More From Bryan Fuller on ‘Star Trek: Discovery’

Bryan Fuller at SDCC 2016 Star Trek panel

Star Trek: Discovery Executive Producer and Showrunner Bryan Fuller had additional things to say about the new show at the press junket held at San Diego Comic Con immediately after the Hall H panel where the title of the series was announced.

Regarding the look and feel of Discovery, Fuller told Nerdist that “we were looking for a new aesthetic. We can’t just go back to the same aesthetic. You look at what J.J. Abrams did with that 2009 movie, which reinvented Star Trek in such a wonderful way and claimed that territory. So we had to strike new ground that had Star Trek in its DNA at a fundamental level. To make a commitment to the fanbase, who are aware of Star Trek and its iterations—both the shows that made it to the airwaves and the ones that didn’t. So it felt like a really nice way to let the hardcore Star Trek audience know that I have their backs.”

Fuller did not rule out previous Star Trek actors appearing on Discovery, saying “Never say never, I love everybody on that panel [William Shatner, Brent Spiner, Michael Dorn, Jeri Ryan, and Scott Bakula]. I would love to work with them in some capacity. And I won’t stop until I do. So wish us luck.”

If you happened to miss it, Fuller tweeted out a rather familiar-looking chair, which is under construction:

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Please start with redesigning the ship, and fine tuning the CGI.

It was test footage.

test footage or not the design and look SUCK


It was test footage. Honestly, doesn’t anyone around here know how to read?


Its called ‘first impression’. Test footage or no, you dont release something this BAD to general audiences trying to bring in new fan bases to people that have never seen trek on TV.

Its going to turn general folks off and anger the other picky people.

Not defending it, just saying, its common sense.

Do you think anyone but hardcore star trek and genre fans saw that trailer?

Yes. In fact it’s being used as commercial breaks on some YouTube channels. Even channels unrelated to trek.

Bust still, even a test footage implies that the overall design of the ship is more or less done. And that is the ugliest ship I ever saw in the Star Trek universe.

Test footage doesnt mean the ship will look any less hideous though. Yeah it may look more real but it won’t look less uglly unless something drastically change in the design itself.

It was clearly said that the footage was thrown together in THREE WEEKS. Having dabbled in animation myself, I can assure you that for a process that involves going from a concept to a mesh to a finished CG model and then animating that thing, taking into account stuff like lighting, viewing angles etc, three weeks are a RIDICULOUSLY short time span. For a full animation studio the time might just suffice, but I’m pretty sure that, since the show has just hit pre-production, they didn’t have a whole studio at their disposal.

Sorry Jack, but when faced with doing it under those conditions and achieving the results they did, and not doing it — you don’t do it. There’s no behind the scenes of “oooh look what we’re doing” when there’s not already a fan base rooting to learn what cool new thing the show’s going to do. Everything they do until this thing launches is going to be under the microscope, and there can be no missteps. That’s marketing 101 in a situation like this. They would have been much better off spending those 3 weeks doing an epic still shot of the new vessel, teasing the fan base from one angle that looked amazing. Instead it looked worse than fan film CGI.

I love the apologists pretending they’re smarter than everyone. Test footage. Uh huh. The ship looks like crap aside from the lousy cgi. Fix it.

I think the Discovery class nNX class/Galaxy class/Intrepid class/Defiant class looks fine, stop complaining about them doing something different already.
Seriously, every single time…

I loved the D back in 87, I loved Voyager in 95, I loved the E in 96, I loved the NX in 2001, I loved the JJ-Prise in 2009 because they were beautiful, unique cool designs but this thing is a piece of sh*t & I’m embarassed.

@JAGT…so not just short but “ridiculously” short.

I don’t get you guys, I think the ship looks great! I prefer this more radical design than an original ship design but on steroids. Why even be so infactuated with the ship design anyway? It’s not as if hat will have any influence in it being an enjoyable TV show or not. :)

Are we sure that is the captains chair under construction? Maybe it the underview of a new Discovery model concept.

It sure looks like Kirk’s chair from Enterprise, with the big wide armrests,

People moaning about the cgi on the ship – personally I think it looks fine, especially given the short time they spent on creating it.
I don’t understand people who are expecting movie-level sfx for a tv series. Are they also complaining because the lack of azteccing makes it look less detailed? How do we know that the ship isn’t meant to be smooth, much like the Enterprise from TOS?

There is a terrific analysis of the DISCOVERY as seen in this teaser, on Trekyards. They speculate about its setting ( which era ), which may or may not be true.

Several years ago, I know Fuller’s dream setting for a new Trek series would be in the timeframe of the original series. I wonder if he has got his wish?

If Netflix and SyFy can supply movie level visual effects, Paramount / CBS should be setting the bar on the largest SF franchise on the planet. To give is sub par work is disrespectful to the franchise that makes them so much money and disrespectful to the fans that spend their money on it.

Star Wars is the large scf-fi/fantasy franchise on the planet. It’s fandom is three times the size of Trek (if not more). ST doesn’t come close.

Star Wars may have a larger general appeal due to its simplistic nature but the fan base is not as big as people think, Star Wars fans are akin to religious Zealots going to the same film 10-20 times like religious people going to church every sunday nomatter what. not 20x as many fans.

Have you seen MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE or STRANGER THINGS? The quality of vfx on streaming series is mostly superb at this point, not looking flat/cartoony like this promo, which reminds me of how bad alot of Enterprise series CG was (and Voyager.)

As far as that goes, it isn’t just the showy stuff, but also (maybe mostly) the invisible vfx that are particularly effective as of late.

There was a huge miscalculation in showing this thing in this state, and an even larger one showing it in motion with THIS level of finish to the work.

Not to be rude, but your saying voyager and enterprise have bad VFX but the truth is is that it was good in its day, I mean voyager is 15 to 20 years ago and even enterprise is over 10 years gone. VFX have come a pretty long way in that period. Stranger Things and the like are tv shows of today and of course they will have VFX of the calibre of today. And of course we will all expect and demand quality VFX akin to the very best possible with the new star trek show in 2017. I am simply pointing out that the VFX for all the star trek show were perfectly fine in their day, a even top dog for a tv series.

No, I think the CG in VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE was a huge HUGE step backward from the motion control glory of TNG and especially early DS9. They were able to do more shots, but much crummier in quality. In fact for the most part, spaceship shots in movies this century rarely improve on the best stuff of the late 90s (EVENT HORIZON, SPACE COWBOYS, DEEP IMPACT, STARSHIP TROOPERS), at least up till the last few years with GRAVITY and INTERSTELLAR. The quantity over quality thing and the one-stop-shopping for whole cloth CGI instead of using a mix of tools and techs for the higher quality result is one example of how the industry really messed things up, and probably contributed to the whole nightmare situation of vfx companies going under left and right.

Man in the high castle. How about comparing another sci fi. The Expanse, a great sci fi with beautiful CG. Check out this reel. I’m expecting Star Trek Discovery to have beautiful CG.

And if they hadn’t shown something at Comic Con, everybody would be freaking out about that. They’ll have plenty of time to fix the CGI.

We don’t need a new aesthetic, we don’t need a new design language, “the fans” don’t expect a new design language or ship aesthetic because they shouldn’t. The claim is this show is set in the prime / TOS-TNG-DS9-VOY-ENT timeline and universe. As such that means we totally SHOULD fully be expected to be expecting a ‘familiar’ ship design to the other shows (especially if it is a prequel timeline… Now into the future past NEM maybe a ship design evolution makes more sense, but in all the TV shows, the ships understandably share a common design language, this show should be no different, or they already failed the entire purpose or hope of people trusting him to do something that ‘feels’ based in the existing TV verse…)

Yeah that doesnt make much sense to me either, unless this is post Nemises (and it could very well be) exactly when a ship like that would even be built? Star Trek hasn’t covered every period but certainly enough to know there was never any kind of ship design like that before. Yes it probably is the prototype or experimental but I dont see how it fits in a pre-TNG world UNLESS it was suppose to be some top secret project. I dont know but this is EXACTLY why prequels suck IMO. Fuller wants to do something different and creative, fine, but if this takes place at a time before the TNG era it fits out like a sore thumb.

Again unless they have a very convoluted story line how that ship exists in an earlier era then more than likely it is post Nemises.

They promise the Prime universe then redesign it just for their own egos because they don’t want to just continue someone elses work- Thats your job in the prime Universe if you want to do something New or different go get your own series funded & don’t change Star Trek.

A question for Brian Fuller:

“To make a commitment to the fanbase, who are aware of Star Trek and its iterations—both the shows that made it to the airwaves and the ones that didn’t.”

Regarding the shows that didn’t make it to the airwaves, does that include fan productions like Star Trek Continues and New Voyages? Being that CBS has effectively killed those non-profit shows, along with the dreams of the people who worked so hard on them, would you consider hiring some of the people from those shows in any capacity? For example, a guest acting role for Vic Mignogna and/or Todd Haberkorn? Or some set design, or costume design work for the NV and/or STC set designers?

I would say he was talking about Phase II, since that really is the only series (being in actual development) that never made it to the airwaves.
I have no idea why you are bringing up the fan productions you mention, they were made to be casted on the internet, and they were, so they made it to the airwaves they were intended for.

raffie Today 12:51 am

Nothing mysterious. I bring it up because it’s a show that “didn’t make the airwaves.” Are you sure that he wasn’t suggesting that he’d honor some of the non-canon Trek?

Not to mention Joe Straczynski and Bryce Zabel’s proposed Star Trek reboot that would have gone back to basics, recasting Kirk and co or, indeed, Bryan Fuller’s own proposals a few back.

The main thing fans need to remember is that they don’t own Star Trek and thus have no right to demand anything of Bryan Fuller and his team. They should be grateful they’re getting anything at all.

Personally, I love that they’re going for such a strikingly different aesthetic. As I’ve said elsewhere, my only disappointment is that they’re calling the show ‘Star Trek: Discovery.’ For me, plain old ‘Star Trek’ would have been good enough.

Star Trek Fans Do OWN Star Trek- we kept it alive when the studios abandoned it & the general audiences never wanted it & never will so if they don’t make it for us how we want it or it will simply die as Beyond is sadly dying at the box office.
The fans say they want a Star Trek Movie Paramount gives us a villan/revenge/action story & tells us it is Star Trek dismissing what we want. so we don’t go to the cinema & they loose money- I hope destroying the franchise makes them feel right about what Star Trek is over those Stupid demanding fans who Paramount/CBS think know what Satr Trek is.

who Paramount/CBS think don’t know what Star Trek is.

Well that still doesn’t explain that hidiously embarassing ship- that design was rejected & they did a constitution class ship similar to the motion Picture design. Why can’t they just do that class of ship

Give it a rest, dude. You wanted ‘Trek to return to television, so now you have it. And personally, while I would rather maintain the status quo on fan film productions, it is what it is. Let’s just hope that productions like STC and NV can get special exceptions in the future.

Jeez, what’s with all of the negativity? It’s bad enough that these people have had their dreams killed, and now you can’t even stand the mention of them? Who would it hurt to give Vic Mignogna and/or Todd Haberkorn—both competent actors that bring a sizeable fab base—a guest role in an episode of DSC? How could anyone possibly regard that as a bad thing? Those ignorant of STC wouldn’t know the difference. And fans of that show would get a great feeling out of it. It would go a long way toward healing the wounds of the whole “Guidelines” regime tragedy. That’s just good PR. I can’t imagine why you people have such animosity toward fan productions.

Dude the average fan don’t even know those productions exists. I’m guessing its 1% of 1% of fandom who even watches them. Do you think the average person who watches the Kelvin Timeline films ever watches that stuff? Those fan films are fine but they are only for the most hardcore fan you can find and usually for the mostly TOS fans only since majority like Continues and NV are really the only ones that are a full fledged series. Most people just don’t care though. Look nothing wrong to be a fan of those and the people who make them but end of the day they are not canon nor are they recognized for being anything but cool internet films.

And I’m guessing the people who make them kind of know they aren’t going to get a Hollywood job out of it, they do it because they like to do it which is great but end of the day, and this is going to sound harsh, they are pigging backing off someone else’s property and are lucky they get to even do what they are doing.

No one has ‘animosity’ over the fan films, just simple reality. They only attract a minor audience and they should happy Paramount lets them make them at all. Asking for anything more than that is ridiculous.

Tiger Today 10:08 pm

What the hell do I care what percentage of people who like those stupid Bad Robot movies know about fan productions? Those people won’t know the difference if a fan Trek actor shows up in an episode of DSC. And, apparently you’ve missed the news, because CBS/Paramount have effectively killed the best of the fan productions. So none of the fan productions are “lucky” these days.

Tiger Today 10:08 pm

P.S. And just for your information, everyone I’ve shown STC to, fan or not, has been impressed by them. But, I’m not taking some survey, which is beside the point. The fan Trek fans are hard-core Trek fans who tend to appreciate good writing and Trek-like stories more than the average BR Trek audience member. It is precisely for this reason that fan Trek audiences are so forgiving with regard to other elements of the productions—though, the acting in STC had gotten so solid by the end, and the technical achievement so impressive, that there was nothing to forgive.

LOL I guess I hit a nerve or something. Not sure why its all directed me? I only said what everyone said here.

Tiger Today 1:31 pm

Because you were arguing that STC is too insignificant and has too small a fan base to warrant the inclusion of some of its personnel in DSC—in guest roles, as set and costume designers, etc…. All of those write-ups suggest that STC was better known and more popular than you give it credit for being. Again, not that this even matters. People not familiar with the STC actors would be none the wiser should they appear in an episode of DSC. In other words, there’s no down-side to doing it. Only up-sides.

Because it is. I’m sorry but the average Trek fan today has never seen or heard of STC. If they spend time on boards like this, sure, but the more casual fans watch the films mostly since thats all we have currently. I just dont think they need to bring in people from the fan films. And maybe STC is better but the ‘acting’ I seen in a few of them needs real improvement if they ever expect to get on an official production.

You think you reperent All star Trek Fans. F off.
Your not a fan if you are happy with star Wars wannabe scraps.

NO ONE is saying STC isnt good for what it is or should stop being made. What people are saying is the fan films have their place which are FAN films. Paramount gives them the freedom to make them and if you like them great but to ask them to be involved in their shows and films is going a bit overboard. Thats only what people are saying.

Tiger Today 1:34 pm

Well, the people saying that are wrong on both points. Paramount does not “give them the freedom to make them” any more. I don’t know why you keep saying this when it’s clearly not true. And there’s nothing “overboard” about hiring talented, industrious people to work on your project. That’s just good business sense.

They can still MAKE them just under their guidelines. Its not like they been banned from doing it at all. Thats what I’m saying. And my guess is in time they will loosen those new guidelines as well.

Tiger you are dillusional, those Kelvin Timeline viewers haven’t watched ANY Star Trek series because they just watched the Kelvin films because they like action. They are not, were not, won’t ever be fans.

Dude you’re the one saying Paramount needs to do more ‘PR’ for these fan films. If you don’t care about the movies, fine, but imagine just how many dont care about these fan films? And no one is saying they want them to stop but you are the one here saying Paramount needs to pay more attention and give the actors from there a guest role on the new show? Sorry, no they dont. They can make as many fan films as they want but fans of the movies and shows dont really care about them, thats what people are saying.

The fans of the original series & films do watch the fan films, millions of them. The JJ films have not created any new fans. aside from momentarily getting the real fans excited by a promise that was never full filled in the 2nd & 3rd films JJ failed.

I hate to break it to you Tiger but the “new” people who watched the Kelvin Timeline movies are not & did not become Star Trek Fans.
They came, they visited, they got bored they left.
The old fans who have been dedecated for decades are still who are keeping the franchise alive.
& the main Fan Films have been viewed by millions, probably those same millions.

Because some people are simply stupid.

Oh, for crying out loud.

Short answer – no. Your notion of a studio blessing a fan production is your dream. You must have been thrilled when Fifty Shades of Gray made it to the big screen….

This only refers to the rehashing of McQuarrie’s original, and subsequently dismissed, redesign of the Enterprise for Star Trek Phase II. The major fan film series, for all I can tell, have been completely prohibited under the new rules which is a shame because Continues is really nicely done..

This back and forth about the design is obnoxious. Keep your gobs shut, they’re not going to listen to you anyway.

You may be right that they won’t listen but that only proves the fans point because they should because if they don’t we won’t watch & the show will tank.
The new films have not created Star Trek Fans, they do not exist to support the franchise, they just saw a summer block buster they didn’t return for.

This explanation of the significance of the Enterprise registry number (NCC-1701) implies that DSC (with its registry number NCC-1031) is set prior to TOS:

“Jefferies’ own sketches provide the explanation that it was his 17th cruiser design with the first serial number of that series: 1701”

From this we can infer that the Discovery NCC-1031 is the 10th cruiser design with the 31st serial number of that series.
Unless Fuller hasn’t done his homework, or has decided to ret-con the registry number formula such that it was different prior to TOS. But, that would be pretty lame.

USS Constellation is NCC-1017; same cruiser design as the E (Heavy Cruiser, Constitution Class, if I recall my Technical Manual). ST:DSC’s ship is 14 NCC’s away from that one.

The name and registry are most likely a reference to the Space Shuttle Discovery. Discovery was the third orbiter built, with the registry OV-103. In the TV series starting from Enterprise there was NX-01 Enterprise, NX-02 Columbia (the order of the Space Shuttles) and the next ship name in the series would be Discovery.

zack123 Today 5:10 am

Good observation.

There’s nothing Trek fans can’t figure out if we put our minds to it.

What was the U.S.S. Grissom’s hull number? Later ship class but smaller hull number

The first ship in the class that the Enterprise is part of is the U.S.S Constitution. So if the first serial # of the cruiser design goes to the first ship , the Constitution would have been NCC – 1701 and the Enterprise would have been NCC – 1702 or later.

Ihatefanboys Today 10:07 am

True…unless the Constitution’s registry number were NCC-1700, and the “series” of Constitution-class ships began with the Enterprise NCC-1701.

Oh, it turns out my guess was correct. The USS Constitution does have the registry number NCC-1700. Hence the class of ships based on the Constitution design begins with the USS Enterprise NCC-1701, the first ship in that series.

NCC-1700 was the registry of a 23rd century Federation Constitution-class starship operated by Starfleet. (TOS: “Court Martial”; TNG: “Datalore”)

In 2267, NCC-1700 was listed as one of several vessels undergoing repair. Commodore Stone referred to this chart when the USS Enterprise arrived at Starbase 11 following an encounter with an ion storm. (TOS: “Court Martial”)

It’s possible that everyone is reading too much into the Discovery’s registry number. In the Nerdist interview, Fuller says it’s “1031” just because he’s a huge fan of Halloween.

Jai Today 11:04 am

Well, that’s pretty lame, if it’s true. Not a good sign that he’s blowing off the details so early in the process. He should be familiar enough with the basic elements of the Trek Universe by this point. He needs to do a bit of research into the history of the show he’s producing. It took me 30 seconds on a computer to learn the significance of the Enterprise registry number.

You guys really care so much about “the details” of the meaning of the registry number? Shatner was right…

I’ve been watching Trek for 30 years as a diehard fan, own lots of reference books to, and i never knew the significance. I just figured it was roughly sequential. You know why? Because i didn’t care and it doesnt really matter.

Torchwood Today 10:46 am

Of course, it matters. It gives credibility and richness to the whole “world” of the show.

What if the name of the ship changed from episode to episode? Would that matter? What if the characters’ backgrounds changed? Or the details of Star Fleet mentioned episode to episode? What if there was no consistency in the setting of the show? Wouldn’t that weaken the show? Star Trek has always been set in a fictional world (much like Star Wars) that is presumed to extend well beyond the boundaries of the particular episode that you’re watching. Small details like having a significance to the numbers on the ships add to the credibility of that whole “world” and enhance the enjoyment of the show.

I’m in total agreeance about a new aesthetic. The 90’s TV series had that particular aesthetic that really defined what Star Trek looked like to me, it would be awesome if they were able to reinvent that; where in a glance it is identifiable as Star Trek. The ship design is a nice start IMO, it’s different, yet recognizable. Plus I love how it looks!

Of course I meant 60s, not 70s.

you are in the minority of bad taste

I would love it if they did concepts and stories that were unused like Planet of the Titans to be reworked with new characters .. Or phase II stories as well That would be fascinating as Spock would say .. What do you guys think ? Should we ask Fuller about that or request that they do some of that stuff .. That would be exciting for this long time trek fan and I bet many others !!

I really do think the video looks terrible and quite frankly the aesthetic is confused in my opinion. Poor decision to rush & put this in front of the core audience at any rate. Obviously still hopeful as I care about Star Trek just like alot of people here. Looking forward to something way better come the new year. We must express our opinions & be constructive.

The worse part was being there in Hall H for the panel. The panel was painful to sit through, and then as people were shuffling to leave during the break, at the last minute, he showed the promo with no real introduction and no explanation.

I’m all for a new asthetic (TOS to TNG) but if this is to be a show that is set between two points in already established Star Trek history then the asthetic has already been defined. So this leads me to believe that Star Trek: Discovery will be set further into the future. having it set anywhere else in the already established timeline would be jarring and would very quickly loose all fan respect.

So a new asthetic is fine if, like TOS and TNG, some time has passed between the last event to take place in the prime timeline, Star Trek: Nemesis and Star Trek: Countdown.

Anyone concerned about the CG, don’t, it was put together in 3 weeks. The sci fi show The Expanse has beautiful CG and we can expect the same level of quality from Star Trek, they won’t skimp.

Also, John Eaves is designing the ship, a Star Trek alumni who gave us the Enterprise 1701E! Who better. Have faith
Fellow Trekkies :D

I’m very afraid of this series trying to be all things to all people instead of having a new vision, sticking to it and letting the chips fall where they may. The overall fan base of the “Star Trek” band is too fractured, you will never please them all, so why try? Do your thing, don’t be “gimmicky”, be respectful to what has come before and those with open minds, if it’s a good show, will embrace it.

Exactly. I’m concerned they’re going to be so busy making it ‘diverse’ and politically correct, the story will suffer for it. Star Trek: Make Sure No One Is Offended.

Maybe the producers just are not worried so much about offending those who endlessly obsess about what’s “politically correct” and what isnt? Works for me.

Exactly Michael Hall! Me too.

Ditto for me on the PC. There’s more than enough political correctness about that I really don’t need any in my entertainment. Reasonable ideas and behaviors don’t need to be justified as PC, because they’re already reasonable. Reason being the operative word. Reason, not blind adherence to ideology and knee-jerk reactions to what conforms with it and what doesn’t. Reason is the basis of science. And “Star Trek” was created as a show that valued science and reason.

And “political correctness” is now used as a catchall generic attack on cultural norms that until recently were accepted as pretty mainstream–e.g. that torture, racism, and misogyny are bad. I don’t get at all that our discourse has been improved by such “debate,” Cygnus, and am frankly surprised that you would lend your support to such guff.

Yeah exactly!

And I still think its funny Star Treks fans in 2016 are moaning about ‘Political Correctness’ since Star Trek was completely born out of that idea before they gave it a word. People are moaning about having gay characters in this franchise when 90% of shows and films have had gay characters well over a decade now, imagine the mid 60s when Roddenberry dared to put on a show where a black woman, Asian and Russian were there just to be seen….in 1960s? Can you imagine how the internet would have exploded if it were back then?

And then Roddenberry took that ‘Political Correctness’ one step farther in his own universe by making a Klingon a part of the show. Klingons, cool, gay people, WOAH there buddy what year do you think this is???? We don’t need a gay on the show just because they exist on the planet. Its weird listening to people when discussing this stuff. Basically it comes down to if you’re white, male, straight and oh yeah white, you can have as many as those as you like. You put anyone else that isn’t one of those then you’re just trying to be ‘PC’. Jesus do people really not hear themselves in 2016???

Tiger Today 10:19 pm

I disagree with your assertion that “Star Trek was completely born out of” political correctness. Jim Kirk treated some of his female crew in a manner that today would be regarded as politically incorrect, for example. Though Kirk did not consider race, religion or ethnicity in how he treated his crew, it was not out of blind adherence to some popular ideology list of rules, but rather it was because he saw no reason to discriminate based on race, religion or ethnicity. Bigotry is an unreasonable mindset, and Kirk was an eminently reasonable man. In fact, Kirk’s ability to reason his way out of trouble is one of his most defining attributes as a character. An example regarding gay issues. I happen to think that Brokeback Mountain is literally the best love story that I have ever seen. I tear up at the end of that movie every time. I also happen to think that Hedwig and the Angry Inch and The Rocky Horror Picture Show are the best musicals that I have ever seen. But, it’s not just because these movies/plays are “gay” that I think they’re great. It’s because they’re great works of drama that bring me enormous joy and pleasure. And it cheapens these dramatic works to suggest that they’re great because the comport with PC ideology. Enjoyment of these dramatic works should not be enforced by PC-policing. If people don’t enjoy them, that’s their loss.

P.S. And inversely, if there’s a movie with some gay characters just stuck in to meet a quota, and they happen not to be enjoyable characters, neither should the enjoyment of those characters be enforced by PC-policing. If audiences react with annoyance that characters (of any type) appear to have been stuck into a show just to meet a quota, it’s a not wrong, immoral or bigoted reaction.

P.P.S. It’s not *necessarily* a bigoted reaction.

Yes it is – in your thinking, Spock, Uhura, Sulu & chekov should have not been put in the show, or kept in the show after Many people objected to the show including them or including anything other than White Males (No 1 was lost due to this.

Trekboi August 1, 2016 11:09 am

No. Not in my thinking.

Having a multi-ethnic cast was a novelty in the time of TOS. The show was making a statement just by the cast. It’s 50 years later now.

Well dude it was still the 60s lol. The point is Star Trek was essentially a show displaying Political Correctness and political issues as bluntly as it could back then. Its funny how every time you watch a documentary about the show the one thing they bring up is how ‘progressive’ the show was for having diverse characters and tackling the issues it did. I defy anyone to show me a documentary about the show where those aren’t brought up the first 10 minutes of the program.

And yet people actually whining Star Trek is too PC orientated and agenda pushing? Yeah thats only what the show was about from day 1. And we all know if Roddenberry could’ve gotten away with it he would’ve took it MUCH farther, but it was still the 60s and there was only so much he could push without being outright shut down..

Tiger Today 1:42 pm

“Star Trek” was socially progressive in that it made a conscious decision to avoid the trap of wallowing in the baser human instincts, such as irrationally stereotyping people, so why not have a Russian officer? Why not gave a Black officer? There was no reason not to, so they did. That’s not the same thing as political correctness. PC is an authoritarian regime aimed at publicly shaming people into conforming with its “correct” ideology. I happen to share the most of that ideology, but I find myself at times offended by the tactics of its enforcement. So, no, they’re being socially progressive, like “Star Trek,” is not necessarily the same thing as being politically correct. The latter implies adherence to a belief system, whereas the former is simply the absence of conformity to certain irrational social taboos.

Sounds like a lot of hair splitting man. Point being Star Trek was as much about representation since the start and it hasnt changed since. I’m glad to see that but I remember the days people were going off about having a female Captain but I guess that wasn’t for PC reasons either. ;)

@tiger “Jesus do people really not hear themselves in 2016???”
Amen. Ppl seem to forget what IDIC means.

There are cultures that have traditions of dog fighting and cock fighting and animal sacrifices. Do you think those cultures and their traditions should be “celebrated” simply for the sake of “variation” and “diversity”? Just because something is different, doesn’t mean that it’s good.

P.S. Or cultural traditions of female circumcision and pederasty. Celebrate those for the sake of “diversity,” shall we? There may be infinite diversity in infinite combinations, but that doesn’t imply that all of those combinations are good ones.

& Gay is bad like pedophilia & cock fights right? Your a Homophobe. Playing the victim.
“oh, Oh, representing minorities minimises my enjoyment of feeling racially superior & homophobic”
People like you make me sick.

Trekboi Today 11:14 am

Let me just make sure I’m understanding you correctly.

After I’ve described how much I value three specific gay-themed movies, touted them as great works of film, and explained how they have brought so much joy to my life, you are now labeling me a “homophobe”?

Have I got that right? I just want to be certain before I respond.

Trekboi Today 11:14 am

& Gay is bad like pedophilia & cock fights right?

No, you lunatic. How in hell did you get that from what I said.

No they don’t because they don’t liten to anything, they are comforted by their closed minds- they can’t handle any changes.
How is it you can understand this element of Star Trek but not get anything else about it?

Michael Hall Today 7:21 pm

Well, now…hold on. I’m not lending my support to any of those nasty things that you mentioned. I actually thought that I was agreeing with you. I think maybe we’ve got different definitions for the terms we’re discussing. I’ve found the whole PC-policing issue to be a deceptively complicated one. Not to get too far afield, but for example the terms “racist” and “racism” are far too often thrown around inappropriately these days and implied to have a valence that is not always merited—that is, too often people use the term “racism” when they mean bigotry. A “racist” practice is simply one that discriminates primarily on the basis of race as opposed to other personal attributes. Affirmative Action programs are, by definition, racist. But, a sizeable portion of our society—perhaps even a majority—either finds them beneficial or at least condones them, myself included. But, in aid of what I meant in my previous post I would cite various statements on the topic by Salman Rushdie, such as:

“If you are not a good writer, that’s not your fault — that’s just your problem. But if you are a self-censoring writer, that is your fault because then you are choosing to be a bad writer, and that’s to my mind not forgiven. … If you are going to start limiting free speech, who sets that limit? And once you accept the principle of limiting it, those goal posts can get moved all the time. Next thing you know, something you want to have said is going to get forbidden.”



Reading some of the comments below makes me wonder why you folks are even into Star Trek in the first place. Some of you are incapable of simply enjoying something without being negative about anything that doesn’t fit your narrow view of what is or isn’t acceptable. You claim to be Star Trek fans, yet know nothing about its philosophies.

Amen. 🙌

No. You don’t know what Star Trek is. It’s not Star Wars, It’s not Babylon 5, It’s not Firefly, it’s not Guardians of the Galaxy & if we are given those things pretending to be Star Trek we must say something to stop it or Star Trek will be lost.

Not a huge fan of the new ship — at least what was released and then hurriedly retracted — but something has occurred to me: People may be misinterpreting the ship’s appearance. Especially the underside. Yes, it’s vaguely Klingon…but the sharply swept-back wings and the overall “delta” shape are also very reminiscent of Lockheed’s F-117 stealth fighter. The unusually dark hull colour may not be a coincidence either. So the USS Discovery could actually be a Starfleet black ops ship on some kind of covert mission.

Interesting implications for the show’s storyline.

Actually, I just realized from your comment that it does look like a giant Delta shield. It would be interesting if it turns out to be asymmetrical too, though somewhat odd engineering, placing form over function.

@ Jai – you might like to read this particular speculation on the new ship –

At the end of the day, if this show turns out to have poorly re-designed elements as part of the ‘new aesthetic’, then I’ll just look on it as something out of an ‘alternative’ universe, rather than tainting the classic ‘Prime’ TOS one! ;)

NCC-1031…31… Hmmm? I get it! A black project like the Vengeance? At least that would help explain the difference in aesthetic, but why have a registry on the hull at all then? And if there’s a registry, shouldn’t it be NX-1031? It’s as if someone’s been doing their Star Trek homework but they haven’t exactly made the honor roll. Someone get John Eaves, Doug Drexler, and the Okudas on this…STAT!

Maybe they’ll use Discovery to put to rest the fan-speculation as to why the Constellation had such a low registry compared to other Constitution Class ships. We all know the actual reason it had that number but the in-universe, canon explanation has never been established. I was always a fan of the theory that the Constellation was part of a previous class of Cruisers that was upgraded to Constitution specs upon the launch of the 1700-batch (as were other sub-1700 Constitutions like Republic, Eagle and others)

With a ship named “Discovery” this show is just BOUND TO BE the Star Trek that I and many others have been waiting for so long. Right? Right.

As long as it is about the discovery of exciting new and adventurous worlds, not the discovery of the crew’s personal drama-filled, ship-bound days…like the days of the hour-glass, so are the days of our lives.
Dear Lord I hope not.

I wont complain. There’s a new and awesome Trek movie in theaters right now and there’s a new Trek T.V. series around the corner! Its an exciting time be a Star Trek fan imo. :]

Then you will dine on mediocrity

Part of me just wants to read nothing about this for the next 8 months so I can try to approach it without any prejudice. Sometimes you end up knowing so much about a film and or a series before it starts that the whole thing becomes joyless. You have no surprises etc.

I remember the first thing I knew of enterprise was a trailer after the last episode of Voyager. It felt amazing. Then seeing nothing else till the first episode made it feel like such a treat. Knowing nothing, no massive expectations, enjoying something new and unseen.

I think I will try the same approach this time…..but in 2016 it is damn hard to do.

Discovery worries me more and more. I don’t think JJ Abrams has messed with the Star Trek ship aesthetic, as much as the design I saw in the test footage.

So a comment on the… discussion…

I don’t think that I am crazy in saying that the Trek franchise has played fast and loose with the numbers that they put on their ships lol. I don’t think there is really any IN-Canon solid way to make sense of the numbering system without a lot of speculation and conjecture that relies heavily supposition and beta-canon. I know the angst of this as a Trek nerd who wishes that he could figure out the numbering system in-canon and have it set solidly.

We don’t know how long the Discovery has been in service. We like to assume that it would be a brand new ship launching for a brand new series, but who is to say that this ship hasn’t been in service for years? Who is to say that it wasn’t in service for years and just given an overhaul ala TMP? We just don’t know enough other than the registry number, the scarce details in the teaser, and the ship design.

A last observation. Did anyone else notice the three Buzzard Ramscoops on each nacelle? Have we ever seen anything like that before in Trek history??? Could that be an indication of a new post TNG era engine design?

I can’t put a finger on it but something seems missing. Put an old style deflector on that ship with maybe tape reel cutouts which reveal coils with a bluish glow, impulse engines on the saucer, maybe angle the ‘wings’ up ever so slightly? How about an actual pattern of lights in the Bussard collectors, not just random plasma? Registry font, etc…

The USS Discovery will start to grow on many of you who are balking at the test CGI rendering. I had goosebumps when I first saw it. It’s so unique, and yet definitely recognizable from many angles as a Federation Starship.
The design incorporates the Starfleet Delta, yet has a Klingon feel to the secondary hull.

The warp drive exhausts are red like Klingon’s, where as Federations usually appear blue. Either way I think the ship has a lot of potential, and I’m excited to see the details, and the final design.

Not sure why so many of you are ranting about a cheap CGI animation to get our creative juices flowing. All I know is, I’m already imagining myself at the helm, taking her out of Spacerock …pun intended.

I, honestly, would prefer most of the design aesthetic of this show to fit logically in with the prime universe since it’s set in the prime universe. At the very least, I feel like Michael and Denise Okuda, Herman Zimmerman, John Eaves and Doug Drexler should all be brought in to work with fresh blood so that they can all butt heads and come up with a logical and happy middle ground for “new” vs “old” design schools.

But I guess we’ll see how this progresses. So far, not a fan of the overall ship design (I also didn’t like it when I first became aware of it in The Art of Star Trek book) and that captains chair has me questioning when exactly this will possibly be set in the prime universe.

I agree. But I am glad at the very least the man who designed the Enterprise E and has been with Star Trek since The Final Frontier, John Eaves is on the team. The USS Discovery is his ship.

I’m so excited! I can’t wait till we find out who will be sitting in the chair.

Im sure the individual will be one or more of the following….female (and the could include “identifies” as”), black, and gay. If you want a white male character they are down on the lower decks scrubbing the toilets.

Thats where you should be you Homophobe, racist, sexist fool.
“Wahh! Wahh! There are other people in the world being represented on TV not just straight & white like me again”

Not buying the test footage /spin /cover-up. That Ship design needs to die. That design has been buried for 40 years for good reason. Gene didn’t want any part of that on screen. ‘Nuff said.

Agreed, its just horrible. They need to chuck the entire design and start from scratch. Its really that bad to me.

BRT You are 100% right

We learn more about Gay Trek…I mean Star Trek…more and more everyday.

Ted C. I hope the next captain is Gay & Black & inteligent so he will scare “Fans” like you away forever.

The design aesthetics of TOS and TNG are light years apart…the designs of JJ-s bridge, which IS the TOS bridge, is also light years away from the original series design…Enterprise’s interiors were, chronologically, prior to TOS… but it resembled nothing from TOS, TNG or JJ’s universe. So, I’m really missing the reasoning behind all this chatter about how “wrong” this design is and how it needs to try and “fit” into some previously designed aesthetics. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like it. But I didn’t like Enterprise D either…inside or out…but that didn’t stop it from becoming successful and popular. I love the designs of the new movies…many here don’t…but that hasn’t stopped them from raking in money, hand-over-fist. At the end of the day, I wouldn’t get too hung up on it, as long as the episodes are good.

jonboc- the D was just the Movie enterprise sets & the new bridge tacked on FFS

Star Trek Discovery …. Where to start, what a bad concept of a ship and why release something so bad ? Why not just to a picture or a 15 seconds of high quality teaser. But instead we get this steamy turd called Discovery. That’s a ” Prototype ” RIGH..

And all Bryan fuller’s talk about how this trek series needs to have it’s own look, my god Star Trek online has better graphics then that teaser trailer. How about you make it look like that teaser trailer your showed a few months ago ? Crisp,New,Bold.

The ship OMFG, CBS don’t you dare let him launch a series based on that ship ! HIRE A REAL SHIP DESIGNERS ! Like Doug Drexler,Andrew Probert,Rick Sternbach my god these guys know star trek , get them to make you a ship for the time period you want.

“HIRE A REAL SHIP DESIGNERS ! Like Doug Drexler,Andrew Probert,Rick Sternbach”…You forgot one name…one who has been with Star Trek since The Final Frontier, worked on TNG, DS9, TNG movies, consulting (and some designs) for Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness, not to mention the man who designed the Enterprise E and is responsible for the new USS Discovery. John Eaves.

The design of the ship itself is bad enough, but what really bothers me is the implication of a combined Starfleet-Klingon ship. Sounds boring as hell. Klingons have been done to death. Do something new.

It’s not the test footage that’s offensive—it’s the design of the ship that’s butt-ugly.

I seriously hope the Star Trek Discovery producers stick it to the picky fan base and don’t cave in and change the design. I must be one of the few that like it. Having grown up during the period when there was talk of a Star Trek movie called Planet of the Titans in the mid 70’s I was always intrigued by Ralph McQuarrie’s concept art for the Enterprise. It certainly was jarring, but I always wanted to see it in action. The scale of the Enterprise depicted in the concept art seems much larger than the Discovery. Looking forward to seeing more footage.

For goodness sakes, why another prequel? I’m tired of this generation of show runners who choose not to bodily go……

TOS era is not a prequel

Agred. But it’s the same problem. Wouldn’t you like to see the Federation 100 years further into the future? By the way , Enterprise was a prequel also.

Lets not forget the USS Discovery is a John Eaves ship. A man who has been with Star Trek since The Final Frontier, worked on TNG, DS9, TNG movies, consulting (and some designs) for Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness, not to mention the man who designed the second best looking ship, the Enterprise E. Sorry Constitution refit (1701A) wins the award for best looking ship. This is early stuff people, have faith. If the Discovery is based on a retro design I for one am thrilled. If Star Trek Discovery did not go into the future past Nemesis then my next choice would be some earlier era. And right now this show – from the ship and captain’s chair design – is looking retro…new age futuristic 70’s retro, and I am all over that!

What is it with Star Trek-fans who want more Star Trek, new Star Trek! But seem to want it to be exactly like what came before. How dare these writers, producers and directors create something that’s different. It’s almost as if they think that Star Trek is some made up thing they can put their own stamp on, don’t these Hollywood types know that the only acceptable Star Trek is exactly as it was made, but completely new and different of course.
Fan culture like this leads to the death of creativity.

If the new series is a success, will they do more than 12 episodes per season?