Shop The Official Star Trek Shop Now!

SDCC17: ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Team Talk War, Roddenberry, Space Mushrooms, And A Reimagined Mudd

Following their panel at San Diego Comic-Con, the cast and crew of Star Trek: Discovery held a press conference. On hand were cast members Sonequa Martin-Green (Burnham), Jason Isaacs (Lorca), Doug Jones (Saru), Shazad Latif (Tyler), Mary Wiseman (Tilly), Anthony Rapp (Stamets), James Frain (Sarek) and Rainn Wilson (Mudd). Also answering press questions were executive producers Alex Kurtzman, Gretchen J. Berg, Aaron Harberts, Heather Kadin, and Akiva Goldsman. TrekMovie was there to bring you the highlights.

Star Trek: Discovery cast and crew answer questions from the press at San Diego Comic-Con

Discovery is going to war

In the new Star Trek: Discovery trailer released on Saturday at San Diego Comic-Con, we see Captain Lorca saying, “You helped start a war, don’t you want to help me end it?” This issue of war as an over-arching theme and setting for Discovery came up a number of times during the press conference.

The first time was when Alex Kurtzman answered a question about balancing what to keep from classic Star Trek with what new elements to bring in for Discovery:

First and foremost, the defining factor of Roddenberry’s vision is the optimistic view of the future. He envisioned a world where all species, all races came together to not only make our world better, but to make every world better. I think that is something that can never be lost in Trek. Once you lose that, you lose the essence of what Star Trek is.

That being said…we live in very different times. Every day we look at the news and it is hard. It is hard to see what we see. I think now more than ever Trek is needed as a reminder of what we can be and the best of who we can be. Star Trek has always been a mirror to the time it reflected and right now the idea that – the question is how do you preserve and protect what Starfleet is in the weight of challenge like war and the things that have to be done in war is a very interesting and dramatic problem. And it feels like a very topical one given the world where where we live now.

Kurtzman again brought up the backdrop of war, when asked a question on how the show will push the boundaries:

You know about the Bechdel Test? How many times have you seen in television or a movie in which two women come together and talk about a guy? I am not saying they never talk about guys when women are together in this show. It’s not that we are trying to make a statement or not make a statement, that is not the focus of what we are doing. They are dealing with real problems in the middle of a war and so I think Roddenberry’s greatest contribution to race relations is that he never addressed them. It just was. And that is exactly what we are doing.

Rainn Wilson also brought up the issue of war in the context of answering a question about stepping into the shoes of a known character like Harry Mudd:

It is incredible to play Harry Mudd…I grew up watching the show. Let’s remember this particular universe is a particular dark time for the Federation and for Starfleet with this war happening, so I don’t think it would be appropriate in the universe to have as many jolly wackadoo episodes that were often in The Original Series and The Next Generation because – and that is one of the wonderful things about Star Trek is that you could have some episodes that were almost comedies.

Rainn Wilson at Star Trek: Discovery press conference at Comic-Con 2017 (CBS)

Some Walking Dead grit in Discovery

When Sonequa Martin-Green was asked what it was like going from a “gritty” show like The Walking Dead to Star Trek: Discovery, she said she saw much in common between the shows:

I feel that storytelling is such a champion in our world and our society. It does so much for us. It shapes us and changes us and enlightens us. I think going from a show where the storytelling is so rich and so dynamic to another show where the storytelling is so rich and so dynamic and there is such a stellar group of people here and everyone else who isn’t hear. I just feel that all high quality stories are gritty because life is gritty. So in that way I don’t see that much difference.

It is a different backdrop for sure. I think the complexities of the story and the dynamics of the relationship I think – one of my favorites that we explore on the show which is a acculturation and how when that happens it doesn’t have to mean assimilation. That’s really one of the pillars of Star Trek and what it teaches is that we don’t have to let go of who we are in order to learn who you are. We can do it at the same time. That is something touched on in The Walking Dead and it is touched on here in such a unique and in a way that I think honors the legacy, but also carries it to the next level.

Sonequa Martin-Green Rainn Wilson at Star Trek: Discovery press conference at Comic-Con 2017 (CBS)

Preserving Roddenberry’s vision

There was a lot of discussion of Gene Roddenberry and his original vision of Star Trek during the press conference. Akiva Goldsman had this to say:

I think we are acutely aware of the legacy of the show and what is unique about this – dare I say ‘enterprise’ – is there is so much love for the history that comes before us. We talked before about how Star Trek is about family. The creation of this version of Star Trek has also become about family and that seems fitting and correct. Unlike virtually anything I have ever been a part of, there is no whimsy to anyone’s commitment. There is an awareness and a pump to getting to be the next holder of this baton as we pass it down the road. It is pretty startling privilege that I don’t think any of us take lightly.

Jason Isaacs also spoke about what he sees at the core of Star Trek.

The original stories in the 60s were told at a time of enormous turmoil with the civil rights movement. And we all wanted a vision of the future and Gene Roddenberry created a future where people have found a solution to the divisions between people at a time when the outside world seems to be be getting more divisive and more backwards. So for me the gadgets are fun and the sets are great and I am sure we are going to have all the whizbang stuff you can ever wish for, but what counts is what we’re putting out there, and what we’re showing the next generations of what we could become as a planet instead of what we might become.

A reporter asked about how the show will appeal to Latinos. Goldsman responded more broadly about how the show embraces diversity:

What we are committed to is a real fractal version of the universe that diversity has become too easy of a word. We are committed to complexity and the differences in cultures and differences in biology and in preference and inclusions, these are the principles that Star Trek was founded on. So we chase those. We chase the idea that our arms are as wide as arms can be and that the show’s mission is to be inclusive. So we are very, very purposeful about that and you will see as we move forward that that’s by no means an accident.

Serialized storytelling

Akiva Goldsman did note that one thing about Discovery will be different:

We got the chance to do something pretty unprecedented with Star Trek which is to be serialized. The fact is that not only have the lines been blurred between movies and TV they have almost inverted now…Television has become long-form. It has become deep, extended, complex narrative.  What we get to do – because the culture of television watching no longer requires episodic resets – is to take characters on journeys in the same way that the ship took journeys over the course of the original series.

Sonequa cries over the passing the baton

When Sonequa Martin-Green was asked if she felt she felt a passing of the baton from past Star Trek and in particularly Nichelle Nichols, she said:

I certainly stand on Nichelle’s shoulders. I think all of us stand on the shoulders of the innovation that has been in the Star Trek canon up to now. All the progression, and now this is really a story of universality, this is a story of coming together and understanding that we are all one with all life. I don’t know if I could put it into words. I feel like if I try I could cry and it would get really messy up here…It’s such an honor and privilege to be a part of a story that I truly believe that is going to bring people together.

When asked what it is like to join a franchise that means they will become icons, Anthony Rapp also talked about who came before:

Watching what has come before us has been so profoundly inspiring. I believe Leonard Nimoy is an icon, and not just because he plays this character, but because he was an incredible actor, bringing this character to life, and showed us all the layers…of Spock. So if we do become icons, if that is true it would be weird and cool, I hope it is because we are standing on the shoulders of what came before us.

James Frain also weighed in on stepping into a known character by playing Sarek:

It is an honor. It is a responsibility. It is a challenge. The writers create the character so we deliver a version of what they do. I think what the writers are doing with this character and really with all storylines is so interesting and so complex and revealing that it is just a joy to work on. So I don’t feel troubled too much by that.

Stamets brings new mushroom tech

When asked if the show can introduce technology even though it is set before the original Star Trek, Anthony Rapp divulged a bit about his character saying:

I am a scientist with a weird field of study which is astromicrology and that has some interesting ramifications. So yes there are some new things to explore because there are space fungus and mushrooms.

When asked for an example of the kind of scientific technobble he gets to use, Rapp impressively rattled off an intriguing bit about subspace fungi:

Prototaxites stellaviatorae – a species made up of exotic matter found not only in our dimension, but also in a discrete subspace domain known as the ‘mycelial network.’

Anthony Rapp at Star Trek: Discovery press conference at Comic-Con 2017 (CBS)

Mudd reimagined

When asked about stepping into the role of Mudd, Wilson said that his Mudd is going to be a little different:

This Harry Mudd is kind of a reimagining, a reinvention in the same way so many things have been reimagined and reinvented. He’s a bit more dastardly than the original. But that character made such an impression on me and it is a dream come true to try to bring him to life with as much drama and comedy as possible.

Nerding out over the captain’s chair

When a question about what it was like to be a fan to work on the show, Rainn Wilson said

I know I am a mere supporting character, but I will say that I grew up watching the original series. At age five or six I started watching it on re-runs after school. I started building models of the Enterprise. I had books. I memorized where everything was in the ship.

To go on the ship and then I got to in my episode – without giving anything away – I got to use the transporter room! I got to be transported and I got to use a phaser and got to sit in the captain’s chair a little bit. Just iconic creations from Gene Roddenberry and his original staff and to get to relive those as an adult fan was just one of my greatest life experiences.

Doug Jones also chimed in regarding how sitting in that certain chair affected him:

I rank third in command on the bridge on the starship Shenzhou, so when first officer Michael Burnham and Captain Georgiou, played by the lovely Michelle Yeoh, we have a conference off in the captain’s ready room, and I was the next one to sit in the chair…and I wasn’t expecting it, so I’m like, “I get to put my ass in that?

Doug Jones at Star Trek: Discovery press conference at Comic-Con 2017 (CBS)

Delays, cinematography and a singing director Frakes

When asked about pushing technology, Alex Kurtzman brought up the various delays for the show:

There were a lot of questions about “Why the delay?” and the answer is because we knew we were going to be pushing the technology to a place where it took time. It just takes time to build a world right. It takes time to hire the right people to take what is on the script and turn it into something amazing. The line between film and television is blurring to the point where it is nonexistent now so the show has to look like a movie. Especially again because we are asking people to pay for it. It has to define itself as unique. It takes a good year to launch a show correctly when you factor in sets built and visual effects. If you rush those things you are compromising quality.

So we hope to innovate as much as possible and certainly pushing the boundaries of television in terms of creating CG environments….It is not just the shooting time, but the render time with CG. To do that right takes months and months and months.

We didn’t want to do the bad version of this show. We would rather take the hit. “Why are they taking so long?” than doing something faster that you hate.

There was a question about working with Oscar-winning cinematographer Guillermo Navarro on the pilot and Kurtzman talked about how they decided to shoot the show:

David Semel did a great job with the pilot. We talked a lot about how to shoot the bridge in an interesting way, and not to shoot in a sort of proscenium box…to be able to get the camera into spaces where, you know, to shoot it in interesting ways, which is a combination of choreographing a scene to motivate the camera moving, and also lighting.  We’ve figured out a way to contour the lighting so it felt more cinematic and yet so you wouldn’t have to squint your eyes to see what was happening. So very cinematic across the board. Guillermo obviously is a genius.

Jason Isaacs answered a question about what it was like with Star Trek: The Next Generations Jonathan Frakes directing an episode:

He’s still an actor. He’s a fantastic director…He is very up-tempo and funny and he can barely be contained. He is also singing all the time. He is also very finely tuned attuned to the nuances of what the actors are doing…It’s a joy to have him on.

A couple more things

  • Tribbles confirmed
  • 10 episodes have been completed

More TrekMovie SDCC17 coverage

‘Discovery’ panel report

New trailer and images from ‘Star Trek: Discovery’

IDW Panel reveals details for ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ and Boldly Go comics

See ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Federation and Starfleet Props and Costumes

See ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Klingon Costumes And Props

Klingon Torchbearer Revealed + Gentle Giant Announces Discovery Collectibles

‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Concept Art Details Klingon And Federation Ships

Stay tuned for even more coverage of San Diego Comic-Con.

Star Trek: Discovery premieres on September 24th on CBS with all subsequent episodes on CBS All Access in the US.  Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news at TrekMovie.

 

Leave a Reply

139 Comments on "SDCC17: ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Team Talk War, Roddenberry, Space Mushrooms, And A Reimagined Mudd"

Sort by:   newest | oldest

“That being said…we live in very different times. Every day we look at the news and it is hard. It is hard to see what we see.” Alex Kurtzman

What did guy smoke? TOS was set in the 60s, when the threat of nuclear destruction was very in the mind of every citizen of the world, compare this current time with the 60s is a bad joke. Those were bad times, and yet, TOS was about peace and understanding. If you want to make a Star Trek show about war do it, but at least have the balls and admit that is because it sells more and is only about $$$$

You’re right. The world is exactly the same as it was in 1966. “Different times” does not apply. He was so wrong. What a maroon!

@Athuel — you’re discounting a very important distinction in your direct compare: in the 1960s the networks bent over backwards to keep TV from becoming a mirror of the violence and protests going on all around them. TOS suffered from that, and it’s well documented that the writers had to sneak story lines by the network and censors. TOS dealt with these issues but in a more oblique fashion — and it was plenty dark at times. It’s unlikely NBC would have ever let a war themed storyline continue through more than one episode. They all wanted mindless entertainment to detract from the evening news, and Trek was no exception. That innocence has long been lost for modern audiences.

And you’re discounting the fact that the current networks wants explocions and people killing each other, just because it sells more.

So dont bring me the crap “the present is worst so we will reflect that”. It is just because $$$$ and networks wishes, just like in the 60s.

Exactly. Explosions and super hero ripoffs make money. Thoughtful, intelligent, morality plays aren’t going to sell as many toys. And make no mistake, we are here to sell toys. They even took the time to show us all of them beforehand.

DS9 had it’s share of splosions and war. Enterprise had MACO’s. Trek, whenever it had budget, used lots of action. You’re seeing all of the action in the trailers because you’re spot on that it sells. But I wonder how much of the show is all action, and they’re just throwing all of that into the trailers to attract viewers.

And what’s wrong with that? Action is fun. Action is going to happen in a universe with starships and Klingons and an active war. But that doesn’t mean it can’t also have moral lessons, thoughtful stories, and social commentary, in the grandest tradition of Trek.

Then again, Trek fans seem to not want that stuff either, because a gay character and a black woman are a “liberal pc agenda gone mad.”

I am not againts war episodes, I am againts them useing excuses when they said that they are going to do a war serie just because the fact that current time in the world is the worst (when is not)… they are doing war just because it sells, and that is not bad thing, but be honest about it.

“Then again, Trek fans seem to not want that stuff either, because a gay character and a black woman are a “liberal pc agenda gone mad.””

That is bs, who even said anything about a black woman been an issue here? Dont bring that bs here.. hell, we love Sisko, Janeway and Uhura but we hate a black woman lead. Get out of here with out bs.

DS9 had some AMAZING space battles actually. They even had a story where the heroic leader conspired with a former enemy spy to forge evidence of treachery to trick a non-aligned species into joining the way. And when that didnt look, over-looked the fact that spy murdered several innocent people to accomplish the same end result.

DS9 was great. So great.

Racist Homophobic sexist people are by definition, Not Star Trek fans to to connect anything said by fans to their comments is wildly inapropriate.

It sells more because that is what people want. It would be stupid if networks said… hey, you know what? People want to see explosions and action… let’s do the opposite.

Superhero movies are walking away with all the money. Why? People love the action and explosions. Fast & Furious is raking in the dough. People obviously want to see it.

Even Star Wars has action and light saber fights.

Yeah, let’s make something dry and cerebral so that it bores everyone except a few diehard geeks. Surefire way to kill the brand forever.

Maybe you a few others don’t want to see Discovery… but there are a lot of people looking forward to this.

I can see your point and agree with it — but I’m not seeing it play out in reality with the JJ movies. I LOVE those movies (except some weird stuff in Into Darkness), but the action didn’t draw in the huge Star Wars blockbuster crowds. I don’t ever see Star Trek drawing in massive numbers so why not make it the way it should be? I’m playing devils advocate here because I like action and space battles.

I always equated it like this: write a great dramatic character story and punch up the flash bangs after. Instead, what JJ did was write flash bang set piece scenes and then get a couple of writers in way over their heads to connect the dots in a lame manner.

So yes, I agree. But lets have our cake and eat it too. This is a TV series and seemingly will boast more action than any of the previous series’ but by virtue of being TV, they can explore the human condition too.

See, at a certain point, when it’s just all action fluff garbage, something has been lost. I don’t care if it’s popular or it makes more money, just it’s not the same thing. DS9 wasn’t a series about war, it just happened to include one. Most of the time was still spent talking politics, ethics and the finer points of morality. Having a series explicity about war is pretty much the polar opposite of the spirit of star trek. It’s heartbreaking how somthing unique and special, a world of peace and optimisim, is transformed into a parody of itself, into another one of a thousand generic space wars. What’s even more amazing is that anyone would applaud it.

He is under the illusion that the creative team are under, that Star Trek is Broken & if they Fix it by trying to be like other more popular shows (Star Wars/Game of Thrones) it will succeed.
NO IT WONT!
Star Trek is a Cult show, not everyone likes it because most people are stupid, racist violent people who can’t buy into a Utopian future but the Real fans who aspire to that future will be loyal if less.

Dumbing Star Trek down, packing it with Action & corrupting it with Pro-War themes where we can only grow/learn through war not exploration doesn’t attract new fans & alienates real fans- the ones who have been giving Paramount/CBS their money for years/decades.

You are such an insult to Star Trek.
Star Trek had morality, Idealism & action.
To sell out on the ideals for popularity.
SOOO Fuking Sad.
Yes, in theory it could be more popular, to have an all action War series, like the JJ films were to start off with but when all that action rang hollow & there was no message or Preachy ideals behind it audiences moved got bored & moved on to the next craze- unlike the original Star Trek/Star Trek films which kept fans loyal & wanting more & supported Star Trek. The new fans have no loyalty- once the explosions are gone they move on to the next cheap thrill.

Excellent point, Curious Cadet!

Were you around then? Vietnam combat footage was on the news every night.

I see you meant entertainment TV. OK.

Gene Roddenberry and Coon were well documented pacifists and that theme is in all their major works. Through all of Roddenberry’s attempted pilots a war show was never considered. Star Trek was conceived as a space exploration show from it’s first documents with the crew made up of astronauts, not soldiers. Notice that they never even salute. NBC had nothing to do with it.

Roddenberry and Coon were not pacifists. They were writers, who had experienced the horrors of war first-hand and considered it a profound evil, as something to be engaged in only as a last resort. That’s not quite the same thing.

Wow, have you seen Errand of Mercy or Arena? Gods swooping down to stop foolish child races from fighting? Understanding your enemy instead of killing them? People being made to feel foolish for wanting to fight in the first place? How is that not overtly pacifistic? Maybe you don’t like that word, but it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t apply.

Curious Cadet- Seriously?
The point of a Science Fiction show is to talk about today indirectly to disarm people so they get the message- NO Gene & the writers would not have been writing episodes about the Russians or communism or the Civil Rights movement Directly except the studios didn’t allow them to, otherwise they would have set the show in 1960. JEEEZ learn your Star Trek history before telling people they are wrong.
It was Genes intended format.

Saying 2017 is Dark so our show set in 2250 has to be dark because Science Fiction Audiences cannot relate to it or suspend disbelief? What they are meaning is Contemporary, non Sci-Fi audiences, which they covet can’t relate to it. So we have to cater to them & sell Star Trek out if we want more people to watch.

I think they are saying it is about war. How we judge their story depends on how the medium “star trek” delivers the message “alternative solutions to war.” Will their be conscientious objectors? Will there be refugees? Will their be pacifists who become warriors? Do they have anyone on the staff who has actually been to a war and studied war?

If we see war depicted in space with death on screen, and it relates to how the characters see their own future, then DSC can be a win-win, especially with audiences that are primed for mindless violence without repercussions. That is truly “alternative programming” — over and above the audience like us that is going there to see it already.

From what I see, DSC offers opportunities to tell stories connected to these characters that have resonance. Perhaps The Team will do it. BDG reboot really did it well.

If you look around we are not in just “dark times.” We are actually in the middle of a World War. Many of us have been around the world and seen what that means. As the UN debates, as nations go to conferences, in so many cases human rights violations are just a chit on a list of endless degradations of diplomacy. So, this Star Trek might reflect that intelligently. Diplomacy obviously does not always work.

And again, sorry for my endless spelling errors.

What concerns me is that Star Trek was always supposed to offer a conscious counterpoint to the darker side of human nature, not simply illustrate it. TOS was produced during the deadliest fighting in the Vietnam War, so the limitations of diplomacy and the United Nations were no secret, but the show’s message was an argument against the kind of cynicism that was on the rise in response to the conflict and inequality and political assassination that was defining the era. Star Trek was a weekly message that things didn’t have to be that way, because we could make a better future.

And it’s worth nothing that conflict worldwide has been on the decline since the 1960s—a fact that’s been obscured by the way advances in communication technology have made the conflicts that do still exist much harder to ignore. Star Trek’s vision of humanity’s future has actually been coming true, so giving up on it because we aren’t all the way there yet would be kind of a perverse reaction.

That said, there’s only so much nuance you can read from a few quotes, and the show could handle this fine. I think Nicholas Meyer’s take on these issues in Star Trek VI was almost pitch perfect, for example. So I guess we’ll see.

It’s supposedly true that there is less war and just more awareness of it everywhere. Stressful for people who don’t want to think about it, but good for understanding “truth.”

I would love to see conscientious objectors on Trek. What about all those men and women who signed on in better times for the science and exploration, and are now being told to kill Klingons on sight? Surely at least a few would have qualms. I always thought that DS9 really dropped the ball on that one.

They’re kind of overthinking this. Just make something fun to watch. Don’t preach. You’re so right about the 60’s — they were drafting people and shipping them out back then. Every show on tv (well, almost) is oh so serious. How ’bout some fun entertainment?

I’d be interested to know how much DS9 fans and people who don’t like that this is a war show overlap. I’m not disagreeing with you, it’s just that there’s a vocal bunch of people who love the crap out of DS9 just as there’s a vocal bunch of people who complain about how many splodeys are in the JJ and Discovery properties.

So true. Politically, the only bad news are “self-made”… some questionable decisions and elections based on the false assumption that there had been a problem in the first place… The rest are civil wars in certain regions of the world that have never been peaceful, and certainly not in the 1960s… We are still far better off than during the cold war. That said, the problem is that people nowadays seem to enjoy the grit, the gloom and darkness in media. Twenty + something “mature” TV shows, lots of R-Rated blockbusters…be it action, horror or comic book. back in the day, a movie like “Night of the Living Dead” caused a scandal, now, worse stuff has become everyday tv entertainment fpr young and old… People are craving for darkness and obviously enjoy the extreme. Watching people suffer (TWD, GoT), watching KIDS suffer (Stranger Things), seems to satisfy their voyeristic needs and they justify that attitude by calling it “the golden age of television”… The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, American Gods, Westworld, The Strain, Blood Drive… all shows watched by a multigenerational audience… the parents being either unable or unwilling to protect their kids from watching it. The kids are not even able to realize these shows are particularily brutal or violent anymore because they don’t know any better. They have no idea that TV has lost its innocence over the last 25 years. Highly successful movie series such as John Wick, Saw, The Purge, The Kingsman etc. complete the… Read more »

It’s a great day. TV needed desperately to lose its innocence, and despite what you see as brutality in our pop culture, there has never in human history been a safer, more peaceful time to be alive.

I somewhat have to agree on the second part of your statement. At the moment, we are still lucky, the on-screen violence does not directly influence many people to an extend it actually results in a significant increase of real-life violence. There are exceptions to that rule, but generally, you are right. It’s too easy to assume that kids watching GoT or TWD will automatically turn into low-life killers by the age of 21. On the contrary, if you are not a psychotic wacko, violent entertainment CAN even have a cathartic impact on you. Also, there is plenty of proof that humanity didn’t need media bluprints for the worst atrocities committed over history. The first part somewhat troubles me. Did TV really have to lose it’s easy-going innocence to THAT extend? Even if there is no large-scale social impact of on-screen violence (so far), I dislike the aesthetic aspect of constant on-screen violence. I just don’t want to watch slow-mo splatter headshots, piles of chopped-off heads, growling zombified creatures, people being explicitely stabbed or gutted, naked vampire ladies drinking fountains of blood, people stuffed into monster car tanks, tender kid characters being exposed to ultimate horrors etc. on every other genre show or movie there is…and certainly not on Trek! Even if some people overestimate the impact of gory violence, it’s still a lot to stomach if you didn’t grow up on stuff like this! I try to blame youth protection laws for my inability to deal with it in… Read more »
“compare this current time with the 60s is a bad joke”. You fail to see what’s going on all around you covertly; a catastrophic failure of perception: Sept. 11th, the “Reichstag fire” inside job for the 21st century, the Patriot Act and Homeland Security follows, the seeds for police-state apparatus is established, and the intelligence community grows ever bolder in its unconstitutional surveillance activities and financial support for false-flag terrorist groups. The EU advances in the face of popular rejection and now the unholy Trinity (ECB,IMF,unelected EU bureaucrats) runs the continent. 2008 financial collapse and BANKS are too big to fail (but OK for people and communities to fail) so QE, bailouts, bail-ins, austerities(poverty and immiseration) for the people (to encourage joining up with the military) while we have extravagant outlays for war and the military. Deep State operatives appear to be running the show despite what the people vote for…the policy direction never seems to change. Neocons (reconfigured Straussians, who are themselves just reconfigured Trotskyites) insist that we follow their fanatics’ policy of permanent war, and regime change (for those nations who disagree with policy) because “War is the Health of the State, and builds Martial Virtues in Its people” in their perverse “religion”. All of these events have conspired (in places like Bilderberg, Davos, Mt. Pelerin, Tavistock, CFR, Trilateralists, etc…) to create the Bankers’ Diktat (long fore-casted for decades by lonely voices in the wilderness)that reigns (via Deep State apparatus) over the “Trans-Atlantic Community (three quarters of the… Read more »

Bla bla bla.. None of this compares to the end of mankind, threat they faced in the 60’s.

yes and TOS was not the optimistic hands across America hippy commune show you pretend it was.

They had wars with the Klingons and Romulans. They armed an entire race of people. There was tons of conflict.

The optimism Gene intended was that HUMANITY had puts its differences aside, not that there was no conflict in the cosmos.

And Discovery seems to be exactly the same. Humans have still put petty conflict aside to explore space.

Again, you’re missing the obvious point. Yes, TOS showed a future where the people of earth had overcome their differences and were exploring space where they had conflicts with many other species, like Klingons.

Discovery is showing a future where the people of earth have overcome their differences and are exploring space where they have conflicts with the Klingons.

Whats the difference? That TOS was not serialized so it was a different mission and in many cases a new conflict every week. In Discovery it IS serialized so there is a continuing story arc.

Dont pretend TOS didnt deal with conflict including that which was happening on each in the 60’s.

That, my dear is called double speak.
Where they say what you want to hear then tell you what they really mean after.
Like “We respect the Star Trek Universe BUT it doesn’t work so we have to do eveything different- were going to “Make Trek Great Again”

Serialized TV is such a mixed bag for me. Love the initial ride…but I never ever rewatch it. Loved 24…never rewatched “hour 14” of any given season. I hope it’s not a real heavy arc and at least a few episodes will have self contained elements that allow me to watch, on my lunch hour, a beginning, a middle and an end. Otherwise, I’ll never re-watch it again…which would be sad, as I do love to revisit my Trek. Just not in 15 hour blocks.

I rewatch BSG all the time and it was serialized, same with GOT. I guess it works for some people and not others. I think serialized is better, because of the depth of storytelling and consequential nature of every event.

I agree. I realized that it’s rare for me to rewatch single episodes of anything serialized, even when I love the show. There just isn’t that draw and sense of getting a whole story from one episode. That is why I was happy when I heard someone (maybe Fuller before he left?) say that they were going to tell self-contained chapters of season-long stories. Now the current description doesn’t mention this. Maybe (hopefully?), there is still some of this “individual chapters” approach even within the full serialization. I hope to still be wowed by individual hours; episodes that I can just pop in and rewatch because they are awesome, or just when they are on. Please, please, please.

There is not a single sci fi show on today that does standalone story telling…not one.
We live in a very different world today. Besides that fact can anyone tell me what’s the most popular NON-seralized drama on today?

Again people will be hard pressed to think of one since the best shows on TV from Breaking Bad to GOT are all very serialized. They are only responding to that reality.

I get your point though but many people DO rewatch episodes again and again. Networks use to shy way from serialized shows, now they seem to be pushing it and thats for a reason. People do rewatch them over and over again if they liked it enough. And whats more interesting is streaming sites like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc has bascially serialized shows. Thats why the binge watching culture is so in now, people love the long form story telling. Its like watching one overly long film.

That said I don’t think it will be that heavy. Some episodes will probably have different stories, the main story will just be in the background like DS9 did in its earlier seasons.

I’m rewatching Babylon 5 after many years away from it and the serialization was so great in that- really interesting to see how they managed it with 20+ episodes over 5 seasons.

Tribbles confirmed?? Ten years before “Trouble with Tribbles”?? And they thought people were freaking out about Spock having a new adopted sister! ;-P

Phlox introduced Tribbles for the first time in an ENT episode, set 100 years prior to DISC. So, that boat has already sailed. Blame Brannon Braga for that one.

He did?! I must have missed that one. Bad Braga!

That said, I wouldn’t mind a glimpse of the Tribble home world. I imagine a Seussian landscape covered in fuzzy wuzzys top to bottom. Or Harry Mudd might have one stashed away somewhere, especially since he was meant to be the original importer before Cyrano Jones stole his spot.

Tribbles already existed before Trouble With Tribbles. Cyrano Jones just hasn’t started selling them yet.

Who would of thought! You mean Tribbles and other aliens existed before we saw them on screen? :)

Tribbles was known, they simply wasn’t known everywhere. So others could know about them.

Mary Sue

Oh, Alex Kurtzman… there we go again: “the defining factor of Roddenberry’s vision is the optimistic view of the future” – BUT WHO CARES! THAT’S BOOORING! LISTEN UP, FOLKS: TNG, VOY and everthing non-war-related in DS9 WAS BOOORING!

Sorry if I’m overstating my case here but that’s just the vibe I get from this sort of talk. A writer refusing to stick to formula is one thing, but using a franchise merely due to brand-recognition, as a vehicle to tell some totally generic story is another thing entirely.

With that said: I hope it’s not like that.

Also: “Tribbles confirmed” and we already know about Harry Mudd… So bring on the Gorn already! Oh, and Khan… why not.

@JAGT — pretty embarrassing to present yourself as a Trek fan, and not know Dr. phlox introduced Tribbles 100 years prior. Don’t blame Kurtzman, this ones on your precious TNG era writers …

I didn’t say that, man. I was just talking about Trek- (and specifically TOS-) clichés on a general note here.
The implication being that if you have two TOS-assets (plus Klingons) that transcend general Trek fandom, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of the writers shoving in a third one just for the sake of it. And yes, other series – most importantly ENT – did stuff like that (“Let’s just make a Borg episode. People like Borg!”) as well, which doesn’t make those great decisions either – no question about it!

They never said that Spock has a sister, though which brings us back to Kurtzman…

Who cares?

If in Trek 5, the line was “You dont have a brother…a sister, sure, but not a brother”, we’d all be excited to see that throw away line picked up now.

That Spock never mentioned it on screen does not make it untrue. In fact, he never mentioned his half brother either. TNG implied Spock got married. Between TNG and the JJ films, Spock never mentioned his wife.

I think Burnham being Spock’s sister is contrived. But I wont pass judgement until I see it on screen.

Alex Kurtzman was the worst thing that happend to star trek..

No. No, no, no. Let’s not digress. That’s not at all what I meant.
I might hold a certain bias against Kurtzman, that’s true. BUT without Kurtzman, Orci and Abrams there would’ve been no realistic chance of us ever seeing a new Trek show. At least not in the near future.
I regard the “JJverse” films as problematic, I hold the writers’ and the director’s lax stance towards canon or rather their disregard for anything beyond TOS (because canon didn’t really figure into the Kelvinverse films anyway) against them, that’s true.
But the worst thing that happened to Trek was the slow decline it faced in the early 2000s. And that’s not one single individual’s fault (neither Rick Berman’s, nor Brannon Braga’s).

The thing that I’m afraid of is that instead of using the Star Trek universe as a sandbox, the powers that be (which in this case includes Alex Kutzman but also CBS execs) decide to pave over that sandbox and build a toy shop named “sandbox” on the lot, if you know what I mean.

JAGT
Give up trying to explain Star Trek to the “Fans” who don’t get it, they just want more splosions, not all thet “Preachy” talk & stuff.

Remember when Rick Berman was?

Yes, and I aven remember when Gene “was”. And yet, Alex Kurtzman is even worst.

I dont think Kurtzman is involved in day to day creative decisions but even if he is, I think if they are committed to respecting canon as much as possible, it would force him to be better.

One of the issues with the JJ films was their belief they had created a whole new sandbox to play in, but they wanted all the toys from the old sandbox. It created a messy discontinuity.

Thats the funny thing they ALL were at some point, including the ‘great’ Gene Roddenberry who made a lousy 3rd season of TOS, a boring TMP and two lousy seasons of TNG.

Its like everything, if you stay too long doing something sooner or later you are going to just hit rough patches. I will say though for the Bad Robot guys, their rough patch basically happened on STID but with just three films, the first one considered decent and the third one none of them really worked on they really don’t even have much of a record to be considered good or bad. Their small contribution can be described as mixed at best. Berman for example was there for 20 years. The guy produced 500 episodes and 4 films, including creating three shows. IMO there was more good than bad, but for people that didn’t like his rein they do have a lot of material to judge.

But I sadly hate to say I don’t know why ANYONE tries to work on Star Trek any more? These guys gets demonized and trust me thats going to happen if and when Discovery starts to suck. Remember how Nick Meyer is the greatest contributor to Trek ever created (not true just hyperbole) well he will be considered a hack after one week if the stuff he writes for this show sucks. Thats how it works these days.

Gene never allowed any conflict or wars or anything. Oh wait…um.

Imagine wanting a series devoid of conflict. Lets watch them zoom around in space for an hour every week. maybe by the 49th episode they will come across a space cloud or something.

Star Troll: The TUP Generation.

Thank GOD JAGT, I thought I was the only person who gets whats wrong here.

I am so excited and optimistic about this show. I just wish that hack Akiva Goldsman wasn’t involved.

What did Akiva Goldsman do? ….Oh yikes! Just read his resume. To be fair, there is an Oscar winner in there and one of those is bad because of stupid cuts to the original screenplay (I Am Legend).

I can never forgive him for what he did to “Winter’s Tale,” one of my favorite novels of all time. But I’m willing to hope he’s channeling his “Beautiful Mind” energies for this one.

So, so many of the people involved with this show sound as if they really GET Star Trek. I loved Isaacs’ remarks and Wilson’s and Rapp’s and Martin-Green’s. As long as the writers get it right, it sounds like the actors can bring it!

When actors were a problem in Star Trek? Patrick probably never hear about Star Trek before and he is one of the best actors in the hole Star Trek franchise.

For all I care the actors can hate Star Trek as long the producers and writters, like you said, get it right. And for the moment, it doesnt look that way.

Exhibit A: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, made by William Shatner. :-)

And you prove my point, STV problem was not the actors..

Story and direction by WILLIAM SHATNER.

Yes, he fail as writer and director, not as an actor. His acting was not the problem.

Actually Trek 5 was under-rated and had some of the vest character scenes in the franchise. The budget was the problem. And a script that was probably too lofty. Shatner needed some help with it, for sure, but if the effects were up to snuff and realised the Director’s vision, it would have been better.

You’ve described Star Trek V perfectly. Shatner really got TOS and in many ways this was the most TOS-like of the movies, but it was obviously rushed (writers strike) and the effects were subpar.

Absolutely, TUP. Agree 100%.

Shatner didn’t manage his budget properly or he would have been able to manage his vision- he can’t blame it all on money.

They don’t get it they have just been told what to said. They are like politicians wanting to “Make Trek Great Again”

Mudd was always a dark an sinister character. It was only after Trouble with Tribbles that somebody turned Mudd into a comedic character, which actually finished the real jeopardy the crew was in during I Mudd. Anybody who things Mudd’s Women is a comedic episode hasn’t really watched it.

I consider “Mudd’s Women,” which I’ve definitely watched, to be a largely comedic episode. But I do agree that there is a dark, sinister aspect to the character beyond the raffish charm and fake Irish accent.

I don’t. It’s an episode on a subject that is still quite relevant and not a all pleasant: Human Trafficking. He’s their pimp. He keeps them under control with the Venus Drug. The women are essentially sex slaves and he’s willing to find them husbands… for a price. He’s making money off both the women and their potential husbands as a ‘service’, but if the women don’t do as he tells them, they stand to lose everything (their attractiveness).

He’s not just a con. He’s a parasite and a dangerous one as that, for both the women’s psychological and physical well-being.

@FLB — exactly … I never recognized that episode as comedic. It’s damn dark. And as a kid, I really did not enjoy it when it came on in syndication — one of the few I didn’t want to watch. However, I loved I Mudd and Trouble with Tribbles. Many of the early episodes are incredibly dark, and far more serious than later episodes. Again as a kid, the first season is not among my favorite, but as an adult, just as Sean Conery has become my favorite bond over Roger Moore as a child, the first season episodes are among my favorites. Mudd’s Women is just flat out disturbing, little about it is comedic to me.

Actually, the problem is Mudd’s Women is not about human trafficking. No one seems to pay any attention to that part in the situation. The women are willing and that’s that, as if coercion, circumstance, and trickery play no part in someone handing their freedom over.
The episode is really a “just say no” morality tale, and a bad one at that. Eve thinks she needs the drug to be hot and sexy, but it’s actually in her the whole time. Childis never really warms up to Eve in her undrugged state. He only likes her when he sees she can continue being hot AND cook. It’s all over the map.

Its so strange how people can see things their way & ignore reality

It was also the 60’s. TV wasn’t exactly known for sinister, dark, and complex characters in that day in age.

Mudd’s Women is… unintentionally comedic.

I read it as comedic or campy as the only way at the time to tell an incredibly dark story in the chosen medium.

C’mon, they clearly refer to This Darker Universes Mudd- they are still trying to pretend it’s not a Reboot.

The 60s was such a calm and tranquil time! : o No time is as tumultuous as today. This is the kind of garbage that justifies a multitude of sins in politics, and, now, apparently in entertainment. Crack open a history book dude! The 60s was muy tumultouous! Every era has its challenges. That said, getting tired of the same old war stories in Trek. it is cheap and easy storytelling (at least for the writers not the CGI guys they have work to do–fleets, ‘splosions). Good science fiction is hard. I will check out the pilot, but I am expecting a nuBSG/Expanse version of Trek which will probably not have the edge because it is Star Trek and they will feel compelled to make it a mishmash of dark yet somehow optimistic (Loved nuBSG and the Expanse by the way, but they are was their own things not Trek). Wish they would let Trek be Trek and have some science fiction themes and exploration stories with some action. This looks like it will be action with some action and ‘splosions galore. Dramatic tension created by a starship(s) destroyed, big bad alien race–this time Klingons–looking unstoppable–have not seen that 1000x since Trek III and Best of Both Worlds (both great BTW but setting bad precedents for weak narrative photocopies). All we need is a villain bent on revenge and the trifecta of hackneyed Trek regurgitation will be complete. THAT is boring. Explosions won’t make the same old, same old exciting… Read more »

“…in the same way so many things have been reimagined and reinvented.”

That right there proves this show isn’t adhering to canon at all. F*** you Discovery and f*** you to the creators of it especially Alex Kurtzman and Bryan Fuller you talentless hacks! This is going to be the worst thing in the history of Star Trek and I’m afraid it might ruin the franchise for good which I didn’t even think it could get any worse after the Kelvin films, but no Discovery takes the cake!

See a psychiatrist.

They’re ruining this franchise, why aren’t more people angry about this? Oh that’s right cause like many Star Wars and comic book movie fanboys some Star Trek fans will blindly watch this no matter how terrible cause they’re so desperate for it and they lack any critical thinking skills to see how bad it is. This is Star Trek in name only. Hollywood will continue to make crappy movies and TV shows cause blind fanboys will continue to keep watching them and won’t stand up and demand better quality content. This isn’t Star Trek!

Many are angry, but what can be do? Is clear CBS and Pramount ignore the fans, so..

What can we do?
Simple, not pay for and not watch their Television shows and Not buy Tickets to see their Movies. (Example, Star Trek Beyond.)

Why do you people speak in that silly Trumpian way where you pretend “so many” or “many fans” or “the fans” or “all fans” are upset or being ignored.

MANY FANS are excited. You havent seen the series yet. If you dont like it, dont watch.

Considering I know fans who consider anything post-TOS to not be Star Trek, I think you just need to take a deep breath and not watch what they’re making. It’s really that simple.

Get the pitchforks! lets march on CBS!

If you want tom protest an injustice so badly there are far more worthy causes then a few people not liking the new Star Trek series…BEFORE THEY HAVE EVEN SEEN IT.

Why aren’t people angry, TM11? Maybe it’s because the rest of us adults are waiting for the thing to actually come out before we pass judgment.

When its too late?
Well I guess by the time we knew it was a Reboot it was too late anyway.

TM11
Your Right, maybe calm down a bit- is this a surprise to you?
Star Trek is DEAD. Has been since Enterprise/Nemesis.

JJ Verse was a fun alt diversion of splosions for the big screen but I was only ok with that cause I thought they would go back to the Prime Universe for TV but no- it’s a Reboot, star Trek has too many universes & the Fan base though loyal is small is dividing again & it just isn’t big enough to support so many different Universes.
It’s a Cult show, stop trying to make it mainstream.
If the only way to mainstream it is to destroy it’s heart & mind then just let it Die a dignified death.

Sometimes the best intensions lead to conflict. Sometimes conflict leads to war. It doesn’t really matter if the show is reflecting our modern world, exploring how different cultures impact each other, on both a large scale and personally, is always a relevant topic. The Federation’s goal of peaceful coexistence still stands despite any conflict it becomes embroiled in.

“Spock Has a Sister .. No, Really”

Space.com

https://www.space.com/37588-star-trek-discovery-spock-has-a-sister.html

And… I’m done.

Hasnt this been debunked? That she is NOT biologically related? It was a mis speak. She is not Spock’s step sister, she is his “adoptive sister”. ie. her parents died and Sarek and Amanda took her in.

But that is a glaring error to be on Space’s official site.

Be done then…and be gone from further inane comments….

Oh *sigh*… I always find it interesting to see that even though Trek stands for diversity, change and exploring the unknown (which are among the things we want them to get right); every time somebody does something new with our beloved show/franchise/universe, some of us ‘fans’ actually seem to be upholding the complete opposite of said values. What a paradox that is!

Just give it and a chance and let them show us their take on Trek! I for one can’t wait to see and experience it!

Why?

– Excited to have Trek back on ‘TV’
– Glad to be able to experience Trek in a serialized format
– Great cast (and crew)
– Even though I need some time to get used to the Klingons, in general I like the look and feel of the show

Let’s try to keep an open mind and boldly go! :-)

I couldn’t agree more, Stan.

“I always find it interesting to see that even though Trek stands for diversity, change and exploring the unknown (which are among the things we want them to get right); every time somebody does something new with our beloved show/franchise/universe, some of us ‘fans’ actually seem to be upholding the complete opposite of said values.”

However, “exploring the unknown” is the complete opposite of what these trailers have shown us. They are not “exploring the unknown” here, they are diving into very familiar territory: War! We’ve seen them fight Klingons, Borg, Dominion, Xindi and other folks since the death of Gene time and again, only this time, these battles will most likely be depicted in a lot more graphic fashion.

A showed called “Discovery” should be dealing with unknown space phenomena, truly strange new worlds never seen before, other dimensions and realms, truly alien creatures and (if necessary) new adversaries to explore, not a retconned version of a VERY familiar foe: the Klingons!

The elements they’re going to add are most likely cues from TWD, GoT and Westworld, not what I’d call “unknown territory” for our day and age… more blood, more explosions and maybe even naked boobies for the first time on Trek… not exactly “exploring the unknown” for anyone able to operate the internet…

A movie like Avatar or Valerian should be the blueprint for Trek, not TWD or GoT…

Agreed smike. the world of Star trek has become creatively bankrupt. What happened to the imagination that make people wonder and dream? I’m wanting a good old fashioned, rip-roairing, adventure in space…a good old fashioned, non-pretentious space opera. sadly, I feel certain I’m going to get a space soap-opera, instead. I cant wait to see who is sleeping with who and who is hiding some terrible disease. Exciting.

How do you know? You havent seen it yet.

Lots of whiners with great criticism and no ideas. Pitch a story idea that people want to see. ill wait.

Please Great Bird, not Avatar.

“I just feel that all high quality stories are gritty because life is gritty.”

Sonequa, it is YOU, the media and public demand who have made “life” gritty. Sex and violence sell, and the media exploit that demand and therefore we got that line-up of movie and TV shows embeded in people’s minds as the “golden age of TV” (while it is nothing more than the bloody “crimson age”!)

There ARE gritty aspects of life, have always been: war, poverty, prostitution, drugs… but at least the media (books and later movies) offered some sort of innocent escapism. Now, that’s taken from us in favour of “mature” and “adult” TV… being available to 10-17-year-olds 24/7, creating an ever-growing demand for even more boundary pushing and graphic atrocities of all sorts. Most kids aren’t even able to realize that GoT or TWD are particularily gritty shows. For them it’s the “gold standard” of their youth… One has to wonder where this is leading us…

All of that said after not even watching a season of the series. DS9 was pretty gritty Trek for its time. C’mon…

Thematically, DS9 was relatively gritty FOR ITS TIME, but compared to the last 15 years of television, DS9 was still a kids’ show. Visually, DS9 was toned down like any other TV program of its day and age, and actually those network or syndication rules make an awful lot of sense to me now that they are no longer in place due to “premium cable” and internet streaming platforms. I’m looking at the big picture here, and having watched most of these “mature” and “adult” TV programs of the last decade, I can only say this: – Yes, individually, these shows are great, DESPITE their exaggeration on gore, graphic violence and (sometimes) nudity. – TOGETHER, all of these shows are simply too much to stomach for someone who misses the “good old days” of family-friendly TV. I feel we’ve lost something in that transformation process. – With so many, many TV shows pushing one boundary after another, it becomes clearly visible that not even Star Trek can avoid these “changes” entirely. The brutalization of TV (and mainstream cinema) has already ignited a vicious circle, in which every TV show pulls out all the stops to outscore its a little less violent predecessors… I’m having serious issues with one incredibly gross TV format churned out after another. Everybody wants to be the next TWD or GoT now, even TV-14 format are nowadays well beyond the level of intensity of any past TV show. Otherwise, Gotham or Stranger Things wouldn’t even exist.… Read more »

Thats fair. And there is still plenty of “gritty” but not R rated programming available. But that there IS premium content for adults who want it (and clearly a lot do) is perfectly fine.

I can appreciate many Star Trek fans not wanting Trek to go down that R rated Premium Content road and I suspect Discovery wont. Although, The Good Wife was more or less G rated (maybe PG as it was a legal drama dealing with issues), the Good Fight on CBSAA does have more adult content (swears, near nudity etc).

So its possible Discovery takes advantage of that. Or they might be under orders from above to keep it PG. Its possible they’re under orders to include more adult content, who knows.

But if it goes full adult, Im happy. I enjoy adult programming (you know what I mean). And if people with kids wish they could watch it with their kids, well, it might not be the case this time out. But it was in every other incarnation.

Honestly if Fuller was still in charge and seeing what he did for shows like Hannibal and American Gods (although YES their source material was always in the mature category for sure) I really think Discovery might have been more harder edge compared to everything we seen before. It still might be considering the guys finger prints is all over the show so I’m guessing we are going to get things like more cursing, graphic violence, etc. THey may cut down the sex content but I know Fuller really wanted a more adult Star Trek listening to his comments so we will get some of that.

But I do find it funny that two of the most famous sci fi franchises, Star Trek and Star Wars, has always been more on the tame side. I guess thats why they are so popular, they are family friendly products you can watch at any age. I started watching TOS at the age of six. Every six year old watches Star Wars.

Maybe Discovery will be the first one that may carry a viewer warning. I’m past six now so I’m good. ;)

“But if it goes full adult, Im happy.”

And I would be very sad, to the extended of depressive! It’s hard to accept these tendencies with standalone series or movie franchises, but with dear pre-established franchises it’s an ultimate punch in the face!
I could still ignore TWD or GoT. But franchises cannot easily be picked apart and watched separately. Once it is part of the line-up, it sticks. I’ve never missed a single episode or movie of Star Trek or any other franchise I follow. Either I watch everything included or I don’t watch it at all. But if they go full adult in Trek, I might be forced to give up on it. And I hate that very thought with all my heart.

“But that there IS premium content for adults who want it (and clearly a lot do) is perfectly fine.”

Here, you are wrong. There is lots of official “adult” content, but it’s NOT exclusively for adults. Ive sauid this time and again, there is no adult content because it’s available for kids and teens only minutes after it’s broadcast or streamed… the internet, you know. Ratings don’t mean a thing these days… if anything, R-Ratings or TV-MA ratings make these contents more interesting for older kids or teens seeking the gross…

Therefore, it is not really “perfectly fine” to release that stuff IMO, there’s just nothing I could do about it. I’m just a little devastated, that’s all.

You’re making the assumption that the creative arts are wrong and a happy go lucky, no conflict dramatic TV show would do great ratings. Maybe it would.

But I think you’re missing the point if you dismiss the idea that tv is reflective of the times and the times we live in are rough in many ways.

They will know pretty quickly if the feedback is Discovery is “too gritty” and they will make changes.

Also, if your kids dont know GoT is gritty, what else are they watching? If your point is to say they dont know the difference between GoT and, Highway to Heaven, that might be true. But so what?

I remember my parents and grandparents watching Hill Street Blues and its gritty portrayal.

People want realism. And a no conflict, sanitized world is not realistic.

“Also, if your kids dont know GoT is gritty, what else are they watching?”

First, they are not “my” kids, but my students, and most of them just don’t understand that I think of GoT or TWD as particularily gritty, gory and violent because they have been used to even worse stuff like Spartacus or the Saw franchise! That’s the point.

As I grew up in the 90s watching series like Star Trek, SeaQuest, Knight Rider and the original BSG, and yeah, maybe because I wasn’t even able to watch a “hard” movie before the age of 16-17, I still conceive TWD and GoT as extraordinarily violent and gross, still having difficulties to stocmach some scenarios even at the age of 37.

Maybe today’s kids are better off as their brains are able to deal with that stuff far easier than I will ever be able to. Maybe it’s my inability to cope with change at all, but I cannot help but worry where this is going to lead us eventually…

My opinion is not fully formed on the subject matter at all. There’s a part of me that actually envies today’s teenagers for being able to stomach and enjoy stuff at a much younger age than I will ever be, but then there’s the part in me that worries society as a whole will suffer from these developments… Call it the eternal battle between the ID and the SUPEREGO…

Don’t want to bore you to death with my contemplation.

Yeah but thats a sign of the times right? When Kirk and Uhura kissed there was outrage but you dont want your students to be outraged at the site of a white man and black woman kissing now.

Its changing times. Seeing a topless woman was R rated. Now you get full frontal male nudity in premium tv and no one bats an eye. It will continue to get more graphic and realistic too.

I remember watching a great Canadian TV show called Degrassi (not the one you Americans co- opted lol) and they had a character show his bare ass on basic cable TV. wow! They had a TV movie (again, on basic over the air cable) where they were heavy petting under clothes and dropping F bombs, and this were teen characters and the show was aimed at kids).

The idea is not to be gratuitous but not to turn away from realism. They have a gay character in this series now, if he has a partner, show them being intimate. Who cares. its life. If they have a woman nude in a scene that makes sense, show it. Who cares. If Lorca drops an F bomb at an appropriate time, great!

Actually American TV has been showing bare butts since the 90s. NYPD Blue made that a thing nearly 25 years ago. To be honest the ONLY thing that isn’t shown on network shows these days is more graphic sex and some curse words like the F and S words. But these days everything is basically game on TV now. Its just the hour they can show it basically. Graphic violence though has been part of TV since the late 90s. There is NOTHING I can’t think of they won’t show on TV that they show on R rated films outside of someone getting their penis getting cut off (because…the penis). But yes TV in general has just gotten way more graphic in the last 20 years. There actually was a time showing gay people kissing and being intimate as ‘mature’. Now its part of every drama and sitcom (that has gay characters). Someone finally realized gay people being in bed together is just like straight people being in bed together, its just the same sex thats the difference. Who knew? Honestly kids today are way more exposed to stuff than they ever been and thats a good thing. I was a kid, I was exposed to actual real life stuff just by watching the 6 p.m. news. I heard people around me cursing. What kind of sheltered life do you lead if you only see this stuff on a TV show? And for kids today thats really not saying much… Read more »

Im talking about the 80’s. At 7PM. On a show staring young actors portraying junior high students. They got away with a lot because it was “educational”

“So most kids have been exposed to everything before they hit 10 with so much media around and being more accessible than its ever been I don’t see the point of trying to ‘shield’ anything any more.” You’re so right and so wrong at the same time. I see that reality of kids being exposed to “adult” content at a very young age and there is no way to “shield” them anymore unless you take away laptops and smartphones altogether, which isn’t an option because they NEED to work with that stuff to become fully functional members of society. So it basically comes down to “There is nothing we can do about it!” My problems with these facts of life are: – The MPPA and other agencies around the world still stick to the illusion they could control underage media use by applying silly rating systems, which of course are meaningless for kids, but for me, as a teacher and an adult who wants to act responsible, I cannot get my thought off the idea of these ratings and their inability to “protect” anyone under age. It’s a moral conflict I havent been able to solve in four months now. How do I react to kids wearing Deadpool or Punisher shirts? Can I even talk about it? Legally, morally? Of course I can, but I don’t feel easy about it, you know. Getting rid of these norms might help or even make it worse… – Since I have been aware… Read more »
“But I think you’re missing the point if you dismiss the idea that tv is reflective of the times and the times we live in are rough in many ways.” This is where we differ. If you look at 50s – 80s TV shows, most of them represented easy-going, innocent escapism, a tad too campy and convenient for our day and age. But the 50s and 60s didn’t lack it’s fair share of “rough times”… Humanity had just survived WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam War killed millions of people, the Cold War was about to destroy all of humanity, there were genocides in China, Cambodia and later in Africa, ruthless dictators ruled large parts of South America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, a POTUS was killed in the open, open war with Isreal ignited the Middle East, the youth was rebelling against their parents, eventually leading to terror all over Western Europe. There were incredible conflicts back then… But still, we ended up with The Twilight Zone, Lost in Space, Star Trek TOS, the original BSG, Knight Rider or Gilligan’s Island… Today? Yes, there is Islamic terrorism, and some political debate on how to face it. And yes, not everyone agrees on the current economic situation… but that’s PEANUTS compared to the tribulations of the past… Still we’re being served blood-soak television shows by the hundreds. How does this “reflect the times we live in”? On the contrary… we are too darn complacent and bored that the majority of… Read more »

The answer is, because its what sells. Would you want them to produce a TV show that is really happy and no one watches?

If people tune in and then tune out and the feedback is that its too negative and dark, they will adjust. But the safe bet is, people want more gritty realism.

I think the trend of premium dramatic TV is that its geared towards the adult viewer who wants more gritty realism. And it seems CBS is trying to make Discovery into a premium TV show. It might not be one that the whole fanmily sits down together to watch. Then again, I doubt we’ll see naked Klingon schlong or throats being cut or lots of F bombs being dropped.

And I dont think we’ll have a lack of hopeful optimism either. As I said before, whats the difference between this and TOS? Humanity has still overcome our differences to advance and explore space. TOS had conflict all the time. Discovery is serialized. TOS wasn’t.

OMG TUP- Star Trek is not Reality It’s fantasy- a fantastic future where we don’t have the issues of today, that’s was its appeal- Optimism/escapism – take that away & its just another generic Sci-Fi show- more depressing dark, gritty misery like we see on the news every day.

“this particular universe is a particular dark time for the Federation and for Starfleet with this war happening” – Rainn Wilson

Discovery is 10 years before TOS (Kirk about 26), which is about 5 years before Star Trek 2009 Enterprise mission start (Kirk 21). So this “dark time” is Kelvin Timeline plus 16 years. Is 16 year old Kirk going to show up?

Kirk was 34 in TOS, I believe.

So yes, a 24 year old Kirk could show up.

Rainn Wilson, how many ‘jolly wackadoo’ episodes were in TOS? Maybe 5 if that out of 79? That’s not a lot.
“The Trouble with Tribbles”, “I, Mudd”, “Shore Leave”, “A Piece of the Action”.

“We got the chance to do something pretty unprecedented with Star Trek which is to be serialized. ” UM…Deep Space Nine.

DS9 was not serialized in the same way. But yes, DS9 often falls through the cracks.

I will say like TUP alluded to DS9 was serialized but it didn’t start that way vs Discovery which will be from day one.

And even with DS9, while most people consider season 3 where that started to happen it really wasn’t until season 5 when the stories became connected every episode. You can watch seasons 3 and 4 and majority of the episodes are actually standalones. Its not until the war started when you really would feel lost if you didn’t watch the episode before the next one. And yes even THEN you still had standalones here and there.

Still have absolutely zero enthusiasm for this show. I hope that’s OK with Torchwood.

I wanted an optimistic series about a nice future. A series about war, death and destruction is the opposite of it. Everything in the trailer is also dark and depressive. The more I get to know about DIS, the less I am looking forward to it.

No different than TOS. TNG was a bit different in it was more pretentious and preachy in keeping with its late 80’s era.

But TOS was about humanity over coming its petty differences to solve issues and unite in exploring space where the come into regular conflict with aliens.

Discovery is the same. There has been no indication humans are warring on earth. They have still overcome all that and are united in space exploration where they have seemingly come into conflict with Klingons, the same race TOS had many conflicts with.

The thing is, the Star Trek of today, should be able to shine a mirror on where we are heading, today. And it ain’t great. The world appears to be becoming more violent and corrupted. I think Roddenberry would want Star Trek to address issues of today, and to reflect that in its tone.

This series is likely to go for several years at least, so I think it will evolve and change, just like the previous iterations of Star Trek.

Gene would want todays issues dealt with but not have the series changed to cater to these dark issues/times.

wpDiscuz
Advertisment ad adsense adlogger