proud it is too complex to appeal to the Star Wars kids.

Agreed.

It bothers me a lot that the new movies haven’t really seemed to bring many new Trek fans into the fold. When Koenig asked the crowd on Sunday how many people were over 40, I’d say about 3/4s of the hands went up. It was more than a little depressing! Star Trek and its fans are aging quickly, and the reboots had almost no presence at the convention. I didn’t see a single Jaylah cosplayer, and I expected her to be huge.

I’ve said that ever since Trek 2009 made its debut and its defenders would point to what a great success it was and how many new fans it was supposedly creating. No, the first two Bad Robot films were not blockbuster Star Trek films that would re-energize fandom; they were reasonably successful generic franchise tentpole movies that generated revenue for the Viacom stakeholders. Not the same thing at all.

MICHAEL HALL,

Yep, and I was right there also noticing there was absolutely no evidence of these phantom new hordes of fans in any of the ancillary markets needed to make megablockbusters with these sorst of investments fly as well.

Someone cosplaying as a Kelvin Timeline character at a Star Trek convention would be like a Hillary Clinton supporter showing up to a Trump rally. Openly being a fan of those films is not worth the harassment you’d get from the “true fans”. I’d suspect there were more closeted reboot fans there who don’t feel comfortable or safe openly declaring they like those films.

“True” Star Trek fans should be in the business of harassing anyone, and I’ll harass anyone who says otherwise.

Shouldn’t be in the business of harassing anyone. Oy.

I know a number of non-Trek fans that saw 09 based on positive word of mouth and familiarity with the cast and they enjoyed it. Same people found STID confusing and not enjoyable. It chased them away from Star Trek again.

It seems to me, though, that they were non-Trek fans before and after their exposure to Trek 2009. The difference was that Trek 2009 was a film that they could reasonably enjoy, and INTO DARKNESS wasn’t. No net gain for fandom (whatever that means) either way.

Dark themes do not bother me. In fact, I am sort of hoping it touches on dark from time to time.

I have no issue with them tackling complex issues. I DO have a problem if they take sides regarding political philosophies….

And finally I really hope it ISN’T “kids/family” friendly. Even the animated series wasn’t all that kid friendly.

Taking a political position can be tough but there has to be a social philosophy that guides them. There is still politics. STID was hurt because the writer was selfish in pushing his agenda. Had he been willing to present a more balanced approach, even with his side winning in the end, it would have made the film so much better.

Sure Admiral Marcus could have ruled Starfleet & we could have had an epic war to destroy the Klingons & master the universe, where all starships were pulled from exploration & refitted as war ships to keep the piece in the new empire

And what’s the problem with progress? Oh, your a backwards homophobe
Hopefully your kids will see the show & learn something useful

Honestly I don’t think most people even realized the Truther subtext in STID. That’s something I only understood after reading about it once, and people seem to have ran with it. I thought STID did a pretty good job dealing with the 9/11 moment that was the destruction of Vulcan. Even Peter Weller thinks that Marcus was in the right, and everything that happened in the end just proved him right. But as for the politics of the writers, I didn’t really see much of it, probably because it had such a flimsy plot to begin with.

They picked this era because Axanar was their first and proved it was valuable. if CBS cared, they would have worked out a deal with Axanar and allowed everyone to benefit. Instead they sued Axanar like bullies.

As an Axanar donor–a significant one, believe me–and volunteer, please don’t hijack the thread with a subject that’s not really that relevant.

Incorrect. CBS sued a group who was infringing on their intellectual property for profit. That not being a bully; that’s protecting your assets, which is totally within their right.

Axanar made it easy for them to justify but it was more about a pissing contest that set the era like when they created DS9 to overshadow Babylon 5

Oh God, enough with Axanar already.

CBS is under no obligation to bend over backwards for people who willfully steal their IP for profit making purposes.

El Chup,

CBS is under no obligation to bend over backwards for people who willfully steal their IP for non-profit purposes, as well.

You attempt to draw a distinction where none exists in their history of litigation as old Paramount on the matter.

@Peter D. Star Trek was there first. Peters is basically Garth of Izar at this point – completely deluded. And he’s comvinced others. The director of Prelude has spoken pretty emphatically against him. Peters used Trek to fund a for profit studio/production company instead of coming up with his own darned idea.

Jack,

You are splitting hairs. One can look at how James Cawley built his unlicensed copyright-violating sets with the same jaundiced eyes, especially considering the end result was he turned them into commercial tours.

Disinvited,

James Cawley built the sets using his own money almost exclusively, it doesn’t matter if they were licensed or not. Maybe your just upset because his hard work was rewarded by them becoming licensed by CBS. The key difference is Mr. Cawley didn’t go out and deceive people like the folks at Axanar did. There was never any intent to make Axanar, once they saw how much money was being donated. They just figured they could pretend they were making it and live of the money of hard working fans.

Actually in the last two kickstarters he had monies were used to finish the sets. So yes he did use donor funds.

Admiral Baxter,

I’m not upset.

I just find it a bankrupt assertion that donated labor has no value and that somehow it is nobler to ACTUALLY profit off of that for both CBS and Cawley, than it is to garner, as yet, unproven alleged benefit from donated funds which ultimately source from the same sweat of labor for most of the donors.

“The fans in the cast and crew not only work gratis but also make cash donations to keep the project afloat. Cawley has sunk more than $100,000 into the bridge set (he stopped counting two years ago).” — ‘To Boldly Go Where No Fan Has Gone Before’, Chris Suellentrop, WIRED Magazine, Date of Publication: 12.01.05., Time of Publication: 12:00 pm.

http://www.wired.com/2005/12/to-boldly-go-where-no-fan-has-gone-before/

I’m not trying to minimize Cawley’s contributions toward getting his sets built, but it is simply not true that he hammered every nail, turned every screw, applied every drop of paint, etc. to get them film ready, and even you acknowledge he “almost” covered all the costs.

@Peter D this has absolutely NOTHING to do with Axanar. All Axanar did was show that if you talk long enough the fans will buy it. It’s JJTrek ships in a TOS setting. Absolutely nothing brilliant about that.

Move on Peter..

My hopes continue to hinge on the production design not looking out of place to naturally progress in some way towards that which follows it.

I don’t see anyway to do that and be realistic compared to the world we live in around us. The TOS sets were cartoonish. It would be similar to a new TV version of Batman taking its design cues from the 1960s TV series.

They weren’t cartoonish at all.

We have to think about one of the things that made Star Trek so interesting in 1966: It’s portrayal of technology and what was possible in the 23rd century.

Over the past 50 years, our scientific knowledge has expanded exponentially. Beyond giving us social commentary on today’s world, Star Trek needs to show us what is possible in the 23rd century based on what we’ve learned and created over the past 50 years.

I think it’s possible for the show to look throughly modern and still evoke the basic aesthetic of TOS–circular bridge, bio beds in Sickbay, etc. But no, it can’t look like it would “naturally progress” to settings that were conceived a half century ago. That ship has literally sailed, and the canonistas will either have to use their imaginations to fill in the gaps or forgo the ride altogether.

This is why they should have gone further into the future. If they’re going to modernise Star Trek then making a series set in the 23rd Century is not going to fly. If we look at Star Trek as if each incarnation was made for a specific generation and time, then what Discovery is really doing, is going back to what Star Trek WA for a generation raised in the 50’s. TOS was for a 60’s and 70’s audience, TNG an 80’s/90’s audience, DS9 a 90’s audience, VGR a 90’s/00’s audience and then things got muddled with Enterprise… Enterprise should of put anyone else off of doing a series based before TOS. But it didn’t and Enterprise kind of had to, by the 4th Season, explain its way out of continuity issues. For example Why did the Klingons have bumpy foreheads in Enterprise but not TOS… So we had to get an episode or two to explain it… The tech in Enterprise was also far beyond that used in TOS, begging the question; what the hell happened to Starfleet between Enterprise and TOS for the style and tech to change so drastically… It’s never a good thing to go backwards with Star Trek if Star Trek is OUR world through the eyes of the Star Trek universe. Discovery will have the same problems as Enterprise and the rebooted Abrams universe if they don’t make an effort to make the show look and feel like a natural precursor to TOS. What… Read more »

Believe me, I understand where you’re coming from. But even if the series had strictly moved forward chronologically, TOS would still be an increasingly dated view of the future. Because Trek is supposed to be a cutting-edge look at what our future could be centuries from now, it will ALWAYS date very quickly, and will never have the timeless internal consistency of, say, STAR WARS. (Even that franchise has the issue to a degree, with ROGUE ONE looking much more lavish and sophisticated than its nominal sequel A NEW HOPE.) So it’s probably best to just enjoy the stories–assuming they’re any good–and mentally gloss over the technological changes, just like we manage to ignore the fact the the Eugenics Wars never actually happened. Your choice, of course. I get that canon is very important to a lot of people; I used to feel the same way. But what the hell–garbage like “And the Children Shall Lead” and THE FINAL FRONTIER was never part of “my canon” anyway. So long as the new show reflects the spirit of hope, fun, and adventure that made this franchise so unique, and gives us great stories and characters that say something meaningful about the human condition, it will be a worthy addition to the Trek canon, regardless of what time period it’s set in, even without the resin buttons and gooseneck viewers.

TOS design is very basic and utilitarian, it can be built upon while remaining faithful to the aesthetic. Using the same shapes, the same color schemes, one could get a believable futuristic design even today. And the best thing, all those design decisions have a point.

For example, those plain simple grey walls. Why would starship walls have to be hexagonal and profiled and with pipes stuck everywhere? THAT looks ridiculous, like a damn 1940s submarine. Sleek grey walls look *futuristic*; all the (self-servicing) machinery is hidden under the panelling and it is only accessesed when needed.

Bright, contrasting primary colors instead of pastels? You need stuff that’s immediately recognizable. Red doors lead to different sort of places than grey doors or blue doors. Red GNDN pipes carry different stuff than the yellow ones:comment image It’s easy to memorize and turn into routine. On the other hand, if you paint everything the same shade of beige, then your personnel will have to waste their time reading those tiny Sternbach-Okuda stickers before they do anything.

Tactile controls instead of touch screens? That’s because touch screens are only good for data output, not for actual driving. In heavy-duty setting you would want buttons and switches that change their position and light up when you switch them; that way you immediately see if it is on or off, instead of consulting your touch screen all the time, or even if your screen stops working.

You know, Matt Jefferies was an engineer, that’s why his designs make sense.

Fascinating post, thanks. Doubt they’ll go too retro with this, but you never know.

Paul:

Re: Colored Pipes

So what you are saying is all those red pipes in the 2009 effort’s Engineering carried fire-quenching fluids?

I’ve always thought Matt Jefferies designs were brilliant. I don’t get the whole argument that they are cartoonish or dated. They are very appealing aesthetically, Matt Jefferies knew his stuff. His ideas were brought to the screen because they looked good and were innovative. To this day I want to go into a doctor’s office and simply step onto the examination table, then be tilted back and locked in, horizontally, to be examined. Sure beats climbing up on a table. These should be mandatory for the elderly. Ever examine the complexity and ingenious design of the control on Spock’s scanner? Because it’s one handed, there is a knob, that turns the wheel, and that knob also turns…one can easily imagine the degree of control and sub-control that can be achieved with such a design. It didn’t have to be. It could have been a simple switch. But it wasn’t. The ergonomics of the panels and eye-level of the screens…the circular design. It all makes more sense than it ever had to. Of course you want tactile feedback. Much like a when typing, it’s nice to do your work without looking at the keyboard. Try shutting your eyes and operating that smooth, touch pad on the microwave with any measure of success. And then you get into television production…different colored rooms immediately helps orient new viewers to what part of the ship they are on. Add to those colors, definitive background sounds…you could shut your eyes and immediately determine whether or… Read more »
Well, if you read The Making of Star Trek, Pato Guzman was responsible for much of the original bridge design. He left early on to return to his native Chile, and consequently probably doesn’t receive enough credit. But I get you: Matt Jeffries was a genius, and you make a pretty good case that with a lot of tweaking and updating the details TOS can believably serve as the basis for the setting of a modern SF series.* Hell, the bridge design was famously logical enough for the U.S. Navy to send a delegation to check it out, and if it was good enough for them. . . *Incidentally, James Cawly once told a pretty funny story on the set of New Voyages when I crewed for it back in 2009. Apparently he had some business with Paramount and had a chance encounter with J.J. Abrams shortly before filming on Trek 2009 was to begin. Abrams recognized Cawley immediately and, as a good-will gesture, offered him a walk-on role and a grand tour of the sets. As Cawley told it, they got to Stage 9, and the lights came up, revealing Abrams’ pride and joy, the new Enterprise bridge, in all its, ahem, glory: “I felt like I’d been kicked in the balls. Then J.J. turned to me and when he saw my expression it looked like he’d been kicked in the balls. I tried to be polite, telling him that, yes, it was a beautiful set, but that I… Read more »

*Sigh* Prepare for the caterwauling about “progressive values.” Even though they’ve been present in every incarnation of this franchise, starting with the first.

I myself am guardedly optimistic about Discovery. Not because it’ll be progressive in its outlook–art is either worthy or it is not, irrespective of politics–but because Meyer, Fuller, and Menosky (in that order) have proven that they can deliver as storytellers. And the show will succeed, or not, entirely on that basis.

Jeez, at least wait for the “caterwauling” to start before you dig in your heels.

Yeah, you’re right. In my defense, previous threads have made me a little cynical in that regard. My apologies, though.

I’ll be glad to caterwaul. Are they making a quality sci-fi show that will inevitably (because Hollywood is what it is) have a political bent, or are they making a West Wing set in space?

They’ll never admit it, but these things have a real affect on viewership. People don’t like being lectured to.

Yes, because “The West Wing” was quite the ratings failure. /sarcasm off

Anyhow, you really don’t think Kirk ‘lectured’ to multiple alien species, and in turn was ‘lectured’ to by godlike aliens, all through the run of TOS–and that those weren’t the means by which the writer lectured to the audience? Good God!

I thought the lecturing was much more “bonk bonk on the head” in the early seasons of TNG than it ever was on TOS. Kirk acknowledged that he was a savage at heart “I will not kill today” whereas Picard was constantly pointing out how highly evolved humans have become “In the past humans did blah de blah but we’ve grown past that”. I just want the “progressive values” to be a matter of fact part of telling a story rather than screaming “hey everyone, look how progressive we are!” In other words, no “bonk bonk on the head.

Good points, and I thoroughly agree about “bonk bonk on the head.” As I stated earlier, art (in this case, good storytelling) has nothing to do with politics, whether I happen to agree with those politics or not.

That said, Kirk in “The Apple” and “The Omega Glory” was, for my money, far more smugly condescending to the “natives” than Picard could be in his wildest dreams.

You’re right, Kirk was far more condescending to the natives, but Picard (and to some extent the entire TNG crew) were far more smug in their superiority to us, I.e. primitive, late 20th century humans.

Well, in their defense, from their “perspective,” we were long dead, so at least didn’t have to suffer their smug superiority. And maybe that smugness was somewhat deserved. We 20th-21st century-types can be pretty awful. :-)

MICHAEL HALL,

Re:in their defense

Ok, you defended the fictional characters, but I don’t see any defense for the writers who wrote all the TNG condescension about their fictional future world where it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread over the reality in which its writers lived.

I love John DeLancie but I found it confounding that the show started off so full of itself that it found it had to create a recurring omnipetent being so that Picard’s hats would still fit.

I don’t think it had much to do with the writers. It all came straight down from Gene Roddenberry. He was constantly rewriting scripts to go heavy on the utopia angle. It got toned way down after Gene lost control of the show.

Disinvited: RR Well, okay–but in the modern, secular West, don’t we often tend to kind of look down on our ancestors, who only centuries ago believed the Earth to be the center of creation, burned heretics at the stake, and thought nothing of committing mass genocide on native peoples? Even though they were just products of their own time, and probably intrinsically no better or worse than we are? Roddenberry very much wanted to show that humanity had matured a great deal by the 24th Century, and that it was done so clumsily in TNG’s early seasons was mostly due to the fact that he had stopped being a working writer–and there was a time he had actually been a pretty good one–the moment he started taking himself seriously as a sage. That’s not entirely his fault; the same might happen to you, or anyone, if you suddenly had millions of adoring fans treating you as a genuine visionary instead of a hard-working TV producer who had managed, with considerable help, to successfully develop one great idea. If your point is that Discovery should handle the whole “humans have gotten better” trope with greater finesse than TNG did, I couldn’t agree more. Better to show than tell, always. But that series has managed to inspire a lot of people with its hopeful take on rational humanism over the decades anyway, in spite of its early missteps. It may not be very good art, or storytelling, but you could definitely do… Read more »

MICHAEL HALL,

Re: you could definitely do worse.

In regards to finesse, obviously we agree. And I believe you adequately fingered how his feedback from lectures on the college circuits and convention appearances caused him to falsely believe the time was ripe to dispense with it.

In regards to worse being done, I am contemplating FIRST CONTACT where the whole demonizing of ancestors trope was tossed on its head with deifying them. And on top of that FC could have easily, true to form, demonized Cochrane in peeling back his layers, but instead, found his humanity and celebrated it.

Thank you, Michael. For the longest time, I couldn’t figure out what it was about FIRST CONTACT that I enjoyed so much as there was much not to like about it, but I think you’ve caused me to realize what it is.

Redshirt Rosie,

Re: straight down from Gene Roddenberry

Earlier Gene created STAR TREK so that he could get blocked script ideas from HAVE GUN WILL TRAVEL to his THE LIEUTENANT to broadcast air. When TNG aired it was immediately apparent to me that he was using it to get the rejected GENESIS II and THE QUESTOR TAPES ideas and stories to broadcast air. I was fascinated that he was getting away with it again. TNG kept my interest as a Roddenberry vehicle but it was very apparent he was sacrificing the Trek of it to what he felt was a better idea which never set THAT well with me.

As Michael Hall suggests in his September 5, 2016 8:13 pm reply after yours, it was as if Gene lost all perspective on the need of finesse in what he was attempting to do.

Condescending in “The Apple”? Try as early as “Return of the Archons.”

Inverse.com is reporting on today’s panel discussion and quoted Beyer as saying that even though the show will be set during a future era created in the 1960’s that they will “”Honor the integrity [of the original Star Trek] without looking silly.”

I hope this means that concerns over “reimagining” are being heard and that Discovery’s esthetic, while no doubt taking advantage of modern production techniques, will still make sense in the context of the original continuity.

I’d like to see the animated Star Trek redrawn – done with the needed quality = money that it should of received some time ago. Paramount/CBS has a vast untapped age
group that could carry Star Trek to unspoken of realms IF this was done right.
ST-TNG could live on while the primary actors still around to voice unwritten stories. Get the voice talent down now and get the visuals (CGI) IF needed done at a later time. Don’t piss away the opportunity you’re ambly afforded now. Seize it and make the most of it.

Agree ! Star Trek needs an animated series that would allow us to revisit old characters and drawn in the next generation of fans -kids :)

From the day I knew they were going with Filmation, I had hoped such might be possible at some future date. Unfortunately, most of my research shows that the French company that bought it from Hallmark was only interested in the digital masters made to create the DVDs. So all the production masters audio and film were destroyed.

In other words any new animation would be stuck with the original audio mix, which includes the old music, made for the DVDs. The audio masters of just the voice takes were destroyed with everything else.

It came to me, though it really doesn’t help with remastering the audio for re-imagining, that I believe Paramount, which I presume is now CBS, kept a Filmed master for copyright purposes but its audio would have been monaural.

Wah wah wah. All you guys do in here is complain about everything. If any new trek doesn’t interest you, go watch your vhs tapes or dvds of the original series.

You cannot make a 60s show in 2016. It will look severely dated and laughable. Heck, the first few seasons of tng look dated now.

Here’s an idea… why don’t you wait until you see the show before you shoot it down. Because if you guys are tough on anything trek that’s new… then trek will disappear for good. And it will be the “fans” that killed trek. You guys are never happy with anything.

Word.

literally everything in the franchise but perhaps the reboots looks dated now. Even ENT feels very last decade, although the third and fourth seasons hold up a lot better

We complain because every Star Trek production has moved further away from what Star Trek is & failed.
If we complain while these idiots are ruining another chance at doing a good Star Trek series there is a small chance it could be heard but it’s obviously too late to do anything once the show is released

I’m just not feeling excited about this venture.
I’ll watch the premiere on CBS and decide after that if i find it interesting enough to watch the rest on CBS All Access.

I’m just not looking forward to another large ensemble cast filled with more introverted dysfunctional humans and aliens facing yet another new bad guy alien race possessing some sort of super weapon and/or having a supposed “reason” for conflict sprinkled with thinly jumbled political jaw wagging resulting in an all powerful speech from the lead character.
I think I just described TNG, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise.
Predictable, yet called original.

Well, best get in a time machine and go back to 1969 and start a letter writing campaign for a fourth season – ’cause that’s the only way you’re gonna see more TOS.

It won’t be that — it’s going to be more like the rebooted battlestar Galactica with gay characters –so if u like that — u will be happy

Well, I loved the rebooted BSG–at least up until the fourth year, when it became entangled in its own mythology and totally ran off the rails. Be that as it may, my guess is that DSC will go nowhere near that dark. And where did you get the idea that there will be more than one gay character? Do you have some info. that Bryan Fuller isn’t privy to?

Dave- Oh no! Not gay characters! That will destroy everything! This is a disaster!

Actually, a lot of that description applies to TOS as well. Maybe you’re just burned-out on Trek altogether? Understandable, if true: fifty years is a long time. 😊 Maybe it’s time for you to move on.

TOS didn’t have the story arc thing that has infiltrated trek after TG, which really didn’t have much of a story arc, but lots and lots of ensemble cast which by the end of the 7 season was getting old for even the 1980’s type TV writing.
And yes I have moved on, but just like to peek in and see if Star trek can move on in some new way.
Which doesn’t seem likely but there’s always hope, even when one is standing on the scaffolds.

We need edit on these boards. The above was meant as “infiltrated trek after TNG”

You say you want Trek to move on in some new way — I thoroughly concur — and yet you seem completely jaded and unimpressed with what’s been revealed about Discovery so far, in spite of the fact that at least some elements of the show (e.g. the short season, long-form storytelling, main character’s POV, etc.) seem to be at least a fairly radical departure from what we’ve seen previously. So I’ll respectfully ask: what is it you’re looking for in a new Trek series; what would YOU like to see?

I might purchase a month of All Access just to see the first 4 eps, wait for the blu ray to see the rest; unless Netflix shows it in USA by mid Summer 2017… :) I hope whatever they do, they use CGI aliens, to make the Trek world incredibly inviting… :)

If Alex wants STD to bring to TV what the JJ films brought to movies we’re in trouble folks! ;)

Translation: “We’ve done a splendid job making a parody on Star Trek in the movies; now let’s continue our work on TV.”
Anyway I’ll keep up hope that there are enough people involved in the project that won’t let that happen because I would like a new Star Trek series that I’ll enjoy watching like I did older Trek.

Bring this show on. It’s tough to still like Star Trek for many fans these days, including me. Too diluted by time and money-grabbing same-old, same-old reinterpretations of itself. The films haven’t helped one bit, being caught up in their own race to the bottom with other Hollywood tent-pole properties. I’m genuinely curious to see Star Trek reinterpreted today as ‘Good TV’ in the post-Sopranos era which has made the idiot box a much better place to be since that one show pretty much changed everything.

That’s my great hope as well. Chart your own course; take risks, be bold! With the failure of BEYOND, if this show doesn’t catch on Trek will be dead in the water for a long, long time.

This is a great time for me as a Trekkie. Just had a very enjoyable Star Trek movie come out in theaters and its just a few months until there’s a new a Star Trek series on T.V. ! I’m really intrigued to find out how Discovery turns out. So far It sounds pretty interesting and I cant wait. :]

A Little OT but Beyond is crushing it in China it seems

Maybe Krall/Edison’s backstory makes more sense in Chinese. 😊

@Michael Hall,

Ha! The top user review on Douban, the Chinese version of IMDB, is titled:

“I really can not stand! Do not be so can not insult my intelligence!”

Google Chrome is obviously way behind the universal translator but some of the comments & discussion topics on the site are hilarious. Subjects about watching it in IMAX or 2D and why Chris Pine looks old are among the the top discussion topics on Douban!

Asia is a fascinating place all right. Never been to China outside of Hong Kong, but I lived and taught in Thailand for awhile.

Crushing it? It earned less than $5 million more than STID in the opening weekend. To put that into perspective, that’s the 82nd highest grossing weekend in China. STID was 98th. It may do about the same as STID, but that’s far from “crushing” it. MISSION IMPOSSIBLE ROUGE NATION Earned $87 million its opening weekend. Now that’s crushing it.

Well, those at least decent earnings may wind up spelling the difference between “failure” and “disappointment” to the green eyeshade-types at Viacom, which could ultimately lead to the decision as to whether or not go ahead with a fourth KT film. Not that I care all that much either way at this point.

@Curious Cadet,

‘Beyond’ opened in over 6,260 theaters in China, that’s a lot more than STID I think!

—————————————————

“Star Trek: Beyond” dominated an otherwise downbeat weekend at the China box office.

Opening conventionally on a Friday, the film played at 6,260 locations and grossed $30.5 million according to Chinese box office service Ent Group. ComScore and Paramount reported the figure as $31.3 million….

Paramount reports that the opening is double that (107%) of “Star Trek Into Darkness” in May 2013 – China’s screen counts has also mushroomed in that period

http://variety.com/2016/film/asia/china-box-office-star-trek-beyond-quiet-weekend-1201852174/

“What we attempted to do with the films was to bring Trek into the modern age. Now that that has been done, we have a new bar. We now have to modernize Trek for television.”

Ugh, modernize? You mean dumb down like the nuTrek movies? They were unwatchable for me. Well, at least it lowered my expectations…

I wouldn’t put much stock in what Kurtzman has to say. Besides the fact that he’s credited with writing the first episode, it’s been made clear that this is Fuller’s vision and his baby. Kurtzman isn’t even in the writer’s room, which is why Fuller brought in two co-showrunners.

Glad to hear it. It’s nothing personal, and I don’t even question Kurtzman’s abilities as a writer, being mostly unfamiliar with his work. But based on the first two KT films he co-wrote, his vision of Trek is simply not mine. BEYOND, which he had no direct involvement in, was the best of them for my money, and it still suffered considerably from the legacy choices that he was at least partly responsible for.

Let him concentrate on administration, and leave the pencils and paper alone.

@John Duchak,

That’s a relief!

I will be ok with it IF THEY IGNORE THIS ALTERNATIVE TIME LINE BS that was created in the last three movies. As long as it puts right what once went wrong I’m ok. I was OK just ALRIGHT with Gilligan’s island voyager, with deep sleep nine, I actually liked enterprise, and I loved TOS and TNG but I refuse to watch, prescribe to, support, or agree to think of the last three movies as canon in the star trek universe. FIX IT AND FIX IT NOW, spock dating Ahura, planet Vulcan destroyed, khan character changed, timelines, stories, Sulu being gay, etc… I am a fan that does not like this total destruction of what I grew up watching.

Agree

Fuller said there was some re-magining going on. If you didn’t like it in the alternate time-line, you’re sure not going to like it when it rocks the boat of the Prime timeline! lol

Well they are not going to deal with the alternate timeline, but nothing about Discovery will contradict the last three movies either.

I Cant Believe I Reproduced

I just want good television that is smart yet still accessible to new (young) fans. I don’t see how charging $5.99/month is going to bring anyone new to the franchise. This still sounds more like a way to attract us (the hardcore Trekkies) to a new CBS revenue stream rather than increase the popularity and viability of the franchise.

Agree this isn’t going to bring in “new” fans esp younger fans which is what this franchise needs — needs to be on regular TV not a verticle market like streaming TV

I’m guessing that Les Moonves and his army of MBAs have given this subject a thought or two. Still, in the end you may indeed be proven right. Who knows?

I agree with this.
I am very intrigued with what Fuller is going to do with the 10 year gap that he has chosen.
I am still pretty excited at this point.

So happy Mack is writing the book, he is the best Trek novelist by some margin.

I get less and less excited about this the more the people involved talk about it…but I’ll still watch at least the first few episodes and see what I think of the finished product.

I love all the negative comments. Reread what he said about expectations. He’s talking about you. If you hate it already, then don’t watch. There, all fixed.

I grew up on TOS, but am far more open to any new Trek than most. I can’t wait for this series. Will it be exactly what I want? No. But there not making this show as a gift for my birthday present. They’re making the show they want to make. It’s up to me if I want to watch.

“Setting the series 10 years before TOS has unleashed all sorts of speculation as to why that particular era was chosen. Meyer indicated that the reason was fairly simple:

“I think it’s about finding a space in the chronology where there’s room to maneuver and create stuff. I think what Bryan didn’t want to do was use the same characters that had been used on other series. So he looked and found this opening.”

So, um, wouldn’t the simplest answer to that desire have been to set the new show in the post-Nemesis future so you don’t have to worry about almost any of that stuff and get to create something brand-spanking new?

That is just so weird to me. I’m still going to watch, just as I have all the JJ-verse movies (and was finally rewarded with “Star Trek: Beyond”). It just seems like this is unnecessarily complicated: if Star Trek is about the future, why not show us the future of Star Trek, not its past?

I can think of good reasons to place any potential Trek series in a “past” timeframe; but yeah, Meyer’s comments are disappointingly vague and generic, and don’t really shed much light on the subject. He should probably have just said that he couldn’t talk about it at this point in time and left it at that.

The form of media that is missing from this list… TELEVISION or even BLU RAYS!!!!!!

Setting this series 10 years before Kirk’s adventures is a horrible idea. It simply is impossible to make a movie or television show that fits in with the technology and aesthetic of TOS yet appears modern to an audience today and more advanced than what we have now. Roddenberry and company realized this when pondering when to place their new television series in the 1980’s.

More disturbing are Fuller’s comments about re-imagining aliens and characters from the TOS era. Changing looks or abilities of aliens and characters from TOS means having to backpedal and trekplain why things are different which is simply annoying.

The series is set during that period for reasons we haven’t been made privy to as of yet, but likely having to do with the specifics of the story the producers are choosing to tell. Of course there’s no way to tell if the story is a good one until the show airs, but if that turns out to be the case the timeframe will only be a “horrible” idea if you prioritize a rigid adherence to Trek “canon” over good storytelling. To each his own, of course–but I sure don’t.

“Progressive values will be manifest in the storytelling.” Basically saying their show is run by a bunch of far left loons so it’s going to basically represent all their bizarre beliefs. This isn’t a good sign. White straight Christian Conservative men not allowed.

As a political progressive I don’t consider conservative values (as opposed to alt-right values) to be looney at all, even if I don’t subscribe to most of them myself. A functioning democracy needs the interplay of all sorts of conflicting ideas and values to remain healthy. That this has been true of the American Republic since its founding is just historical fact.

That said, there are few things more looney than looking for an abundance of conservative philosophy in a franchise whose point of view, expressing the values of the people behind its creation, has always been primarily liberal. Conservatives of course are welcome to take from the show whatever pleasures or inspiration they care to take, and those who are creative and entrepreneurial are perfectly free to create a competing space opera of their own. Seems pretty fair to me.

It’ll be interesting to see what they do. I was hoping it would be post-Nemesis just to free them up in the way of canon (since this is the prime universe they tell us). With a post-Nemesis timeline, they’d have to respect the history but they could move the story forward from there any way they wish. 10 years before the original series is dangerous in the prime universe. They have to stay consistent with Enterprise, which probably wouldn’t be too hard, but bring that to basically the timeline of The Cage. Staying true to the novels shouldn’t be too difficulty as not many take place in the 2250’s, at least not many that have overreaching stories that should affect Discovery.

They mentioned a defining event during this time. My first guess was Axanar, which they debunked. I recently was reading a novel that referenced the Battle of Donatu V (also mentioned in the Trouble with Tribbles) so that’s another possibility.

Donatu V. Hey, you might be right there. Nice call!

Very good call. Fits a lot of things:

From Memory Alpha:
Donatu V was the inhabited fifth planet of its system. The system was located in the same quadrant as Sherman’s Planet, Deep Space Station K-7, and an unnamed Klingon outpost. Ownership of this planet, as well as the rest of the region, was disputed between the United Federation of Planets and the Klingon Empire from the point of first contact through the late 2260s.

The inconclusive Battle of Donatu V, one of the few brush wars fought between the two powers during the Federation-Klingon Cold War, was fought here in 2245. (TOS: “The Trouble with Tribbles”)

Thank you, Nick Meyer, for putting the entitled gatekeeper “fans” in their place. It’s about time somebody smacked them down.

Clearly nothing anywhere near where this TOS fanboy STD stuff is going. This is what happens when you hand over the keys of the family car to some idiot who thinks that more prequels is what people want. No, Bryan, it’s what you want. Your take on X, your revisiting Y, and your vision of Z. I guess the real problem here is not Bryan, but the idiotic executive with dollar signs for eyes who thinks that his is a capitalist opportunity to shoehorn a failing online streaming service to anyone who will drool over new Star Trek stuff. 5 months remaining until the big flop. I only wish Fuller’s career down the pan to be the only casualty. Unfortunately it will deeply effect the franchise too, and so we’ll probably have to wait another 15 years for a different marketing executive’s eyes to light up with dollar signs and hopefully look forward, rather than backward, if it happens at all. For now the best you can do is grab some popcorn and watch, because obviously we’re not being listened to, again, and being told that “fans don’t know what they want”. Excuse me? How dare you presume that your ideas are what people want? So far I’ve seen nothing of what the majority wants, you’re just plowing through the fandom regardless and hoping the minority TOS fanboy population will back you up enough to get it in to production. Buddy, you’re creating a minority spin-off which isn’t going to… Read more »
wpDiscuz