Star Trek: Discovery is bringing back a fan favorite character from the original series. This morning CBS announced that Emmy-nominated actor Rainn Wilson has been cast to play Harry Mudd in Star Trek: Discovery. The endearing rogue Harcourt Fenton Mudd, originally played by Roger C. Carmel, appeared in two original Star Trek episodes (“Mudd’s Women” and “I, Mudd”) as well as an episode of the animated Star Trek (“Mudd’s Passion”).
Rainn Wilson at 2009 Star Trek premiere
The announcement from CBS did not specify how many episodes Wilson is expected to be in, but they did send out another one of their casting tweets with the usual Discovery animated gif (below).
CASTING NEWS: #StarTrekDiscovery adds @rainnwilson to its roster as Harry Mudd, first seen in the original television series! pic.twitter.com/4Ov9DrFVM3
— Star Trek: Discovery (@startrekcbs) March 31, 2017
Best known for his role as Dwight in the NBC sitcom The Office, Wilson is himself a Star Trek fan and has actually (sort of) been in a Star Trek movie, if you count the 1999 Trek parody Galaxy Quest. Wilson played Lahnk, one of the alien Thermians who were themselves fans of the fictional Galaxy Quest TV series.
Rainn Wilson in Galaxy Quest
While Star Trek: Discovery is a new show with a new crew, it is set just ten years prior to the original Star Trek series. So it should be expected that Discovery would feature some well-known (and possibly obscure) established Star Trek characters. Wilson’s casting as Mudd follows the announcement earlier this year that actor James Frain will be playing Sarek, Spock’s father, originally played by Mark Lenard.
A bit of comic relief for Discovery?
While Harry Mudd only appeared in two episodes (three counting the animated series) he stands out as one of the more memorable foils to Kirk and crew from the original Star Trek. The CBS press release describes Mudd as “a charismatic conman and intergalactic criminal.” Casting Wilson, known for his comedy roles, indicates that Mudd may provide lighter moments for Star Trek: Discovery, as he did for the original Star Trek (like in the below clip from “I, Mudd”).
Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news at TrekMovie.com.
Oh. My. God.
So, every Trek fans dreams are coming true! Discovery is going to discover every character that’s already been discovered. I mean, who wants more Mudd? Anyone?
I’m not a hater, I want this to work. But so far, we’ve seen Klingons that aren’t, Sarek and now Mudd. The Discovery ship promo looked awful. There’s precious little to be optimistic about. Only Nick Meyers prescense gives me hope.
I don’t mind new style Klingons. I love Sarek, and his inclusion makes sense for the time period.
But Harry Mudd? Seriously?
I’m surprised there isn’t more excited. Fans basically exploded in their pants for Coto’s Enterprise season because of all the crossover elements from TOS.
isn’t more excitement* can’t there be an edit button, please?
The few people who were still watching Enterprise liked it well enough. You can’t rely on past glory. Give me something new and original. Like the Expanse on Netflix.
Well said.
New and original is overblown. Has to be good. Haven’t seen expanse, but lots of other “new and original” sci-fi has been terrible or disappointing.
Even a “New and Original” Trek is still derivative and unoriginal.
I’ve seen The Expanse , and I know that Syfy & their Producers intended to go big and bold with that ! But I believe Discovery will be a gripping Star Trek Story too !
The Expanse was on Sci-Fi Channel. Netflix just gets it after it’s run.
The fanboys lapping this stuff up will surely blame someone or something else when it falls flat on it’s arse.
Stupid idea, stupid concept, stupid execution.
@Cap/n – though i’m not thrilled by the inclusion of Mudd, i’m still excited, and not going to judge until I see it.
Disagree, I’m beyond thrilled at the idea of Riann Wilson on the show. And no, he won’t be anywhere near as corny as 60s Mudd was. This is a really cool addition to Discovery, IMO. And as Torchwood said, it doesn’t have to be new and original; it just has to be good.
Why are you even here? People like you clearly aren’t fans.
Shut up, stupid.
Let’s just wait and see what exactly this is. My guess is it is most likely a single episode guest spot. Showing up again MAYBE for another episode down the line if it works. It’s not like Harry Mudd will become a member of the crew or anything… Jeez.
Your attempts at spelling give me little hope!
You’re not a hater but you sure are a whiner!
You’d think we’d be “discovering” new civilizations, fresh ideas, races, people, tech,… Nope. We’re just gonna keep on bumping into the same people over and over again.
raffie,
Re: bumping into the same people over and over again.
You do realize that that “new civilizations, fresh ideas, races, people, tech,…” line was just a ruse so that the show could explore “new” areas for broadcast TV that the conventional wisdom of the network brass, NAB and the FCC torpedoed for HAVE GUN WILL TRAVEL an THE LIEUTENANT?
STAR TREK has always been bumping into the same people over and over again, because, to paraphrase Walt Kelly, “They is us.”
Im not a Mudd fan per se. And I actually dont want this to be like the final season of Enterprise where it was essentially a TOS easter egg in episode form.
But… and this was the same point I made about the JJ films. If you have a reason for a character that would fit a character we’ve already seen in canon, then why not use the canon one? As long as it not eye rolling in the “coincedence” of the whole thing.
But for example, if you need a Vulcan ambassador, sure why not use Sarek? It makes sense and adds layers to the canon. If you have a transporter operator in the JJ films, why not make it Kyle? it fits.
Anyway, this tells us a couple of things:
– that they intend to “fill in” the time before TOS. In other words it isnt going to be a series that could take place in any era and just happens to be said is that particular era. You’d expect that if you watch it, you will know its a decade before TOS.
– this really HAS to mean they have a respect for canon and the visual look. Yes, they can update things to a degree. But it cant be the Enterprise J dressed up to look like a ship of this era. Because, if they did discard canon, there is no reason to use a character like Mudd which is rather insignificant but will pi$$ people off if you get it VERY wrong.
So on one hand…Im a bit concerned. On the other, it makes me think its in good hands.
Very true my friend. This could mean something good or bad.
I very much want it to be like the 4th season of ENT!!! That season made it my favorite series!!!
Don’t get me wrong. Ent season 4 was a vast improvement. But it was almost too much of a TOS companion piece
That’s being overly critical. It was good. I just….Ent dropped the ball so badly it had no choice but to embrace the idea of being preTOS.
I want Discovery to stand on its own while acknowledging the era it takes place in. Plots don’t have to revolve around what we know is coming but they can contain throwbacks that make sense within the story they want to tell for Discovery.
It should be Subs in speace. Thats probably why Nick Meyer is involved. His Star Trek look for TWOK is a benchmark here.
I like the casting, but mining TOS so quickly and directly is raising some concerns for me as well
UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. *Inhales* UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
That is all.
Really.
I mean, I’ll watch the show when it comes out and give it a fair chance, but I am not “excited” about this new show at all. I dont want to see Sarek, or Mudd. I want new places & new characters. Why couldn’t they Continue where Kelvinverse branches off with Romulus being destroyed in the Prime Timeline?
Because that makes sense.
No sarcasm either, it really does make sense. The franchise is being badly mismanaged.
It only makes if you don’t see the KT films as gross mismanagement in and of themselves. Sad to say, many of us do.
Michael Hall,
THE GUARDIAN’s Mark Sweney agrees calling the KT a minnow amongst blockbusters:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/mar/30/paramount-disney-flops-hollywood-ben-hur-star-trek-beyond
and lists BEYOND amongst Paramount’s flops calling it “The blockbuster that wasn’t.”
Nothing new,the studio does what it wants to do instead of what the fans want,and I the series fails they blame everything but themselves.
Hahaha “what the fans want..” the fans can’t agree on ANYTHING.
If the studio turned around and let the fans decide then we’d end up with a TNG/TOS crossover show with cameos from DS9/VOY!
A mess basically.
That’s exactly the shit this has ended up with.
90% of fans want progression after the established canon. 10% are fanboys jerking off to namedropping of their beloved TOS garbage. It stands to reason that industry professionals are at a similar age now where they thing their nostalgia is something everyone shares, the same dumb and proven idiotic mentality which created and destroyed Enterprise, and knocked Trek off TV for 15 years.
They are literally dividing themselves away from the franchise, as if 3 big budget movies, two cancelled tv shows and god knows how many fan films aren’t good enough for them.
Bunch of selfish and arrogant fans who think the franchise revolves around them.
Got news for ya guys, this is all your fault.
That was my idea before Discovery was announced. Romulans in disarray, no more neutral zone, new aliens to discover in the once closed off part of the Beta quadrant…
ideal
” Why couldn’t they Continue where Kelvinverse branches off with Romulus being destroyed in the Prime Timeline?”
You mean they didn’t consult you before creating the show? You mean they didn’t tailor it to your specific tastes? Don’t they know who you are?!!
By the look of this garbage, they didn’t consult anyone!
I thought that wasn’t possible, because the cinema rights belong to Paramount and the TV rights to CBS and CBS wants to own DIS alone.
Mel,
All you have to do is look at the bottom of this page to see that STAR TREK and its various marks are trademarks wholly owned by CBS. Ergo, Paramount can’t use the name, etc. without licensing from said CBS.
Paramount has derivative copyrights which are better than NO copyrights but are secondary to the ones CBS has for the original TV series creation and its scripts. Ergo CBS has a veto over any action taken by Paramount that it can claim may dilute the value of the copyrights granted it for the original series.
In copyright court CBS will always have this upper hand and ultimately can use that to make Paramount knuckle under to whatever CBS wants to do with Trek.
Also note:
https://trekmovie.com/2006/07/25/cbs-to-handle-licensing-for-trek-xi/
CBS handles the licensing for both productions.
Thus, Paramount makes STAR TREK, and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE for that matter, movies by the good graces of CBS encouraged by the Redstones who control both VIACOM and CBS, and NOT the other way around.
Don’t worry Bry you’re getting new characters, an entire cast full of them. You’re getting two new ships, TWO! You’re getting a new take on Klingons. Basically Sarek and Mudd are the only two things you’re getting that AREN’T new, and who knows how integral they’ll actually be. Wilson is a “guest star” and nothing more.
I couldn’t agree with you more. The fanboys can’t see it though. It’s sad and upsetting that they don’t realise how fast this has nosedived.
This has got to be an early April Fools joke, right?
lol, hadn’t thought of that tbh, I think you’re probably right xD
My thoughts also.
Guys, A. Its not April Fools yet and B. CBS doesn’t send out official press releases to news organizations as a joke. This is something a fan site might have done but not a corporation that is trying to strategically market a new show. Yeah its real.
The whole concept is a joke, run by a bunch of fools.
There’s an article on the official Star Trek site about a split between writers Ward and Ditmore that reads as a pretty obvious April Fool’s joke. So unless they’re giving us TWO April Fool’s jokes — one of them a day early — this news is real.
Of course, they COULD be giving us two jokes, one a day early, all the better to mess with our heads. It’s certainly a way to get the fans talking. :-)
Oh god, they haven’t learned…
Love this. I’m sorry that you guys are so pessimistic about the show – I’m excited as hell. Perfect casting for this role. Can we please hold off on the hate until we actually see the show?
Anywho – I’m still just as excited as I always have been. I can’t wait until fall!
What???? That’s crazy talk. Let’s just burn it to the ground before we see even a frame of footage from this show. That is how all fans of a show about imagination, openmindedness and tolerance behave.
Sarcasm aside, I this is another great casting choice. Very excited about it.
Nah, the holders of the flamethrowers have been itching for something to burn for a while now.
Flamethrowers? I thought the negative comments were from time travelers who’d actually seen finished episodes!
Back in my day when Mudd was first aired, I was a fan of Roger C. Carmel prior so that character was fine in the series by me. But, I do recall there was a lot of other Trek fan hate for Carmel specifically. For some reason the verve he gave the character seemed to rub a lot of fans the wrong way.
But if that’s still the issue with them, I don’t see why? It’s not as if Carmel is going rise from the grave to perform that role again.
And a Mudd spinoff was considered when he was alive so, for whatever reason, the character has deeper STAR TREK roots than most are aware.
I’m not sure what’s driving the backlash on the Mudd character here. There was enough hinted at in TOS to suggest a colorful background, so crossing paths with him as he earned that reputation isn’t something that’s out of the question in universe. I’m not a fan of slavish devotion to canon, but ignoring it all together makes little sense, either…
Phil,
Slavish devotion or no, the Mudd character was established as traveling far and wide for his swindles and cons. Most likely because his chances of success increase when he plies his “trade” in areas where he’s an unknown.
I would have liked a new show after Voyager with new everything.Tv history, TOS, next gen,24th cent., Ds9 and Voyager 24th cent.At least they went forward until Enterprize. Now let’s go forward just a little bit.
With all the interesting Scfi movies and TV that’s been out or coming out,this new show is way behind the times..a fail
Well the show can still be good but yes announcements like this only fuels my concerns more of why so many of us don’t want prequels. And then watch them screw up the character ala Khan from STID (Ok they can’t screw it up THAT bad lol) and then people complain more about it.
I’m still remaining positive but its funny a show that only has 13 episodes the first season has already announced two TOS characters and they are like 3 episodes in in terms of filming. We may get several more in this season (Spock’s mom was actually the only one mentioned as a possible return before filming so I expect her to show up any week now too) and its a big ‘ugh’ for me. Go forward, do something different, reinvent the universe, not constantly remind us of characters from literally 50 years ago.
Simply putting a show in the future of the last thing we saw in the fictional chronology does nothing to make a better experience for the fans. I’ll take focused direction and an idea with purpose set in any period, and that seems to be exactly what we got here.
Prequels just generally suck though. Thats the problem. And its funny how the last two Star Trek prequels its the hardcore fans who seem to hate those the most. And I know what you’re going to say its not being prequels themselves that made them suck and I agree but being prequels don’t seem to be any better either. And we don’t get stuff like Khan or Ferengi’s in the 22nd century. But I had this argument to many times to count now. I hope to be wrong on Discovery but I’m in serious doubt like the last two prequels. Maybe third time will be the charm.
Me thinks if characters were introduced that tied into TNG and the 24th century the reaction on this site might be more positive. Many don’t want t to go backwards …unless it’s Data and Worf
No one is calling for a TNG reboot. I have not seen one person saying they want a show set about Rikers ship or Worfs ship. Many people really do want to go FORWARD and in fact most seem to want to go to the 25th century. TNG is in the 24th. People just want to go forward because 90% of story telling is forward. But Hollywood is now into reboots so now we are getting our third Spider-Man reboot, a Harry Potter prequel series and a young Han Solo movie. Its all eye rolling to me. Especially Star Trek where boldly go use to really mean something, not just go back and make TOS fanboys happy.
The tech though was already really advanced in the 24th century, especially after Voyager. It just limits all kinds of story potential, because this or that science thingy will solve all the problems. Also you have to come up with more OP enemies, too. It is just getting too far removed from current people, if you go even further to the future.
The Kelvin Timeline have personal transporters that can transport you almost anywhere in the alpha quadrant from Earth and warp drive that can apparently get you from the Klingon neutral zone in minutes vs the day it would take ships in the 24th century to do.
I think this technology argument just doesn’t really matter. End of the day the writers are going to just write whatever they think is cool. Sure this takes place in the prime universe so will probably stick to canon as much as possible but I’m not really holding my breath.
And I just don’t buy this argument. End of the day it will come down to the writers. Its not like its 2,000 years in the future.
It’s all fanboy stuff. Some may feel the original material was better and would like to see Star Trek return to an earlier style of storytelling more about exploration and less about diplomatic missions and planetary pandemics. When Stat Trek was less safe, more fun, sexier. Before it was tied down by its latter-day dogma.
Again, we got that in Enterprise lol. The entire show was built solely around exploration with no Federation or diplomatic missions. People hated it. The KT films are in this period where its less safe, fun and sexier. The hardcore hate those too for being EXACTLY how you describe it. What I find funny is people act like this ‘lets get back to the nitty gritty of exploration’ hasn’t been done since the 80s. We had four seasons of Enterprise and now three TOS based films all based on this attitude now. This is ALL we had for the last 15 years in fact.
Why do people act like Voyager was the last Trek product or something? That show ended 16 years ago. Since then they been going this route with the last two prequels, one that was cancelled in fourth season and another where the last movie bombed. And oddly most people agree Beyond felt the closest to TOS in that series and was the lowest performing movie in the series.
This will be the THIRD time going this direction. Maybe they will get it right to please these people but I’m having serious doubts.
I won’t debate the relative merits of prequels; but Fantastic Beasts is a Potter prequel about as much as a Benjamin Franklin movie would be a prequel to a movie about Lafayette. It’s the same universe, but only tangentially connected to each other.
And also we literally have a TOS movie series NOW! We are getting big movies about Kirk and the gang. We don’t need any more tie in to TOS, there are new movies being made directly about them. Enough already. Move on!
Nah….I’ve seen enough of Data and Worf.
We just have no interest whatsoever in a rehash reboot prequel retcon garbage series, and really couldn’t care less if it was cancelled tomorrow. In fact we’d be overjoyed. This is a reflection on the shitty concept here, not on Trek. Learn to see the difference.
Of course I’ll reserve judgment until Discovery is actually on the air, but IMO this show has trouble written all over it, for a number of reasons. Not optimistic, but apprehensively hopeful. Curious, at least.
I’m actually loving this idea but it feels a lot like an early April fools announcement.
But will he be “re-imagined” as gay? Will it now be “Mudd’s Men”?
If it is will that bother you or make you question your sexuality? Maybe you will feel things you’ve long suppressed.
Just shut up man.
Want to explore a strange new world, maybe this Mudd has a Horta as a significant other…
As camp as Carmel played Harry? It wouldn’t take much re-imaging.
This thread is why we can’t have nice things.
Perfect summation of the state of the fan base, sad but true.
Why sad? We all supposed to support Trek blindly?
Its not sad. Fans are simply tired or regurgitating stuff relying on nostalgia instead of being bold and doing something new. Fans obviously like fan service but we don’t want these shows/movies to rely on it which they sadly been doing with the KT films and now this show.
The show itself at least sounds different and interesting but I’m afraid its going to be a lot of eye rolling TOS callbacks.
It feels too backwards. Stop living in the past. Stop throwing in side characters to get us to watch. The KT films at least had an excuse since they were trotting out TOS again. But Discovery is suppose to be its own thing and hopefully it will but we already have two TOS characters showing up, one at least fairly popular and then Harry Mudd which felt like nothing but filler on TOS for me. Maybe they will do something more interesting with him, but I’m hoping he’s in one episode and he’s done. That said though since they are casting a fairly known actor for the role, my guess he’s going to stay awhile. Or at least a recurring appearance like Mudd had on TOS.
Nobody mentioned it yet. But this is good casting. I can totally see him playing this part.
who cares other than TOS fans?
Never liked the Mudd character in the first place, so this is not an exciting news to me.
I just hope he’s not played for comic relief. I actually love Mudd’s women for precisely the reasons I hate “I Mudd”. In the former, Mudd is a ruthless trader of illicit goods and services, out for himself, cunning, smart, manipulative, aggressive, dangerous, and most of all — real. After the sucess of Trouble With Tribbles, Mudd became a caricature of himself, due in no small part than the actor was being cast in comedic roles, which he arguably had an aptitude for. If they play Mudd the way he was in Mudd’s Women, or better yet, an even darker version, then this could be a classic Trek character that deserves more exploration. I’m more than a little concerned that Wilson might not be up to the task, or that the producer’s won’t Rainn him in (see what I did there), should he base his performance more on the “I Mudd” character.
Curious Cadet,
Hmmm… with it being a prequel I’m not sure how the production could justify portraying him as the later henpecked husband whose performance may have been more affected by Carmel’s husband role in THE MOTHERS-IN-LAW series which was filming its 1st season around that time.
YAWN!!!!!
It’s Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before, not where we’ve already been or where we are going.
I personally disliked the Mudd character. (I know a lot of people loved him, I know.)
I want to see brave new worlds, not old vacuum cleaner salespeople….
the already explored fronteer, to seek out dead boring life and completely uninteresting civilizations. Probably klingons, to go half arsed where we’ve already been before, and you’ll like it or you’re a hater.
Oh, no, NOT Harry Mudd! I didn’t think Mudd was cute or funny or charming 50 years ago, and I don’t want to see him now.
I’m always surprised that this character is so popular; maybe you have to be male to like him. :-)
If they need a shady fat man from TOS who can stir up trouble, I’d rather see small trader Cyrano Jones.
or bill shatner
Or Bill Shatner as Cyrano Jones.
I seriously hope this show is less sexist than TOS. If Harry Mudd = 60s attitudes towards women, I won’t be watching. Honestly I’d be disappointed if this show could be described as anything less than feminist, because that’s the future Gene had the foresight to see.
Maybe they’re going to contrast the attitudes in the new series ?
Oh my, get over it, snowflake.
Just tell me Mr. Critic what is so wrong about it being a feminist show. Feminism means men and women have equal rights and opportunities. Isn’t that what Gene wanted, a future where who and what you are didn’t stop you from being part of something important? Trek was always forward-thinking, and a feminist future is a better future. So, yeah, Discovery better be as feminist as other Trek series have been in the past, if not more so, because if not, it can never live up to the “ideal” of Trek we all hold so precious.
I’m a man, and I don’t like the character or Kirk’s interactions with him either. Cyrano Jones as you brought up is one I’d prefer as well in that same vane. . . Good call.
Could be fun. I hope it’s a sign that there will be a variety of tones to the episodes, like in TOS, instead of being a long, dark slog like a lot of modern sci-fi.
Sigh
Why so many of us didn’t want a prequel, so they have an excuse to trot out TOS again. And I never found the fascination with Harry Mudd. He was fine in the few episodes he was in but I never thought of him as a fan favorite. But he popped up in the KT comic book too. This is all a big ‘ugh’ for me but I’ll naturally wait to see what they do obviously.
I can’t wait to see who they cast as Captain Garth. No I’m kidding.
The fan boys dont want to listen man. This is chrismas to them.
Someone should tell them it will be everyone’s last christmas.
Not a bad character, but the original actor’s “Irish” accent was absolutely abysmal.
It’s hard to imagine the new actor doing the accent any worse, but I hope that he at least puts some thought and effort into it, and does it justice. The accent. And, the character, too. But, mainly the accent. There’s not much to the character as portrayed on TOS beyond unlawful but charming rogue. Not that I found the original actor’s portrayal all that charming, but it’s obviously what he was aiming for.
I thought the bad accent was part of the character, like everything about him is blatantly phony. Surely, eventually, Mudd went into politics. ;-)
It was SUPPOSED to be a bad Irish accent. Harry Mudd wasn’t Irish but was pretending to be because the ship he was in was registered to an Irishman named Leo Walsh. Once Mudd was no longer pretending to be Walsh, he dropped the phony Irish accent.
Corylea
It was SUPPOSED to be a bad Irish accent. Once Mudd was no longer pretending to be Walsh, he dropped the phony Irish accent.
I don’t see that his accent needed to be that bad. As he’s been a rogue trader for some time, one would assume that he’s good at what he does. Or at least competent. He wouldn’t get far with a disguise that poor. Later, he adopts a quasi-stage (stage as in theatre) accent.
With the list of charges, convictions and infractions Spock reads for Kirk, Harry was never supposed to be a good conman.
For gods sake who cares man? Cant we just have original characters instead of TOS wet dreams? It would be nice, what with no progression of the timeline since the disastrous franchise killer “nemesis”.
Love it. The idea that Discovery *shouldn’t* mine the past 50 years of Trek for characters and storylines doesn’t make any sense to me. One of its advantages is the huge, developed universe in which it exists. Harry Mudd is a great character, and I’m sure he’ll be used in a unique way in Discovery. Considering the limited number of episodes in the first season, I’m guessing there’s a good chance that Mudd figures into the season-long plot. Also, Wilson is genius casting for this role.
You nailed it
I was a big fan of Roger Carmel even before his Star Trek appearance .. and I have seen The Office .. and I loved Enterprise Series ! All I can add is to say .. Bring It On !!
Good lord.
Just when you think it can’t get any worse, you’re on the floor laughing so hard that a little pee comes out.
Cap’n, it’s pretty clear you’re sitting in a padded cell playing in your own feces, so peeing on yourself is nothing new. Seriously, you are the WORST troll I’ve ever seen around these parts. At least try to post something funny or shocking once in a while, not the same old paint-with-feces nonsense you regularly vomit forth.
What’s clear, my friend, is that CBS and paramount can’t understand why reboots and prequels and recons and reimiginings and whatever else you want to call riding the waves of other people’s work is continually failing to show anything more than a lackluster response.
Here we are again, everyone’s telling you it’s garbage, you don’t want to listen because with your crazy spectacles it’s the best idea ever and you can’t wait to ride it like a whore in a motel.
You truly can’t see it can you? I mean really look at it, see what’s going on around you, all the negative press, the shoddy designs, the namedrops, it all makes perfect sense as a big hit TV show to you doesn’t it??!!
Wake up man, you are the reason why this crap keeps making it in to production time and time again, to the detriment of the franchise and the studios shoveling it in to your hungry fat little faces.
Trek fans are a bipolar bunch. We want either something new and fresh, but hate JJ Abrams efforts. Or we went the familiar, but now we hate the idea of Mudd returning? Geez….
I’m just delighted that Trek will be coming back to TV. Finally!
Abrams didn’t just do new and fresh, he messed with the familiar. That’s the problem with the Nu-Trek.
Some only like alternate or mirror universes of Trek !
Isn’t bringing back old TOS characters with new actors ‘messing with the famaliar’? Whats the difference? Thats exactly what the KT films did. And now why we have three different Sareks.
Scripts are written to be performed by actors. It doesn’t mess with the familiarity of Shakespeare’s plays and their characters that various and sundry repertory companies and their casts have performed them in the past, and will continue to perform them for years to come. That has been the legacy of the dramatic arts for thousands of years since their invention by the Ancient Greeks
Now changing or rewriting the script, that’s a dramatic difference.
You want to apply logic to Trek fandom? You’re braver than I am.
Douglass Abramson,
Logic? It’s canon [See:CONSCIENCE OF THE KING]! ;-)
Simply want a continuation of the story, something you idiots supporting prequels, reboots and recons apparently don’t seem to have any appriciation of whatsoever.
With people like you lapping it up, and people like you writing the garbage, you’re doomed to fail continually.
This will be the third failed attempt at remaking stuff again by the way.
Dumb fools.
Here we again! Boldly going where Trek has gone a million times before! They just cannot resist the honey pot – no undiscovered country here. Let’s quit the past these endless prequels truly represent, and move into the future already!
It costs a lot of money to be bold and creative , Vulcan Soul !
Yeah here we go….again. I love Star Trek I want Discovery to succeed but I really wish they can find people who can think bold again. We only got DS9 because someone thought bold and not just thought, “How can regurgitate something for the umpteenth time to keep the TOS fanboys happy?”
it’s not going to succeed in any way. It’s doomed already. The concept is utter bollocks, the management is a train wrek, and the constant name dropping and recon of everything a prequel is designed not to be is so stupid it’s a wonder the thing will ever make it to streaming.
The reviews on this are going to be so, so bad. Really terrible. Unless of course the blogger or editor is a TOS fan, in which case they’ll shed a tear when it’s booted out of the sound stages so fast it’s feet wont touch the ground.
Ah yes, this is feeding more and more into my notion that it will be easier for me to look on this whole ‘Discovery’ show as being set in some ‘alternate universe’ to the actual TOS ‘prime timeline’ instead.
This way, absolutely nothing the makers come up with is going to rile me up where this show is concerned. ;)
That’s my approach. It’s a great way to reduce unnecessary stress and just have fun.
It’s sad that you have to compartmentalize things that way to enjoy them. What a terrifylingly warped little world you must live in.
Torchwood,
Out of curiosity, why are their personal compartmentalizations sadder than the many compartmentilizations, Brad Grey’s Trek tentpoles for one, invented for many of the various STAR TREK narratives?
It’s sad that you’ll support this trash dude. just who is it aimed at? tos fans. here in the uk we call you tossers.
Will Tate,
How can anyone support or not support something that has not been made yet?
That it is aimed at the first series fans is no revelation as I believe that’s EXACTLY the disposable income Moonves said his bean counters identified that would make his ALL ACCESS viable, and which NETFLIX’s bean counters confirmed when they went all-in.
I do not support anything yet. I am willing to watch an episode and see if I enjoy it. That’s why you’re sad, because you can’t understand the difference.
I would like to make a note about continuity and fan expectations, and cannon.
Zephram Cochrane was one of the few characters from TOS that returns in a Star Trek feature film – and he was an unadulterated hero both times. Yet when we the audience see him the second time, he is younger and a vastly different personality. I think there was some grumbling from fans at the time. But only a few at the time charged that the changes in Zerphram’s personality were retconning.
There is a reason for this. We imagine what is unstated. We fill in the blanks. And by giving us something to imagine, the audience pretty much agrees that’s great storytelling! I think all Star Trek fans love the fact that the young wacky space hippie will become the 1950s aerospace engineer who never leaves work. (*(There is room there for a Star Trek standalone film about his life. It’s funny, full of adventure in dangerous settings and has a beautiful sad ending.)*)
(It seems like) All other returns were more consistent. Both Sarek and Khan are pretty much the same in TOS as the the spin offs and films where they appeared. This strategy deepened our experience of these characters. This strategy made the universe feel real. Some people never change.
All of the writers on Star Trek Discovery have done serious character work. Some are young. If I would place bets, they were brought in precisely because they will break some barriers.
I am optimistic that Mudd means it’s going to be interesting. Fans here do realize he’s been the subject of several novels and numerous – years and years – of fan fiction? Holy moly crewmembers, why the hell are you not interested?
And young Sarek? Sarek means it’s going to be serious and somewhat daring on a personal level. We are going to discover what it was like to represent the Vulcan race to the Federation and be in love with a woman from Earth. And yet he may not even have time to talk about it!
Because 10 years pre-TOS means there were very few starships. The stakes are high! Going into space is dangerous. From my recollection the world of TOS and in the novelizations, Kirk was supposed to be among the first captains to bring home most of his crew and ship intact. That is one of the reasons he took his captaincy so seriously. So few made it back to Earth!
I’m 48 years old. I grew up in NY, watching Star Trek every day. Instead of complaining, maybe we as fans should have a drink and do a happy dance. We may know a few of these characters a little bit, and they can be interesting again.
I write this in hope Star Trek Discovery will be Mad Men for Trek fans. The writers are going to ride us the performances will be by actors who do not want to let us know what they think from week to week. Because the stakes are that high.
Trek In A Cafe , I will be doing the Happy Dance & Raising My Glass too !
Knowing that Discovery is just a bit further on from Enterprise which I love !
And I hope that they do an involving arc on Sarek’s life and Amanda Grayson !
Cochrane was supposed to be played by Tom Hanks back then who would have matched the age of the original character.
No, Hanks would have still been 40, 6 years older than Corbett, and 7 than Cochrane. It’s closer than Cromwell, but still much older than he should have been.
What age was Cochrane supposed to be in Metamorphosis? Could it be that he was restored to a much younger pre-warp/WW3 age, making the First Contact version fit? He didn’t have any rock and roll or alcohol on the planet, and he certainly had a long time to sober up and come to terms with himself, who knows he may have even had an unbalanced brain chemistry that was restored as well.
The companion found him at age 87. I believe he was over 200 years old wwhen Kirk found him.
Thanks for looking that up, I was a little lazy yesterday. So yes that could fit with my theory. But I meant what age did the Companion revert him to? It looks like Cochrane was supposed to be 33 in First Contact, and Glen Corbett was 34 when he played him in metamorphosis. Unfortunately Cochrane was born during WWIII. So that doesn’t help at all. But it looks like the unofficial explanation of James Cromwell’s age being 56 at the time being due to radioactivity both he and his parents were subjected to during the war, might actually work just fine. The companion would have reverted him to a genetically pure state, not one affected by radiation. So I don’t see any real problem in reconciling this.
Curious Cadet,
Re: don’t see any real problem
Well, I, for one, would like to know how a 33yo aged by radiation to 56 made it to 87 flying around in space bathed in stellar radiation?
I suppose McCoy’s adrenaline radiation treatment that he spoke of in THE DEADLY YEARS may have played a part?
I think it’s just that people are sick to the point of vomiting their stomach lining with prequels and reboots no one asked for, particularly reboots such as this where the main selling point on all the news outlets will be 10 YEARS BEFORE KIRK 10 YEARS BEFORE KIRK 10 YEARS BEFORE KIRK.
Who cares? Kirk fans, that’s about it. Who gives a toss about all this namedropping and recons? certainly not the fanbase, as most have made their feelings about this junk abundantly clear.
Don’t expect it to go anywhere, it’s a terrible, terrible format shoehorning itself in to the success of previous writers and producers.
Come back any other day than today with this news,lol!
I think EVERYONE need to see (or see again) Red Letter Media’s review of STAR TREK ’09, as to the reason why Paramount/CBS will not break new ground, in terms of marketing. Including the character Harry Mudd in STD is part of the reason why this is the case.
I love RLM, and know exactly what you’re referring to. But it’s not been revealed to this point what sorts of studio oversight this show has– meaning, how much of the creative choices were dictated by CBS, and how much are just what the writers and producers want to do because they think it would be good and/or fun to do.
ie: did the studio mandate the time period, strongly urge the inclusion of classic characters, or was their only instruction something like “go make a good Trek show.”
Everything i’ve read so far suggests to me that the studio is not being overbearing in terms of telling the producers what to do. “Creative freedom” and separation from “studio bosses” was mentioned several times as a benefit to the streaming platform early on by Fuller and Co.
Torchwood,
Re: studio is not being overbearing
Maybe.
But that’s not exactly how TrekMovie Laurie Ulster’s NEWSWEEK source reporting makes it seem?:
http://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-bryan-fuller-bittersweet-departure-star-trek-527540
”CBS opted to move ahead without Fuller after previously accommodating his and co-creator Alex Kurtzman’s request to push the show’s planned January 2017 premiere to May in order to “achieve a vision we can all be proud of.”” — EXCLUSIVE: PRODUCER BRYAN FULLER ON HIS ‘BITTERSWEET’ DEPARTURE FROM THE NEW ‘STAR TREK’ TV SERIES, By Tufayel Ahmed On 12/2/16 at 11:33 AM, NEWSWEEK.com
I don’t get how that quote or article means what you’re saying. After fuller left, what were they supposed to do, cancel the show?
They were willing to push it back 6 months to accommodate his vision, then again indefinitely until it was ready.
That’s a pretty big sign to me that they’re giving the producers a lot of freedom!
Torchwood,
”CBS opted to move ahead without Fuller after previously accommodating his and co-creator Alex Kurtzman’s request to push the show’s planned January 2017 premiere to May in order to “achieve a vision we can all be proud of.”” is not equivalent to the passive “CBS had to move ahead without Fuller after he opted to leave.” The reporter is communicating that CBS made a choice and therefore played a more active part in Fuller’s decision to exit — NOT that CBS had no choice.
Fuller’s comments also meet all the standard contractual obligations of a Hollywood “firing” where the word itself is verboten and the exiting party “chose” a better career opportunity or more rewarding option.
And what Trek fan of the movies doesn’t remember the “job title only” banishment that Paramount imposed on Roddenberry after TMP?
”Fuller—who retains an executive producer credit—wrote the first two episodes of Discovery and the story arc for the rest of the 13-part first season.CBS said it would see his “vision through,” but the writer confirms he has no active involvement with the series.” — EXCLUSIVE: PRODUCER BRYAN FULLER ON HIS ‘BITTERSWEET’ DEPARTURE FROM THE NEW ‘STAR TREK’ TV SERIES, By Tufayel Ahmed On 12/2/16 at 11:33 AM, NEWSWEEK.com
You said you saw no sign, in the reporting relied upon at Trek Movie, to suggest that CBS was being overbearing. Comparing that report to the many corporate entertainment “share and enjoy” exit announcements over the decades, I see a hint.
Guess that’s just their way of saying: “Look folks, it’s set in the prime-timeline! Really! Absolutely canon!”
Let’s just hope they will not shoehorn in tribbles, the Gorn and other random stuff that’s just supposed to tell you “Hey look, it’s Star Trek. Remember that one? It was in an Episode of TOS once, you know…”
Discovery is being made for the same crowd as this garbage was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA34za7zakw
Strange/weird announcememt to make. Surely only proper Trekkies (tos) would have any idea who Harry Mudd is?
Of all characters to bring back. Ugh! Another half-hearted effort by writers inexperienced in Trek to throw a bone to fans. STD is looking like more of a fail with each bit of news. Major shame that we won’t be getting a series that goes forward instead of backward… badly.
They’ve updated the visuals of the Klingons, the uniforms, the ships, etc, moved from a 22+ episode episodic season to a more modern, heavily serialized formar, changed the focus of the show to what would have been in any other series a secondary character — I hardly think using 2 established characters is evidence that they’re moving backwards…
Preach
Just what the hell is the point in making a prequel if they are going to change everything? That won’t please anyone, least of all the TOS crowd who are so uber hyped about this trash TV.
what the point? we all knows where he ends up,give me something new and something i dont know where it is going please
If I started watching the original Star Trek from mid-season two, it doesn’t mean that the previous episodes are spoiled for me. We don’t principally watch shows to find out where people “end up.”
Yes, we do.
i concur. that is exactly why fiction exists. the fad of making harry potter and hobbit prequels wont have the slightest bit of interest to people who didn’t watch the originals just like this aint interesting to anyone who doesnt already watch kirk trek. they have lost the ball big time on dsc and its only going to damage the franchise as a whole
A good character is a good character. For New fans to the franchise who didn’t watch TOS I’ll simply see Mudd as a new character. This is a positive thing. Franchises such as Marvel, DC, and Star Wars, have the same problem, and yet they are doing far barter at the box office than Trek ever has.
prequels are of little interest to anyone other than fans of the show it’s a prequel to. You can’t tell them though, they are so wrapped up in fanboying that their are blind to the car crash this thing is.
I just despair at this so much, it makes me angry that we’re watching Trek being bastardised once again by a small group of people who are so determined to leave their mark on someone else’s successes that they are prepared to steal virtually everything and call it “new take”.
I don’t like the original series, I have no interest in seeing the origin stories of TOS characters, and really couldn’t care less as they were all long dead by the time Trek moved in to it’s popular and critically acclaimed 1988-2004 run.
I have no interest in a kitbash ship designed by a drunk school kid with a roulette table for parts.
I have no interest in Klingon stories whatsoever, from any of the franchise filler episodes. I have no interest in their origins, I don’t care what happens to them, and wiping them off the face of the franchise would gratify me immensely so I don’t have to ever watch another boring episode again.
I am so disinterested with the timeline after the abysmal “Enterprise” and the TOS series that I’d gladly accept no more star trek at all, rather than watch what I do like be bastardised by monkeys with typewriters fixated with TOS and Klingons. Again, just to clarify, I would rather NO STAR TREK AT ALL than this disaster screwing the franchise in to the wall for another decade.
.Just who the hell did the market research for this tripe? No one, of course. It was Fullers stupid idea which should have been thrown out when he was shoved out the back door.
Mark Fry obviously has strong feelings about the premise of Discovery. I don’t blame him; many fans were probably uncool with the premise “Spock dies” circa 1982. Guess what — it’s in the execution. It’s fine to disagree with how something sounds on the face of it; it’s entirely another to see it complete. Give it a chance. It may yet surprise you.
WOW…this is turning more and more into a mirror of the Trump Train Wreak Administration.
What’s next? New Tribbles? Trelane? Horta? Charlie X?
This is going to be steeped in blandness as a trip down Memory Alpha Lane.
I Khan , Memory Alpha Butter Memory Beta ?!
I really don’t understand how the minds of the fanboys lapping this up work.
Surely they can see how this is going down? You’ll not find a single supporter of this who isn’t a TOS fanboy, and it’s everyone else who will pay the price by the franchise grinding to a halt again due to stupid decisions by stupid people who want nostalgia more than progression.
hahaha and if you don’t like this star trek we’ll make it again and again and again until you give the rite answer
I don’t know if it was mentioned on here, but Roger C Carmel was 35 years old in his first Trek appearance. Rainn Wilson is 51. Men aged faster back then.
True but we also had decades of medical improvements and education. We know how to take better care or ourselves and we do a lot less smoking and drinking which was the norm back in those days. So yes people looked older back then mostly because they didn’t have the knowledge we do today.
I’ll go you one better, the actor who played Capt. Garth, Steve Ihnat, who had long since made history that Kirk studied as a cadet in the academy, was 3 years younger than Shatner. And to your point, Ihnat died of a heart attack at age 37.
It’s nice that they’ll mix in some familiar characters. And this is really good casting for the part!
I have to wonder why half of you are even on this site. All you do is complain about EVERYTHING. Some of you show no enthusiasm about anything Trek-related–ever. It’s ridiculous.
You’ll be asking yourself that question again in a few months when this is almost universally rejected by all but the most hard core original series fans.
It’s a disgrace, a mess, being produced by committee, and ultimately won’t please anyone nearly as much as it’s already pi$$ing off 95% of the fan base.
It’s your funeral dude.
Get lost.
i would pay good money for them to pull the plug on dsc now and start from the beginning with a progressive and continuance of the trek universe. this reboot rubbish is appalling and an abusive use of much better original works which have come before
95%? Link to the proof please.
I am sick to death of the original series junking up Discovery. Every time I check this site it gets worse and worse. There has literally not been a single press release or social media fart which has given me anything to be excited about.
On the contrary, I find it offensive, unimaginative, a rip off, and of no interest whatsoever.
I want it to crash and burn because this isn’t star trek, this is a reboot of some 60s tv show name dropping other people’s characters from the get go.
How dare they?
prequels are of little interest to anyone other than fans of the show it’s a prequel to. You can’t tell them though, they are so wrapped up in fanboying that their are blind to the car crash this thing is.
I just despair at this so much, it makes me angry that we’re watching Trek being bastardised once again by a small group of people who are so determined to leave their mark on someone else’s successes that they are prepared to steal virtually everything and call it “new take”.
I don’t like the original series, I have no interest in seeing the origin stories of TOS characters, and really couldn’t care less as they were all long dead by the time Trek moved in to it’s popular and critically acclaimed 1988-2004 run.
I have no interest in a kitbash ship designed by a drunk school kid with a roulette table for parts.
I have no interest in Klingon stories whatsoever, from any of the franchise filler episodes. I have no interest in their origins, I don’t care what happens to them, and wiping them off the face of the franchise would gratify me immensely so I don’t have to ever watch another boring episode again.
I am so disinterested with the timeline after the abysmal “Enterprise” and the TOS series that I’d gladly accept no more star trek at all, rather than watch what I do like be bastardised by monkeys with typewriters fixated with TOS and Klingons. Again, just to clarify, I would rather NO STAR TREK AT ALL than this disaster screwing the franchise in to the wall for another decade.
.Just who the hell did the market research for this tripe? No one, of course. It was Fullers stupid idea which should have been thrown out when he was shoved out the back door.
Wow. I can’t for the life of me understand why you do like about Star Trek, or want from it.
Oh I get it, this Mark Fry guy was only posting on April 1st — talk about an April Fool!
for gods sake this is getting so dumb now. every new bit of “news” is like the punch line to an unfunny and racist joke.
one thing is for sure – cbs wont be getting a dime of my money,
Y’all need to chill tf out
This is going to be so painful. Cancelled in record time.
Discovery will be a left wing, gay, rehash painful thing to see. Trek fans will cry.
No more painful than TOS being a left wing, race mixing, agenda pushing painful thing to see in 1966.
It was never in the top 30. Death sentence for a show today. Sorry, try again later.
Not being in the top 30 a death sentence for a streamed only subscribed show? I don’t think so. Besides that first Trek series got enough subscribers in rerun syndication for another streaming network, NETFLIX, to go all in on it and DISCOVERY.
Why not Brett Gelman? He’s funny, he’s big, and looks and sounds like Harry Mudd!
And furthermore, learning about how Harry Mudd became a “Thief, swindler and con man, liar and rogue” or whatever Kirk called him would require casting Stella Mudd. I choose Natasha Leggero or Gillian Jacobs.