According to Entertainment Weekly, The Walking Dead star has captured the lead role in the upcoming series.
Martin-Green’s casting marks the first time an African-American woman has had the top role in a Star Trek series. As has been previously reported, Discovery’s lead character holds the rank of Lieutenant Commander (with caveats) aboard the titular vessel. Deadline is reporting that her character’s name will be Lieutenant Commander Rainsford.
The Hollywood Reporter has also confirmed Martin-Green’s casting, noting that she would still portray series regular Sasha on The Walking Dead. As Discovery is expected to begin filming imminently, this should pose no conflict for Martin-Green as shooting on The Walking Dead’s eighth season will not begin until Summer 2017. Beyond The Walking Dead, Martin-Green has regularly appeared in The Good Wife and Once Upon a Time.
CBS has declined to confirm the casting to TrekMovie, Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, and The Wrap.
Bringing Martin-Green on board would represent the most important piece of casting done by the Discovery team. Beyond being the show’s lead character, previous reporting suggests that casting this role had proven difficult and had caused some internal stress within CBS. This represents Discovery’s seventh casting since late November, with Martin-Green adding to the ranks of Michelle Yeoh (Captain Georgiou of the U.S.S. Shenzhou), Anthony Rapp (Lt. Stamets), Doug Jones (Lt. Saru), Chris Obi (T’Kuvma), Shazad Latif (Kol), and Mary Chieffo (L’Rell).
She’s been great on the Walking Dead!
Agreed! Hope this doesn’t mean the writing’s on the wall for Sasha… although her scheduling may allow for both.
That was my first thought too. I hope she doesn’t meet the wrong end of Lucille. I do like this casting.
They already said she will still be on TWD, it sounds like the filming is different. And TWD all said and done the cast memebers are only about half the season the way they fracture the story.
I think Sasha’s a gonner. Trek just covered their asses by stating in this article that SMG could still do both shows so not to piss off TWD producers. Heaven forbid anything gets leaked on TWD before show time.
Well maybe. Yes the reality is she could be gone from TWD by the end of the season. When Angela Basset commented being on the show she said she couldn’t see herself doing it by being on American Horror Story. So yes Sasha could die but its not completely unrealistic she could do both because as I said before no one on TWD really works a full season anyway. They split up the story and characters so much (my thinking to save on costs of the actors) that out of 16 episodes at most a cast member might be in 10 of those. Most a lot less few. This season has been 8 episodes and Morgan and Carol (characters on the show) have been in two whopping episodes. Even the main character, Rick, has been in 5 out of the 8.
Now I’m not naive if both shows are shooting at the same time she couldn’t do it regardless because she WILL be used on Discovery every episode. Maybe miss one here or there but Trek actors are involved even if the story is not about their character. But my point is if they do film in different times its not going to be that drastic because Discovery is only 13 episodes and she’s in about 8-10 episodes of TWD a year. In the earlier years a Star Trek show would shoot 24 episodes a season alone. TOS actually shot 30 episodes in a year AND the episodes lasted about 9 minutes longer than a standard 1 hour drama runs today.
So as long as the schedules shoot different times of year its no reason she can’t do both in theory. But its not to say she will.
YES she is fantastic. I love this!
Side note: is the lt cmdr “(with caveats)” comment talking about her being FO but not full commander, or something else? Certainly not totally out of the norm for lt cmdr to be an FO
No one from the Discovery team has commented on what “with caveats” means, so who knows.
Wow! Very nice!
First reaction: Who?
Haven’t heard her name before and I can’t remember seeing her in anything so far.
I hope I will like her character and acting.
Same here.. who??
Whereas my reaction was “I am surprised that they cast an actress who currently stars in the highest rated television show in America.”
Her husband plays Scott, one of the Alexandrians. Been on since Season 6.
Well, take it from someone who does follow TWD, she’s a very talented actress. Great range, equally good with action sequences as with dramatic scenes. CBS chose well.
Agreed for TWD fans she’s a fan favorite for a reason. She plays fierce, cool, vulnerable and strong all in one. She will be a great addition. This is amazing news.
So far I haven’t heard of any of the actors they’ve cast. On the other hand, I know very few Star Trek actors outside of their Star Trek work. I’m sure that Martin-Green and the others will all be among my favorite actors pretty soon.
I think I heard of someone before in every cast. Enterprise was probably the one I knew the least. Actually I only knew Sam Beckett who probably was the most famous actor I knew taking a role on a Star Trek show but I literally knew no one else in that cast. Every other show (not counting TOS because not born yet ;)) I knew maybe 2-3 people even if on a limited level. So far on Discovery its her and Michelle Yeoh.
LOL NOT Sam Becket…Scott Bakula. Yeah I sort of had Quantum Leap on mind. ;)
I said “Who?” for every actor cast as a main character in every Star Trek series (with only one exception of Scott Bakula). Turned out just fine each time.
She’s good. She grew on me on The Walking Dead. She’s a solid character. Plays the strong female while maintaining a sensitive, emotional side. Has screen presence. Is beautiful but not distractingly so (in a 7 of 9 type of way). Great casting. Awful character name.
I had heard of Brent S. because I was a Night Court fan, LeVar B because of Roots, Diana M because of her previous appearances on TOS, Rene A from Benson, Kate McG from Mrs Columbo, and Scott B from several things, but pretty much no one else (Denise C appeared in Playboy right at the time, and Gates McF appeared in Hunt for Red October the next year (for 10 seconds).) At the time of TOS, Shatner & Nimoy were doing a lot of Sci-Fi shows, so I probably would have heard of them.
Exactly my reaction. Don’t know her. They pretty much cast an unknown in the lead. Which I often like. Hope the show works out but still question the delivery method.
While YOU may never have heard of Martin-Green (as I hadn’t because I don’t watch TWD), plenty of others had. Just as I had never heard of many previous Trek actors upon their casting while others had. Worth noting that Martin-Green is a lead in one of TV’s hottest shows right now.
So while I had heard of Levar from Reading Rainbow, heard of Picardo, the villain in Innerspace, Spiner from Night Court, and a few others, it’s not as if any of them (save Levar in Roots, and Bakula for Quantum Leap) had such a well-known body of work that all of Trek-dom let out a collective “Wow!” when they were announced.
For all intents and purposes, Stewart, Brooks, Mulgrew and even Pine were all at most “lesser-knowns” upon the series launch. Stewart particularly was the subject of many “who is this guy?” articles at the time, and that was a MUCH bigger deal than Discovery, since it was the first new Captain since Kirk.
I’m sure many fans were wondering “why not cast Mickey Rourke, or Rob Lowe, or Val Kilmer?”
Don’t follow TWD so I really don’t know what to think. I’m still missing a big name (in the vein of Michelle Yeoh) for captain of the Discovery. So far I like the cast, but still nothing that rocks my socks.
I think that’s by design, you don’t want the Captain to overshadow you main star.
Yeeeeeees! She is stunning, wonderfully kind and a remarkable actress! I’m so, so excited for this news. Welcome and congratulations, Sonequa!
My first thought when I saw her photo was that she was stunningly beautiful.
It’s crazy how much they have to do to make the actors less attractive on TWD. They’re all pretty stunning IRL… Not Eugene, though. Not him.
Everyone is so ugly on The Walking Dead because of the apocalypse. I realized for the first time just how damn good looking this woman is. Good choice. I can hang.
What about Lauren Cohan? She cleans up real nice.
Oh, man, this is AWESOME! What a surprise!
Wanna hear something freaking? According to IMDB, her birthday is the day before William Shatner’s! March 21, 1985
Er, that was supposed to be “freaky.” #@$% typo.
There is nothing even slightly freaky about that at all. It’s not even almost a coincidence. It’s a total non-anything.
William Shatner was born in 1985?!!!!! ;)
BirthDAY is different from birthDATE. Shatner has a birthday every year on March 22nd.
The ‘;)’ fairly heavily implied I was joking. Please, Corylea, don’t be so brittle. It’s nearly Christmas!
Have a good day. :)
The Shat being born in 1985 would be freaky!!!!
Whoa. That’s my birthday. Crazy.
1985. Oh dear. This marks the first time one of the lead actors in a Star Trek series is around my age. Guess the times really ARE a-changin…
(SERIES, mind you. Not the movies, obviously. The whole point about the recent movies was that the cast was friggin young.)
Could be worse. This is the first time one of the lead actors in the series was born in the year I graduated from high school. Just wait until Presidents become your contemporaries (for me, almost, not quite…).
I live in Senoia where The Walking Dead is filmed and my significant other works on the show, so TWD is very close to me and I get to visit for a few functions when the actors are there. I spit my coffee out when I saw this post. Sonequa is so sweet, kind and beautiful, this is just such great news for her and Star Trek: Discovery. I teared up a little when I saw it. She will be amazing and can not wait to see her in her Starfleet uniform.
Good to hear.
Mmm hmm. Hyphen on the bridge, baby!
“RAINSFORD”? I thought the character was supposed to be a Middle Eastern/North African female. Another lame move. Like changing Michelle Yeoh’s character name from Chinese to French? WTF?????
No. Nothing was said about the character’s ethnicity. Reports only indicated that they were looking for a female minority actor for the part.
I have a friend who is from Israel, and all of his family is from Israel going back many generations. Yet he has a greek surname. It happens.
I completely agree that you can’t judge ethnicity by a surname, but I was simply stating that it never was confirmed that they were looking for a MENA female actor for the lead.
Indeed. My surname is believed to be of Israeli origin and I’m British, born and bred.
Considering where we’re already at, the idea that ethnicity and last names will be a given in 200 years seems unlikely.
Have you ever read 3001: The Final Odyssey, by Arthur C. Clarke? There are people throughout the book that have multi-ethnic names that aren’t tied to any particular ethnicity. It’s been a while since I’ve read it, but if I remember correctly, it’s deliberately addressed by the characters from the year 3001 for the benefit of the character of Frank Poole, revived after being in a form of suspended animation for 1000 years.
Get over yourself.
I have a Scottish surname, despite being Jewish.
As someone who’s biracial, I’m totally cool with it. By the 23rd century, we’ll all be a little bit of everything, so I imagine very few will “look” like their names.
And looking it up, Georgiou is usually a Greek name, I think.
I dont care about the ethnicity of the name. But these are awful character names.
Re: “But these are awful character names.”
Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something to criticize…
@Torchwood – if I was searching for something to critisize that would imply that everything else was great. Which would in fact be a compliment. But so far, all the names are bland.
Blame progressivism. If they gave her a Middle Eastern / North African name, there would be at least one progressivist calling it cultural appropriation and whatever. Which would in turn lead to pretend-embarrassment and mandatory apologies on Twitter. Jobs might be lost, even. And nobody wants that – hence Rainsford.
Oh just stop…. eeeesh….
I do wish Trek would get a bit more creative and less whitebread with surnames. Yes, surnames may not reflect ethnicity in the 23rd, etc. century, but why did most of the non-whitebread surnames disappear? Too many “Ensign Joneses”. I mean 1/7+ of the population is Chinese and another 1/7 or so is Indian, so why aren’t we seeing more of these surnames in the 23rd century? I know the practical reason is that this is a U.S. production primarily geared to U.S. audiences, but times are a-changin’ and even in the States we need to get used to these “weird” names. I say this coming from a European mutt family (gradbag of ancestors) with a uber-Scottish surname that has expanded to be 1/4 Sierra Leonian (West African) and 1/4 Chinese.
You mean white bread names like Chakotay, LaForge, Torres, Bashir, Sato, Sulu, Kim, Sisko, Uhura, and Chekov?
Rainsford doesn’t seem any worse a name than Kirk, Riker, Janeway, or Archer.
Don’t forget General Chang, who was Chinese-Klingon.
So, is she still going to be called Number One? At one time it was implied her actual name would be kept secret until later in the season. I wonder if this is a sign that some things are changing since Fuller departed.
I’d assume so. Fuller said in a late August interview that referring to her as Number One was a tribute to Majel, and that was a decision they went with when they were initially pitching the story to CBS. My take is that Fuller was being coy about the character’s name. I bet she’ll be referred to as both.
Keeping the name a secret seemed like an odd choice anyway. Unless there was really a reason to do it, it would just get annoying. If they really want her to have the Number One nickname, there’s no reason other people wouldn’t call her by her real name, especially officers on other ships.
Good thing he kept that lame name secret. What a surprise.
I don’t watch TWD.
But, I am glad they chose someone with experience who from all accounts appears to be quite good.
I wish her luck.
How does she handle the technobabble? Well, hopefully they can start filming soon.
Oh the Walking Dead all the dialogue usually comes down to: “We’re going to kill those guys for killing our guys.” or “WATCH OUT WALKERS!” Variation change but you get it. :)
You must not have really watched the show, or watched her in it. She’s a very talented actress.
LOL you must not have read any of my other posts here. I been praising her up and down. I was clearly make a joke about the show in general.
Clear as mud.
For you Harry. I think everyone can see I was joking lol.
I got it. Yes, reacting believably to green screen, cig, and latex is an art.
Presumably, anyone they hire for the show has been tested to handle technobabble. And hopefully they won’t have to handle too much of it anyway.
Nope. Trouble with the lines (aka technobabble) has been an issue before. I’m only half kidding. Not every actor (even good ones) can commit to the fantastical situations that arise in genre. Her work with walkers is a plus.
Never heard of her
Well for everyone worried Fuller’s original vision was just going to change I think all the casting news at least proves its all following what he originally laid out. From the Lt. Commander role given to a person of color to the Klingons, gay character and even a different ship and crew from Discovery it sounds exactly as he described it a few months ago. And we still have tons of casting news to go since she is only the second character actually from the Discovery ship.
Still not in love with the prequel idea but the news is getting me excited what we have so far. If the next casting news is announced as a Section 31 agent then I am fully in. ;)
But so far, so good.
Agreed… but she’s the third character from the Discovery crew to be announced. Both Doug Jones and that guy from “Rent” are supposed to be Discovery crew members.
You’re right. Yeah been 3 so far. I’m curious how many cast members will be total? Considering the nature of this show sounds different than the others it could be a pretty big cast.
Cool … along with Daryl and Morgan, she’s the only surviving character I actually like on Walking Dead. She isn’t give all that much to do on TWD but she still has a star power that shines thru. Girl can act.
Obnoxious “showrunner” OUT. Charismatic & Telented Martin-Green IN. Two great reasons to be enthusiastic about the new show. I can’t wait to see it!
Wonder if the literate Nicholas Meyer took her name from the hero of the classic short story “The Most Dangerous Name.”
The very literate Nicholas Meyer must have taken her last name from the classic short story “The Most Dangerous Game” about the guy who hunts people for sport.
Or given the comments above, including mine, Meyer may well have taken her name from the classic short story “The Most Dangerous Name” ; )
She’s a talented actor who’s always good on TWD. I always look forward to the eps where she’s more featured.
And she’s beautiful. I love strong beautiful female characters. No doubt Rainsford will be one.
Yeah, great news!!
I’m glad on two fronts. Sasha is one of The Walking Dead’s most boring characters and has dragged the show down since her arrival in season three, so I’ll be glad to see her killed off at last. On the other hand, she is a very strong actor, so I’ll be glad to see her on Star Trek.
Agreed on both counts.
This is great, I love her in The Walking Dead. Her stuff with Abraham has made both characters more interesting.
I still haven’t seen this season yet so no spoilers please anyone.
@Marc – No Spoilers? Get lost. When the season has aired, its not a spoiler anymore. You’re probably one of those people that goes on Twitter after Game of Thrones airs to complain about people on twitter talking about the episode like the whole world owes it to people like you to not discuss the show because you’re too lazy to watch it when it airs.
You must know everything about everyone. I wanna be you when I grow up.
@Marc – you should be so lucky. Which year can we discuss this past year’s TV shows without offending you? Is it okay to talk about what happened in Star Trek 2009 or would that be a spoiler?
These are literally the worst character names I’ve ever heard in my life. Why not just go with Commander Smith and Captain Bland.
“These are literally the worst character names I’ve ever heard in my life.”
One of two scenarios is at play here:
1) You have heard remarkably few character names in your life.
2) You have no idea what the term “literally” means.
Which is it?
3) For those that have trouble with common sense, I’ll make sure to add the obvious caveat: Im talking about lead roles in Star Trek TV shows.
It’s people like you that make me wish I belonged to another species.
Your opinion is not a fact. Common sense has nothing to do with your viewpoint that quite frankly makes no sense to me.
@Marc – what species do you belong too? It must be the one that cant tell the difference between facts and opinion. But embraces insults and hyperbole. That’s a big word but if you google it, you might understand. Troll.
Once again you fail to explain yourself. Why do you feel those names are stupid? If you think their names are stupid that’s fine, but it’s not a fact, it is an opinion. And I was referring to your unkind remarks as the reason I wish I belonged to another species, and yes, that is a hyperbole and it isn’t that big of a word.
@Marc – what unkind remarks? Your remarks were the unkind ones. I merely clarified my statement with an appropriate dose of snark commiserate with the same in the first reply to my post. If my post is the final nail in your desire to be apart of the human species then you live in a wonderful fantasy land.
She’s solid. A very talented actress. She can handle the range of emotions you get weekly on Walking Dead (which is either extremely serious or super duper extremely serious and gut wrenching), and I think she’s a great choice. Given that the number of episodes in WD and STD (ugh, we may have to come up with another term for Star Trek Discovery and not follow the TOS, TNG mode of acronyms) are fewer than most network shows, I hope she can do both because I enjoy her work on Walking Dead.
I think the official abbreviation is DSC.
Just checked her out in some Walking Dead clips, a show which cannot sustain my attention. But she CAN! Gonna be fun… I’m sure she’ll end up full captain end of Season 2
Nichelle Nichols as the Chief Communications Officer of the Enterprise, in the very first episode / season of Star Trek back in 1966? How the feck does a ‘Star Trek’ website gloss over such an obvious (and historically significant!) character?
Uhura wasn’t the lead character, and Nichols wasn’t one of the stars. Support character, supporting actress. This is different. This character is the lead, the star of the ensemble.
The article already stated this clearly: “Martin-Green’s casting marks the first time an African-American woman has had the top role in a Star Trek series.”
Uhura has never been “the top role,” has she? Nope.
Nichols and the other supporting cast make the same mistake, thinking they were all “leads”. lol
What was Spock’s rank on the original Star Trek series? I thought it was Lt. Commander at one point and he was the first officer, so Lt. Commander Rainsford (assuming that’s her name) could be the first officer of the Discovery before becoming it’s Captain at a later point (if the original Captain is killed or promoted).
Lieutenant in The Cage, Lt Commander for part of season one, later full Commander, Captain from TWOK onwards, then Ambassador.
There’s still debate as to whether Gary Mitchell was Kirk’s original XO, hence Spock becoming acting XO as a Lt Commander and eventually receiving promotion upon becoming official XO.
Well now that explains why he wanted Gary Mitchell dead so badly. ;D
The timing of the announcement is deeply stupid: to announce the lead role for a new Star Trek show a few hours before the release of a new Star Wars film (which happens to be the best Star Wars film since Empire and achieve the seemingly impossible and deepen the story of the original film) is suicide. Outside of hardcore Star Trek fans, no one’s going to care. Thump! Thump! Thump! There goes another nail in the Star Trek coffin. Thanks, marketing team!
I wish the cast of the new show well, but with the lack of enthusiasm from the assorted Star Trek owners this year, I just seem to have lost all interest in it. I’ll be happy with the Roddenberry Vault!
I think you’re wrong. it doesnt really matter. But Im seeing Rogue One tonight. I hope its good.
One thing I was thinking about. When Paramount re-launched the Trek films, so many lugnuts were screaming that they didnt want any original actors. They were too old, and no one cared. Then TFA came out and the nostalgia and love of the originals quieted things down.
Discovery is announced and the lugnuts scream about it being a “prequel”. Its more like Rogue One in the sense its not truly a Prequel, but more something that fills in the blanks. So Im hoping the success of RO quiets that nonsense down too.
Rogue One is, I guess, an ‘interquel.’ It’s like a licenced novel or comicbook has always been, only they’ve actually made a movie out of it!
If they could make a Star Trek film with the number of digital ‘resurrections,’ judicious recastings and clever usages of old footage that we see in Rogue One, they could probably make a Star Trek film that would have audiences cheering from the rafters.
Actually, as I think about it, Rogue One, on a technical level, is one of the most ambitious films I’ve ever seen. And, indeed, it’s often not the obvious stuff that is ambitious in the film; it’s the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it details. Not everything works, but I won’t put a filmmaking team down for being that ambitious.
And, if anyone happens to read this post, I very, very strongly suggest you watch the original Star Wars film before watching this one. Watching Rogue One with the original film fresh in your mind will add a whole new layer of appreciation to the experience. And, next time you read the opening crawl of the original Star Wars, you’ll appreciate it in a whole different way. Unlike many prequels, Rogue One succeeds in enriching the experience of watching the original.
Well you’re doing an amazing job marketing Star Wars here lol. But yeah great to hear. I was originally skeptical of the film being a prequel thats nothing more than a cash grab for more nostalgia to the OT but it does sound really good so I will be seeing it. I was really on the fence about it until a few days ago when I started reading the reviews. Will try and see it next week.
Yeah, you’ll enjoy it. To be honest, I’d like to see Star Trek embrace more of Star Wars… wait, don’t shoot me! Let me finish…
Star Trek’s spread across eras has always been rather clunky. The Pike/Kirk eras blended nicely, but 24th century Trek was only set in that time to supply a televisual gap to separate from the still-ongoing Kirk movies. Then, Enterprise, the prequel, didn’t actually ‘feel’ that different from 24th century Star Trek. Characters broadly spoke in a similar way, the incidental music was exactly the same as the 24th century stuff and, barring a few bells and whistles, could simply have been another 24th century Trek.
I’d like to see a Star Trek show actually embrace the multigenerational exploration aspects (something Enterprise began to do units final year,) meaning they need to tell stories that run organically across eras, embracing the differences, the design aesthetics and so on. That means digitally resurrecting some actors, digitally rejuvenating others, recasting one or two people carefully. Star Wars came replete with a broad hinted history of the Clone Wars, a declining Galactic Senate, a recently fallen caste of mystical warrior knights and threw us into the middle of the story. The prequels were bad because the director was really too busy experimenting with digital technology to tell a story, but there are characters and themes common to both trilogies, just as there are in the third trilogy and Rogue One. Along with the cartoons, there’s a cohesive storyline following several generations with many characters greatly expanded through different media, Tarkin, for example is a substantial character in the cartoons. Forest Whittaker plays a character in Rogue One from the cartoons.
Imagine a season of a Star Trek show dealing with a phenomenon discovered by, say, the USS Constitution in Pike’s era. Pike, Spock and Boyce (digital resurrection cameos) are consulted by the Constitution’s team at one point. An observation station is set up. The young commander grows old across the episodes. The phenomenon leads the Consitution into a series of adventures. Mr Spock visits the station at some point after TFF and realises the phenomenon is an intelligence trying to communicate. Decades go by and Commander Data’s (digital rejuvenation for the likes of Data and Picard) positroic brain design eventually allows him to make the first actual communication with the entity. Meanwhile we’ve seen the original station commander age, retire and die and followed his replacement across many years. Eventually, after the Hobus star incident has terribly injured the entity, the terminally ill, centenarian Admiral Picard arrives at the station, his dying wish to aid and make peaceful coexistence possible with the entity to save it.
Probably a rubbish story, made up on the hoof and a bit ‘Solaris,’ but my point is that all these characters that we’ve seen down the years exist within a bigger tapestry. Star Trek is still ‘bitty;’ a few characters in one century, a load in another, another bunch in the past. There’s an opportunity, if the programme makers grab it, to turn all the disparate eras of Star Trek into part of a big cohesive, multiple century-spanning tale of human space travel. An ‘Outward Urge’ tale of family histories connecting across generations or a sci-fi Game of Thrones (in terms of scale, not content!)
I mean, who wouldn’t want an episode of a new Trek to tell a story that features cameos by much-loved characters in their prime where their lives contribute to a bigger storyline?
Wow you have some interesting ideas. Yeah I get your point don’t make Star Trek just a shared universe but also generational where every century has a direct connection in terms of story and not just setting.
I DO like the idea but I will be honest its probably a bit dangerous to do because of the all important canon and tying stories that closely is dangerous. But I would still like to see them try and I guess if its just done in movie form that would be different. Star Wars right now is just a few films and so they can experiment more and yes Disney has made it clear they want Star Wars to be like MCU and have all the stories connect to each other, which isn’t hard since thats what Star Wars did from the beginning obviously. But yes I think they are thinking a lot more ambitiously and weaving in and out of timelines now and will only experiment more if Rogue One and my guess the Han solo film is a success.
But Star Trek has always been more episodic but yes it was born out of a TV show from the 60s and thats how it was. But it is interesting how the franchise sometimes go standalone and sometimes go serialized. The TOS films you saw a connection between 2, 3 and 4 while 1, 5 and 6 are their own thing. TNG show and later films were always done in standalone form. Yes a lot of crossovers and connecting to other Trek shows here and there but you’re right it still just did its own thing episode to episode. It acknowledged it was a bigger universe out there in terms of the other shows but it never relied on them. Voyager situation is obvious. DS9 is oddly the show that went full on serial and to this day is really the only show whose story line affected the other shows with the Dominion war and the Maquis story line. The only thing TNG did that had an affect on the bigger universe were the Borg attacks in Best of Both Worlds and then First Contact but yes pretty standalone for the most part.
But I think to do something that ambitious Trek would have to BE ambitious again and right now yes we have a new show coming and I think(?) the movies are still in play but the fact is there is NO ONE behind these projects who are thinking that big. It seem like a chore just to tie in these two projects now. Whats so disappointing to some of us is that the KT films literally feel like they are in their own universe (because they are) away from everything else but why it kind feels like its much ado about nothing because it has no real effect on the universe most of us care about.
Star Wars, Marvel those franchises are juggernauts, they literally are run by an entire studio so they can think big VERY big and have all these big plans and connect to everything.
For Star Trek to go that wide, there needs to be a long term goal for the franchise like during TNG days. And the projects have to feel at least whole again which is your point. But sadly I don’t see that happening anytime soon. Everything seem to be done separately and one project at time.
Too many vocal Trek fans cry about “going forward”. How about rather then going forward in time, they demand the studio goes forward in terms of creative vision and story telling?
Are the Star Wars fans dismissing Rogue One and demanding it go forward? No, they LOVE this filling in of the universe. My GOD, what they did in Rogue One to make that film appear seamlessly tied into the originals…
Paramount already tried to be more like Star Wars when they hired Trek hater and Wars fanboy JJ. Stop trying to reinvent Trek. BUT…take inspiration from Lucas & Disney in how PROUD they are of their history and franchise and how much they embrace it.
And the next person that dismisses the idea of William Shatner as Captain Kirk needs to watch Rogue One and tell me that it’s impossible.
You kind of seem to be missing the point. Star Wars already IS moving forward!! Did you kind of forget TFA, Episode 7, that premiered a year ago at this time?
Rogue One is a one and done film and there will be multiple Star War sequels for years to come, including next year. Its kind of apples and oranges. And trust me, RO may be great but even if it is it won’t make anywhere NEAR the money TFA made or probably what Episode 8 will make next year which tells you a lot. I’m betting its going to make about half of what TFA did and in fact its opening was much slower than TFA.
In other words it may be a fun film and give you a deeper background to things but for most people it will still basically feel like filler, just a really solid and fun filler. I have not seen it yet, although I been spoiled to a few things at this point, but from what I do know its more about filling in to things in ANH than the rest of the series. And again, thtats fine but its no way people would want multiple films on that kind of stuff. For example I don’t think people would want another movie that would take place between ANH and ESB for example. At some point it would feel a bit lazy or just trying to recapture the OT without just rebooting it. Most people want to simply go forward.
And I said this before but what is smart about Disney is they are doing BOTH, prequels and sequels so that works. But yes if they only stayed in the pre-OT era people would feel frustrated after awhile. Most people STILL don’t want a young Han Solo film. Maybe after RO more will feel more positive about the idea but that seems to be the least excited for the fanbase so far. But to be fair mostly because no one knows anything about it yet or the story so that could change in time.
But the beauty of Star Wars right now they are doing both. No one is completely against prequels we just don’t want only prequels either. And the one advantage Star Wars has over Star Trek is that it has a much more expansive history. There are stories that go thousands of years back in Star Wars. I would love to see a film that showed the beginning of the old Republic and the first Jedis. In time they could do stuff like that sort of what the EU did but in movie form. The one problem I see for Disney is that they are too focused on OT characters and events but it sells. But hopefully in time they will tell deeper stories and just get away from the Skywalkers altogether.
As for Star Trek I said this before when Enterprise was on we still had TNG movies. Yes only one more was made but the point is like Star Wars is doing now Star Trek was still going forwards and backwards. Now its ALL backwards. We got the TOS films and now a show that takes place before those. If its good people will be fine with it but in time Trek WILL have to move forward again. Its not Star Wars there is only so much little history in the past to cover and you can’t just keep it in the TOS era for another 20 years.
Did I forget TFA? You mean the film that included three original leads and had a plot that entered around the search for the original trilogies’ star? At the same time Paramount fired their director/writer/producer who submitted a story that included William Shatner. While fans whine about including the “too old” actor but Wars fans celebrate the return of their originals?
Wars might have gone forward but again its not about time. Only simpletons associated that with time. They are going forward in telling new stories while embracing their history and treating their stars with respect.
Paramount could learn a lot from Disney.
Dude Shatner’s Kirk died over 20 years ago already. You may not like it but there it is. Its not the same thing as characters from the OT. None of them died. And actually yeah a LOT of people said they were too old but most didn’t care they just wanted to see them again.
And of course its about time! The franchise is moving FORWARD. Did you forget we now have a new villain to face, new mythology to explore, etc. Thats what people want. Discovery is trotting out Klingons again for the 136th time. And I’m fine with that but yeah I would like to see a new foe akin to the Cardassians, Borg, Dominion, etc. But that may come in later seasons.
But I’ll say it again most still see the SW spin off movies as filler and why no one is all that excited about the new Han Solo film. It just feels like a lazy rehash to extend the novelty of a popular character. Its akin to seeing a show about Spock before he joined the Enterprise. Now it doesn’t mean it won’t be a good movie or people won’t like it but there is more eye rolling over these standalone movies you are admitting. When people learned the first film was about stealing the Death Star plans to a 40 year movie there was a collective shrug in the force. BUT what did get people excited was the fact it would at least be a different kind of SW films and a real war film which got people interested. But no one cared about the plotline itself, we already know they succeeded. But the film still sounds great.
But agreed Paramount could learn from Disney, go FORWARD again. Create a shared universe again. Trek had one of the biggest shared universes at the time after TNG appeared. Now we literally have TWO universes, the KT one and the prime one again which kind of fractures the potential story telling. The KT films and Discovery feels like two separate studios are making them vs SW where ALL media is now connected under Kathleen Kennedy, from the comic books to the films. Everything is canon and builds on the rest. They even have a story group to connect all of this stuff and keep it consistent. Thats what Star Trek should be doing again, not just all these prequels in different universes. Its nice we are just getting content with the KT films and Discovery but it all feels like back story filler and not where we are going next which is sad.
I mean I liked Beyond but end of the day the story basically filled in what happened to the MACO program after the Xindi incident and when the Federation was–all taking place 100 years ago prior. It was a story about looking back in a series of films thats already looking back.
You lose me again by saying “going forward” is about time. You’d rather see a bad story in the 29th century than a good one in the 23rd. That’s the problem. Going forward can be about telling new stories and doesnt have to be about new times.
Rogue One is a prequel to A New Hope. But it tells a new story (previously referenced) in a new way. It lays down new information about a known story. It introduces us to new characters to care about and new characters, worlds, battles, villains and heroes to an already-crowded mythology. And it does it mostly successfully. But it does it well respecting and embracing what is already known.
The use of Shatner has nothing to do with the character dying. Lest we forget Spock died. Lest we forget JJ and Bob’s explanation that they created a new sandbox to play in so they werent beholden to prior canon.
And when you watch Rogue One, you’ll understand why Shatner’s age/appearance dont mean diddly to bringing his Kirk back.
The fact is, Lucas embraced and respected its legacy. Paramount and JJ crapped on theirs. And one of them has a successful and viable film franchise and one ruined theirs…for the time being.
95% of all stories on TV and movies are essentially about telling new stories forward. Very few are prequels for a reason. No I rather see a GOOD story about the 29th century than a good story about the 23rd century. Thats the real point.
As for SW you keep just missing the point. No one is saying Rogue One is a bad thing but you act like as if SW will now be about RO and these characters going forward when you clearly know thats NOT the case. End of the day its a one off filler story which is fine, but the heart of SW future lies in episodes 8,9 and beyond dealing with Rey, Kyol, First Order, etc. We’re getting the next chapter next yeah. I’ll say it for the THIRD time if that what Star Trek would be doing it would be less complaints because you would have one story in the past while another in the future just like you had the TOS films in the 23rd century while TNG took place in the 24th century. That isn’t happening here. INSTEAD we have TWO properties now each taking place in the 23rd century, the KT films and now Discovery. And that would be fine if we didn’t already have 600 hours of the 24th century locked in canon. But we do so it feels like its going backwards in that sense.
And you keep going on about Shatner. Its time to let go already. You can’t compare him to Nimoy because they didn’t wait 20 years to bring Spock back, they waited one film and when they brought him back it was with the TOS films which were just starting. Spock was very important at the time. When they killed Shatner’s Kirk off the entire point was to say they were moving on from TOS which they did. And it made no sense to bring him back because all the later films and shows were no longer about his crew anymore. Look yes I would like to see Shatner play the role again but that time has come and gone. We already know the next movie will be about bringing back Kirk’s dad. Maybe that might change though (I hope so) but so far thats what we know because lets face it 99% of people NOT TOS fans would rather see Christ Hemsworth instead of Shatner. It doesn’t sound like there is any intention to bring him back at this point and the guy is in his mid 80s. After a point it just time to let go.
Look we gone over this over and over again. There will be people happy its a prequel and there will be people not happy. Until the show actually comes on we’ll just have to wait and see and as you know I’m giving the show wide berth. I liked more things I heard than didn’t so far which is a good sign. But its just so funny how you seem to think a prequel is the best way to go and yet you’re one of the biggest naysayers against both Enterprise and the KT films. And I get it not because you hate the concepts of them, just the execution of them. Fair enough but Discovery may not be any better. Maybe making a prequel to this franchise is just a lot harder than people think. I hope it succeeds thought but yes oddly the complaints so far are issues that stems it over being a prequel. If it wasn’t the issues wouldn’t be there at all. But yes they may not be issues once we see how its all done. I just think prequels are more trouble than their worth most of time and history seem to bare that out.
Re: 95% of all stories on TV and movies are essentially about telling new stories forward
I think I need you to better delineate what you are talking about there when you say “new” because I’d swear %95 of the stories are retellings of stories that appeared in other media first and there’s very few totally ORIGINAL stories.
I also find it odd that you are asserting this non-prequelness when network television is currently burgeoning series that skip backward and forward literally breaking the time barrier in TIMELESS, FREQUENCY, LEGENDS OF TOMORROW, and THE FLASH and in the HEAVY use of flashbacks in THIS IS US, MODERN FAMILY, etc.
And THE FLASH is not just breaking that one barrier but succeeding in crossing the permutation barrier in visiting parallel Earths with similar characters with different histories and cross pollinating it’s stories with those characters and their other similar but slightly different and far from totally new stories.
Also, THE FLASH’s time travel isn’t just limited to reliving the past but he’s monkeyed with it and the changes affect other series: ARROW and SUPERGIRL
Now if you meant to fence that in to just franchise stories, I again point out that any time one of those reboots or backward time travel tales have been related within it that it messes with your “new” stories assertion. But I suppose the fact simply is that 95% of franchise TV and movies to some degree or another are recycling “recognizable” and not totally “new” characters that have to hold to certain reused tropes or what’s the point of placing the story within such a thing?
Dude time travel stories are apples and oranges, c’mon. They AREN’T prequels, they are stories dealing with time travel, many I watch and like.
Can we split hairs any more? And if Discovery is about time travel, ie, a ship that goes back and forth in time in multiple centuries from the 23rd to the 29th or whatever I would LOVE that because then it would be doing something different not other Trek show has done before, a show thats about exploring time. But we know thats not what its about.
Anyway your argument is bizarre. I’m simply saying TV and movies rarely do prequels and with good reason because sequels or moving forward is simply more exciting.
Sequels are easier. And to do an effective prequel you need material that is deep enough that people care about what happened before. The inherent issue with prequels is knowing the outcome.
Even Hollywood writers like Bad Robot claimed Trek canon hamstrung them. How creative, eh? To me, I’d much rather fill in the blanks than do a sequel because it seems far more interesting and challenging as a writer.
But as Dis pointed out, plenty of shows use time travel or flashbacks as pseudo prequels to lay down depth or visit interesting things in the past. Its all related.
Breaking Bad launched a prequel. The Sopranos made liberal use of prequel “flashbacks” (and boy, those flashbacks could easily have been an entire series). These are acclaimed TV shows.
Oh and there’s a little known film franchise called Star Wars that is doing the same thing.
Time travel shows is NOT pseudo prequels. C’mon this is ridiculous. They are not hamstrung to previous canon and since they are, yeah, TIME TRAVEL shows and the point is usually to change whatever came before anyway. Its apples and oranges.
Star Trek has done dozens of time travel stories, 90% of the time they are only changing events in what happened in that episode or film. They rarely have any effect on previous canon as a whole for a reason because what ever reason they go back in time usually just effect whatever was changed in that episode from First Contact to The Visitor to Year of Hell to Voyage Home. Thats how most time travel stories work.
I love the Flash and they go much deeper with their time travel narrative but its silly to compare because anyone who watches that show or know the comic the character changes the previous canon all the time. Thats the point. They had an entire story line in the comics and this season on the show called Flashpoint which is meant to erase everything that happened previously and see him live in a completely different timeline. Traditional prequels CAN’T do that, thats the entire problem they have to stick by whatever came before them. The KT films were smart in that sense because they basically created a new timeline through time travel but thats always been a more quasi prequel. Even Enterprise used time travel as a template to kind of mess with canon a bit but once again all those elements came from the show itself like the Temporal cold war and that was resolved not effecting the rest of canon in the end. Everything we know about Discovery will be more traditional UNLESS there is a time travel component like these. I hope so that would change my perspective on it a lot.
And you’re now comparing flashbacks? I’ll say it again there are very few actual prequels on TV and in films for a reason, most people want sequels. You keep mentioning Star Wars as if that means anything when its been said over and over again the ones that most fans care about will be the sequel trilogy. The box office alone between TFA and RO will make that very clear.
Again I get why you like prequels but most people prefer sequels for a reason. Filling in stories to outcomes we already know just feels boring to a lot of people. But the few that makes it interesting enough is fine but in my experience its very few of them that can make it innovative enough for me to personally care although I finally came around to appreciating Enterprise. Sadly it didn’t take me until 8 years it was off the air to do it.
But they didnt move on from TOS. They re-booted TOS.
You have the ORIGINAL actor from TOS, the biggest star still active and they run screaming from him. Its utterly ridiculous. Even the guys at Bad Robot saw how obvious it was that you’d use Shatner.
Carrie Fisher had all sort of issues. They didnt run away, they worked with her to bring Leia back to the screen because they RESPECT the franchise and the fans want it.
Im telling you…the ONLY thing that can give Trek a bump is the return of William Shatner. Im sure Paramount doesnt like him because unlike the other cast who think they are leads, Shatner actually is a big star who commands a big salary.
Yeah 15 years later lol. And with a new and younger Kirk. Man the character DIED. What do you want me to say? And the new movies were in another universe. A lot of people like Shatner, me included, but you’re clearly letting your fandom color your argument here. Shatner appearance won’t do anything other than bring out the same hardcore fans these movies already bring out. It will get more interest in terms of news but thats it. Last time Nimoy was seen on Star Trek was TUC and his appearance in the 09 film was a big deal but its not like the film made a billion dollars over it. Maybe did better with him in it its hard to say but it still made less than $400 million.
I don’t think Shatner appearance would be all that different. Even after they made Generations around him and had his death First Contact came next and easily made a lot more money with the Borg. I guess the Borg is more popular than Shatner.
And now we have a new Kirk. You may not like him but there is. Now all that said of course I would like to see him again but I think that time has past. The perfect time would’ve been during the 50th anniversary in Beyond but we clearly know what happened with that.
Wrong. Shatner has cross over appeal. He’s 80+ years old. His fandom runs the gamut from old to young. He’s a multiple award winner for best acting, revered and respected. Shatner passes a gall stone and it’s headline news. And you dont think Shatner returning to Trek in a MEANINGFUL way would be a hook to an expanded audience? He wont make a bad film better…but you take notes from Disney’s treatment of their history in Star Wars and treat Trek and Shatner/Kirk that way with a good story and it blows the JJ films away at the box office.
Dude the average person under 30 barely know who Shatner is beyond the guy who was in Star Trek.
Again, I would have liked to seen Shatner in one more film but that time has passed. It didn’t work out for Beyond, we already know if they make another film it will involved Kirk’s dad and I think as we had this discussion before Paramount doesn’t seem to want him to even come back as Kirk so the discussion is pretty moot.
This film was probably his last best chance to come back. Maybe Discovery but yeah since its a prequel that happens while the character is much younger its much harder vs being done later in the future. ;)
Another reason why I don’t get why people would do prequels when you can squeeze in later casts as caemos and story lines more easier in later shows like TNG and others did having the TOS cast appear here and there.
I will say this about Shatner, yes if he was in Beyond I think the film would’ve did better (but that’s not hard ;)) and drove a lot more interest in general. I liked Beyond but I always knew it could have trouble because the film was missing one important ingredient most films need to get fans excited: a hook. Beyond didn’t have one which made the movie even less interesting for people.
But yes I think if Shatner was the hook it would’ve done a lot better. Maybe not huge or beat STID but definitely better. I too wish they went with Bob Orci idea but sadly it was not meant to be.
In a way Im glad they dint put Shatner in Beyond because it would have been a waste, akin to having him be Chef on Enterprise. But I DID expect a much better homage to TOS in Beyond.
Again, look at Rogue One and their mind boggling use of CGI versus Star Trek having Spock brandish a photo. Ridiculous. Utterly and completely ridiculous. That’s slapping fans in the face with JJ’s nether region.
The best press the JJ films ever got was when “someone” (I still say it was Bob or someone at his behest) leaked the news of Shatner being in his script… free and easy and positive and resounding PR for a “leak” that didnt even come to fruition.
And when Shatner passes, these idiots like JJ and the executives at Paramount will all provide glowing commentary on his place in Trek history and I will vomit at their ignorance.
William Shatner is to Star Trek what Harrison Ford or Mark Hamil is to Star Wars. The difference is, the studio behind Star Wars respects its legacy and is smart while the studio behind Trek loathes the fans and is embarrassed by its legacy.
But TUP I want to make this clear. I don’t want to give you the impression I’m just here to fight with you on this. I completely understand why you like the direction. I disagree with it but I understand. For some of us though prequels have never been appealing for all the reasons stated. And sadly most of them, from Star Wars to the Hobbit have just been a let down. Even though I like Better Call Saul for example I’m only watching it to see how it connects to Breaking Bad. I like they did something different but prequels always fall into the same trap over and over again no matter what they do end of the day they only give us the back story of what we already know. Its just hard to overcome that unless your story is engaging enough where it becomes just its own thing and they rarely do.
That said it sounds like RO is better than TFA so that gives me hope. I didn’t plan to go see it because it felt that much like a cynical cash grab to me. But you and others have changed my mind so I will at some point. Maybe next weekend. But still if I had to choose I would want an Episode 8 before I would want an episode 4.5. Most people would.
Rogue One isnt better than TFA. But it is different. And embraced the nostalgia in similar ways. Again, Disney/Lucas embracing their past and celebrating it. Whereas Trek runs screaming from the room at the mere mention.
JJ’s STID was a lousy rehashing of Trek’s past in a complete opposite way that Rogue One was a solid embracing of its past. That’s the big difference.
I think people that automatically dislike prequels are missing the point. STID was worse than Trek 09 but does that mean all sequels suck? Godfather 2 was both a sequel and prequel. Did it suck?
The Wars prequels sucked. Yes. I give you that. Enterprise was more boring and bland than pure suck. It was a prequel that didnt want to be a prequel. It was Berman’s sneaky way of getting another few years of Voyager when it was clear he was creatively tapped.
It shouldnt be about “when” but about the quality of the story. If Discovery embraces Trek’s past in the vein of Rogue One, it will be thrilling to watch.
Thats all fine. And if we didn’t already have TWO prequels taking place in the past: Enterprise and the KT films, then the reaction would probably be different. If Discovery was the first then I think the reception would be much higher. It isn’t, its the third and its the third followed by two that are very mixed results by Star Trek fans. Not everyone but clearly enough since Enterprise was cancelled by fourth season and Beyond outright bombed. Thats the problem, the prequels we do have just doesn’t seem like it has made Trek fans excited for more. And to be fair about the KT films I think the first film was well received by most fans. But then the sequel did EXACTLY why I didn’t want a TOS prequel to begin with by what you said rehashing something we already seen before. Yes the story was new, but dredging up a villain that didn’t need to be there when it shouldve just told its own story.
Anyway yeah thats the issue. With prequels its always easy to go back to what has already been done and maybe Discovery will side step this but if you roll your eyes because they found a way to bring the Borg back well then it would be yet another sign why maybe prequels are just not the best fit for this franchise.
Well the good news, the KT films look all but dead.
Isn’t Simon Pegg and Doug Jung already writing the next one though? I saw an article somewhere of a photo Pegg put out a few weeks ago seeing them start on the next one. I kind of thought after Beyond bombing that would be it for these films too but it looks like Paramount is going ahead after all. My guess is it will just be a much lower budgeted film from the others though.
Re: rehashing something we already seen before
And that’s my point about time travel stories fitting your definition. They rehash stories too and they don’t all “change” things that couldn’t have been changed if it was just written as a prequel as you would have it defined.
STAR TREK started its dance with prequels with THE MENAGERIE and those types of tales have been a part of it ever since. I regard TOMORROW IS YESTERDAY as ultimately a prequel too because, while it is true that it explored changing things, they time traveled again and erased all the changes they introduced the first time around leaving events of Trek’s past delineated in the episode as a part of its canon that hadn’t been laid out before. And obviously THE CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER fits too – because nothing was ultimately changed that couldn’t have been a part of a straight historical rendering of the tale set in Trek’s past – it was the definition of what the GUARDIAN was offering them, i.e. the opportunity to be apart of a prequel as long as you don’t significantly alter events so that it becomes impossible for it to be one.
I saw Rogue One. And while this is a Star Trek board, its important to compare the two because Paramount and LucasFilm basically went in opposite directions with their visions.
Paramount seemed to want to to run and hide from it’s past, legacy, history etc. With all due respect to Nimoy, the studio fired it’s writer and director when he submitted a story that included William Shatner.
Lucas essentially took the position that they wouldnt make these movies without their origional cast. Which one was right?
Trek fans rail against “rehases”. Wars fans embrace the “prequel” Rogue One. Trek fans say “Shatner is too old and fat”. Wars fans say “bring back actors from the dead”.
Discovery is serving the same role to Trek as Rogue One is to Wars. It’s not so much a prequel as filling in the universe. And the producers would be wise to take a page out of LucasFilms book.
You say if Paramount made a film like this, Trek fans would be cheering. So why dont they? Oh yeah, because they’re stupid. And because they hired a productionc company that didnt like Star Trek and wanted to change it enough so they could own it.
Rogue One is a very flawed film, technicaly. But fans will love it. It was good, enjoyable, fun, exciting, emotional, nostalgic. And thats what matters. Oh and it will make a ton of cash. It should be required viewing for every Paramount executive. And then they need to either hire someone that friggen gets it to lead Star Trek or sell the whole damn thing to Disney so we can get the franchise and films we deserve.
Outside of hardcore Trek fans, no one cares who the lead actor is going to be anyways.
Well first of all who else WOULD care except hard core Trek fans? No one else is even thinking about this show until it airs and they judge it. Thats how it is for every franchise out there. The hardcore is eating up every piece of news no matter how small or insignificant and the casual audience won’t remotely care until they see a trailer for the show/film.
I agree with you though the marketing for Trek recently has been bad and partly why Beyond bombed but Discovery is a different animal. Nothing has even been shot yet. Its mostly just announcements to cast and background, thats not ‘marketing’. When CBS really rolls it out for the masses then we can judge. All this is is just getting the show together first. Any hoopla right now is for us fans.
Your interest level is dictated by the timing of announcements?
Well, it did trend on twitter so it definitely made some waves. I’m intrigued. I’m a fan of all of the big names cast so far.
I’m being serious here. A better name for the starship would have been Diversity. They are obviously really going for a diverse cast. And don’t misunderstand me, diversity is good in Trek. I am not being negative here. I’m just saying they should call a spade a spade here.
TOS had a black woman, a Japanese man, Russian and Scottish characters, and an alien. Should that have been called “Star Trek: Diversity”?
TNG had an Englishman, a Klingon, a black man, THREE women and an android character in the principle cast, should that have been called “Star Trek: Diversity”?
DS9 had a black captain, an Irish Chief Engineer, two female commanders, two aliens, and an English/Sudanese man, should that have been called “Star Trek: Diversity”?
Voyager had a female captain, a Native American commander, a Chinese-American ensign, a half hispanic/half Klingon woman, two aliens, a hologram, and the franchise’s first black Vulcan, should that have been called “Star Trek: Diversity”?
Enterprise had an Englishman, an African American, a Korean woman, an alien doctor and a female Vulcan commander, should that have been called “Star Trek: Diversity”?
Discovery has a female captain, a black female commander, a gay man and an alien, and THAT’S the show you think should be called “Star Trek: Diversity”?
Star Trek has ALWAYS had extremely diverse casts, even when diversity was rare on television.
Btw: TNG was the lead on diversity, Picard was french, Geordi was Somali, Worf was a Klingon raised by Russians. The only US character was Riker..
I am a bit tired of this diversity talk, stop with it and focus on the story, I dont care if the main chracter has 5 legs, Star Trek has already show us black female captains, Star Trek has already show us diversity, Discovery is doing nothing new, focus on doing a good Star Trek story.
I always thought Riker was Canadian.
I guess there is a good reason for not having many ppl of the former so called United States. The US probably was hit first and strongest by nuclear bombs during the third world war.
Re: “I always thought Riker was Canadian.”
So did I, until I realized that mistaken assumption came from a scene in ‘Lower Decks’ when Ensign Lavelle makes the same mistaken assumption. Riker corrects him and says “no, i’m from Alaska.”
Wont it be nice to one day see cast announcements and everyone says “great choice” rather then “wow, diverse”.
To be fair, the overwhelming consensus on Yeoh and Martin-Green have been “wow, great diverse choices!” Sure, there are some grumpy gus’, but nobody pays them any mind, because both actresses are well-respected and/or acclaimed for their previous performances.
If they were going for diverse, at least they aimed for quality, not tokenism. And Star Trek casts have always represented the diverse future world of equality as Roddenberry envisioned it.
Geordi was Somali? Where does that come from? I had thought he was from the Caribbean or French West Africa.
+100 Torchwood. That was brilliant!
“TOS had a black woman, a Japanese man, Russian and Scottish characters, and an alien.”
Sulu is an American, born in San Francisco.
“TNG had an Englishman, a Klingon, a black man, THREE women and an android character in the principle cast”
Which main character came from England? I don’t think there was one.
And it was more like TWO women for most of the time in the principal cast, just Troi and Crusher. Even when Yar was still around, women were in the clear minority. So saying three women is a sign of diversity, is a complete joke. It was the opposite of it, a clear male dominance.
“DS9 had a black captain, an Irish Chief Engineer, two female commanders, two aliens, and an English/Sudanese man”
Bashir was English/Sudanese? Are you sure about that or just confusing the character with the actor? Even Memory Alpha only knows, that he is from Earth.
“Voyager had a female captain, a Native American commander, a Chinese-American ensign, a half hispanic/half Klingon woman, two aliens, a hologram, and the franchise’s first black Vulcan”
Harry Kim is only an American, born in South Carolina. No other nationality at all. An Asian face alone doesn’t make him a Chinese, just like it doesn’t make Sulu a Japanese. And I am not so sure, if Torres can be called a Hispanic. She doesn’t even come from Earth, not to mention a Spanish speaking country.
“Enterprise had an Englishman, an African American, a Korean woman, an alien doctor and a female Vulcan commander”
I suspect you mean with African American Mayweather. He was neither, African or American. He was born and grew up in space. By the way the term African American as a generalisation for black people in America, is just ridiculous. If there would be at least some consistence, but I never heard so far white people who never put a foot into Europe called European Americans.
And Hoshi isn’t Korean, she is Japanese.
Dude this is nit picking at a ridiculous level. You know what he means. Not everyone is simply white or all from America. Many of the actors are multi-ethnic and/or mixed race.
No one in TOS really knew much about Uhura, including her first name or where in Africa she actually came from, but the point was just being a black woman in an important role meant something. Same with Sulu, we knew hardly anything of his background but at the time just being Asian said a lot.
Thats what Star Trek always has been. Its never actually spent any time talking about race or color its always been more symbolic in its approach, ie, just being there matters. And it sounds like Dsc will continue that tradition but I have no idea why anyone would be shocked it would since every Trek show diversity has been part of it just like warp drive and exploring new worlds.
Re: “Sulu is an American, born in San Francisco”
He was ethnically Japanese, and portrayed by a Japanese actor. Your point is semantics.
Re: “Which main character came from England?”
Picard was played by an Englishman, with an English accent, portraying a frenchman. Your point is semantics.
Re: “So saying three women is a sign of diversity, is a complete joke”
Yet the OP is claiming that TWO women is a sign of diversity, so my point was that TNG had Crusher, Yar and Troi upon its initial release, more than Discovery (at this point).
Re: “Bashir was English/Sudanese? Are you sure about that or just confusing the character with the actor? Even Memory Alpha only knows, that he is from Earth.”
Confusing? No. Clearly, as you’ve seen, I’m both referring to the characters AND the actors portraying them. Bashir, I believe, was ethnically Indian, given his parents as portrayed in “Doctor Bashir, I Presume.” Last I checked, England, Sudan, and India are all on Earth, so your Memory-Alpha reference is meaningless.
Re: “Harry Kim is only an American, born in South Carolina. ”
Both Kim and the actor portraying him, are ethnically Chinese, making him “Chinese American” as I stated. Again, semantics.
I’m not going to respond to the rest, because you’ve proven yourself to be a pedantic, trolling moron.
You have proven yourself to be an idiot, who can’t separate an actor’s heritage from the heritage of the character, he is playing.
Clearly you don’t understand the point of my post, which was in response to someone else. It is not incapability, it is the point of my argument.
Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong point. The OP was arguing that Discovery should be called ‘Diversity’ because the cast boasts Michelle Yeoh (a Chinese woman), Sonequa Martin-Green (African American woman), a gay character, a Pakistani-English actor playing a Klingon, and an African American actor as a Klingon.
The OP’s belief in the show’s diversity clearly referenced both the actor’s heritage and the characters, as we don’t know the character’s birthplace.
And regardless of the character’s birthplace, Yeoh’s character (like Kim, Bashir, and Sulu, whom I referenced and you stupidly argued) is OBVIOUSLY not a white/american/straight/male, which DOES represent the common use of the term DIVERSITY.
At this point you’re arguing just to argue, because everyone should understand both the OP’s argument and my rebuttal. You could argue i’m wrong, but not with the point you’re making. You could potentially argue that Fuller’s comments prove out the OP’s point, and more casting will add to the diversity, or that there is actually NO straight/white/american/male in the cast so far (save one playing an alien). Those would at least be valid points, even if ones I would continue to rebuke.
But you’re just being a troll arguing semantics of heritage.
Every Star Trek show has had a very diverse cast, every.single.one. TOS is FAMOUS for setting that trend in the first place. Are people new to these shows???? Torchwood laid it down well but look at his list of all the crews. Now look at what they are doing on Discovery and you tell us what are they doing differently they haven’t done on every show?
The ONLY difference is they are adding a gay character, which is decades behind the time considering there have been standard gay characters on TV for about 20 years now. So Trek is actually BEHIND in terms of that until they made Sulu gay.
So yeah if you are calling a spade then you will realize Star Trek has been pulling spades since 1966. Whats the problem again?
The problem is that they are making it like it is something new, never seen before.. and its seems that will be the main feature of this serie, is the only thing they talk about. That is the problem, they think that is something new, that they are making history.. and is not something new and they are not going to make history with that.
How do they think its something new when nearly all the writers and producers on this show has worked on Star Trek before? These people including Fuller are ALL veteran Star Trek producers, thats why they got the job in the first place. There is only one writer thats been named that has never worked on Star Trek. Another one has never worked on a show or film but she’s a Star Trek novelist.
And only Fuller has ever talked about it. Most of them from Alex Kurtzman to Nick Meyer has talked about the basics of the show. So people seem to imagine all that ever gets talked about is the diversity aspect but he is the only one that even brings it up.
And the show will make history in the sense it will have a gay character on it. Yeah Sulu sort of beat them to the punch but that was so limited it made no big impact other than he was just gay. I imagine this character will be shown as gay meaning maybe he will have a relationship or form one. So it will make ‘history’ in that sense but really just for Star Trek since gay characters are about as big of a deal on TV today as shows about doctors.
“The problem is that they are making it like it is something new, never seen before”
Please show me where they say this is something new and never seen before.
“its seems that will be the main feature of this series”
Only in your mind, because for some reason the diversity bothers you.
“Discovery is doing nothing new, focus on doing a good Star Trek story”
They haven’t done ANYTHING yet– not a single frame of film has been shot, so how could you possibly judge?
The original Star Trek had a multiracial cast when I first watched it and I didn’t notice that until it was pointed out to me. As a wide-eyed child, drinking in the adventures, I just saw people, all of whom I liked. How sad that adults had to ruin it for me by talking about what skin colour was supposed to mean! Ironically, all this diversity talk only serves to drive a wedge between people.
It’s certain people resenting not always being the central figure in everything that drives the wedge, not diversity in and of itself.
Wow, great casting choice!!! Getting exciting!!!
Makes me a little less sad that Michelle Yeoh isn’t in the lead.
Michelle Yeoh has been a fave ever since seeing The Heroic Trio back when I was a girl. She’s also thoroughly underrated as an actress. She gave an Oscar-worthy turn in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. She has leadership gravitas. I really cannot wait to see what she can do. And Doug Jones’ creature-work is outstanding. I’m sure he’ll bring a real sensitivity to whatever alien creature he’ll play as well, as nice physical work.
Sonequa has been thoroughly underused on The Walking Dead, but then I remember that like Daryl they created/expanded her role because she made an impression. Specifically, while auditioning for Michonne. So Sasha wasn’t planned, which is why her storyline seems like an afterthought. But she is good actress. Her portrayal of PTSD in season 5 was terrific.
Huge walking dead fan. Sonequa will be fantastic. She didn’t come into the series right away, but she has definitely been a great asset to the cast. I’m surprised how many people here are unaware of her, given the success of The Walking Dead. Do yourselves a favor and check out the series. :)
YES! Excellent news!
Don’t mind the choice, she’s good. It’s not earth-shattering, but what bothers me the most is the whole, let’s-get-clever “lower-decks perspective”. It just seems like a way to drag Trek further into the soap-opera zone, with producers doing what they need to do to create the opportunity to get deeper into relationships, personal drama, etc, without hitting the boundaries that surround such issues with a captain. Instead of leading the charge into perilous adventure, our new lead, in our new and enlightened Star Trek, lays in bed with her lover…and we get pillow talk, followed by tears…tears that flow after our lead hears, over the comm system, that the Landing party has returned from the planet…and her childhood friend was killed trying to escape the weird alien’s robot controlled underground genetic lab. Of course, our lead wasn’t there….and neither were we….sigh. But, soapy, serialized personal drama is the flavor the day in the television world, no getting around that. Of course, I have no inside track as to what the series will really bring…but this is my fear. I hope it’s unfounded, but I I’m afraid this series is going to be bring more “human adventure’ than I ever bargained for. So much for going where no one has gone before..these are the days of our lives.
Well I dont know if it will ALL be like that but I kind of agree I dont really like the whole ‘lower decks’ vibe either. Again I’m giving the show a chance because they are trying to do something different with it like DS9 and shake up the formula but I still wish they just had her be the Captain. But from what I heard she will still be on the bridge like Data or Tuvok just not directly in command. She’ll be part of the action regardless.
Will be interesting to see how they film it, since the Captain usually drives the scenes and action on the bridge, because of his constant interaction with all stations. I’m curious to see how it plays with the focus on another station. But I agree, she almost has to be knee-deep in the mix to keep it interesting. Fingers crossed!
I’m actually frankly tired of the death and destruction that’s been increasingly prevalent in the past couple of decades. I’d rather have a character-based drama. But I still expect there will be plenty of action. I really don’t see what the point perilous adventure is if we don’t know the people who are in danger. It’s just meaningless spectacle that happens on screen if it’s not based in who these people are. And part of that is having a wide range of well-defined characters.
But you can over do it. That’s when it enters the realm of the day-to-day soap opera. Hit it with a few broad strokes, sure. How would McCoy possible have been well served by spending episodes examining his failed marriage, possibly estranged child, maybe a battle with the bottle? I don’t want to sit and hear your baggage at when I belly up to the bar. I don’t want to know who your sleeping with or why your mother hates you. TMI in real life, and damn sure too much for a fun, optimistic, futuristic space adventure. Sure, it’s fun to get to know the characters over time… but don’t make it the story, make it something we learn because of the story. And yes, I get it. Some people like it. But i’s not what Star Trek ever was about. They should stop trying so hard to reinvent the wheel.
Agreed. They already tried to go down that road with TNG – it started out with a lot of low-ranking characters with no real defined roles like Geordi and Worf. They thought they could get away with not making the chief engineer a major character. It was a total disaster. There’s a reason why these shows always center around the highest ranking officers, because they make the decisions and drive the plot and get the interesting assignments. No one cares about ensigns filling out duty reports.
I feel like Trek’s format became a bit old. It wasn’t bad but the format of the show never seemed to really move into the modern television era. I’m very hopeful that this will be a move that does that. It doesn’t mean it has to be a soap opera but I do think it will give the writers a chance to go about showing the viewers this series in a different light. The thing I worry about are the Trek fans who tend to do what’s been done since TOS ended: not give different ideas a chance to grow. I had almost forgotten how serious some TOS fans were that they couldn’t stand TNG and that it wasn’t real Trek because of the characters, setting, etc.
I agree it sound like Fuller is trying to make a Trek show that fit today’s standards. When TOS and later TNG came on TV was very episodic at the time. But by the time DS9 and Voyager came on the air it was becoming more end more serialized and I remember Michael Piller finally recognized that (who made Voyager and DS9) and decided that Voyager should try to become that way. They attempted it but it still didn’t really work where as DS9 was the first Trek show that did become a more serialized show and for the better because it was fitting a lot more TV viewing back then. But then they made Enterprise and while a bit more serialized where an overriding story arc continued through the season, in this case the temporal war, but it was mostly standalone stories. Until season 3 changed that.
So I think Star Trek has always had this problem of trying to change to modern attitudes. I think they feel they have an older audience who watched TV a certain way and didn’t want to alienate them. But yes you have to get with the times too if you want to attract more than people whose been watching it since the 70s which is why I had no problems with Abrams and company did with the movies. Not really Trek to me but still Trek and you have to appeal to younger audiences.
From the sounds of Discovery so far it sounds like they want to go old school Trek in terms of story telling, issues of the day, etc. But HOW they tell that story does sound like it will be modern and different. We already know its going to revolve around one story all season which Enterprise did but what a lot of shows do today, especially sci fi and fantasy. I cant think of a single sc fi or fantasy show that doesn’t have an overriding arc or very serialized story structure. The episodic, single story days in sci fi just doesn’t exist on TV today. And yet you listen to older Trek fans complain this show won’t be rewatachable if its a single story. Well look around then you’re talking about practically every popular show on TV today then from GOT to House of Cards. People just like the long story structure of TV because it provides more depth and layers. I suspect Dsc will have single story episodes but they will all be part of a bigger story line like what DS9 ultimately did.
Yeah, but that’s a narrative choice. The Captain does make the decisions, but ultimately is not supposed to be doing all the things that Kirk, Picard, and Janeway did. In fact they wrote themselves into a box trying to explain why these captains break protocol all the time. Stories about WWII usually don’t focus on the Generals making all the decisions. They focus on the front line men. So this would work the same way, and the Captain of this ship will do what a captain is supposed to do … stay on the bridge of his ship and supervise, rather than go on the front lines of every away mission. Likewise for the First Office, CHief Medical Officer and CHief engineer. I means seriously, does it make any sense that the senior officers in charge of running the ship and operations go on every away mission!? No, it doesn’t.
This series might actually be the first one that is actually believable in terms of standard operational procedures. THe heroes will be the front line guys, making all the decisions in the field. It will be more like Battlestar Galactica where we cared about the Admiral, and the Captains and Lieutenants running the missions.
Great points Curious cadet and you’re right. We don’t always follow the most senior people when it comes to military and cop shows we’re just so use to it in terms of Star Trek. But you’re right we only do it because thats how they structure the show. That said it may be hard to break 50 years of that tradition if the Captain is suddenly just a supporting role you see pop up here and there but I’m willing to see what they first.
Tiger, you and Curious totally hit the nail on the head and it’s what I’ve been thinking all along. The shows have always been presented like a family sitcom would, from everyone’s perspective with the obvious head of the family -the captain- being the lead so to speak. But then when you think of most dramas, if it’s a cop show or a medical show or military focused show, we generally have one person who isn’t a senior member take the lead. I always wondered why Trek never did that and it’s what has me most interested in this new series. I think it creates the potential for some really great stories.
Well alrighty then…. looking good!!
She’s one of the most unremarkable characters on Walking Dead. Not interesting in any way. Like no one would notice she’s gone type of character. I can’t imagine her in a lead role. She could never command any presence like Rick or Neegan, or to put it in Trek terms she’s no Captain Janeway.
She was cast for her race and color not ability. This show is nothing more than a platform for far left social justice warriors.
Oh here come the alt right chest thumpers who want a show that represents their angry white male rhetoric. Nothing has saddened me more as a Trek fan in 2016 than seeing how many bigots, racists and homophobes call themselves Trekkers. I know its a small portion of the over all fanbase. But still…very sad.
I hope Ted gets some perspective and peace for Christmas.
I completely agree I was wonder if any of these people actually watched the show. Its all about diversity
What a terrific choice. I love her on “The Walking Dead.” Looks like she’ll be working extra hard in 2017. Congrats to Sonequa!
So far this casting very much excites me.
I know a lot of folks were waiting for A-listers, maybe Mads Mikkelson or Lee Pace given the Bryan Fuller connection, or someone like Anthony Hopkins ala Westworld, or Kevin Spacey’s starring in House of Cards.
But Trek has never had huge stars lead their shows, as many have mentioned. Scott Bakula was the ONLY time an actor was cast where I thought “wow, cool, I loved him in his other stuff!” And he turned out to be my least favorite captain (though he did do a fine job). Sure, i’d heard of Avery Brooks from his role as Hawk, and Patrick Stewart had done a few noteworthy films, but neither what you’d consider big stars at the time of their casting announcements.
Even the recent films, for all their blockbuster nature, didn’t hire A-Listers. Chris Pine in 2009 was best known for his role in Domino, Quinto was a B-Lister who had success as a villain on Heroes and Karl Urban was mostly lauded for his supporting role in the LOTR films. Saldana was pretty unknown (Avatar had yet to release), and Pegg was mostly a bit player in other films, or a star in indie comedies. Yelchin was a nobody, and John Cho was pretty much only known to the stoner crowd for Harold & Kumar.
ST09 was what catapulted Pine, Quinto, Urban, and Saldana into the mainstream, and got them bigger roles.
And for those thinking “well, as a streaming only show, why can’t they afford/spend/impress us with a big star?” And to that I say, streaming-only shows don’t always feature an A-List lead. For every Kevin Space in House of Cards, there’s Stranger Things that featured Winona Ryder in a supporting role. In fact MOST streaming series feature less-heralded actors known for the quality of their work over name recognition and star power.
Orange is the New Black, Daredevil, Marco Polo, Narcos, Man in the High Castle, Bosch, Fuller House, all boast incredibly talented casts, but not huge stars.
And between Michelle Yeoh and Sonequa Martin-Green, there’s plenty of high caliber talent, even if it’s not the A-Listers some might want. Make no mistake, this is so far a very talented group that everyone should be very excited about.
I for one am MORE excited now after hearing this news, after being VERY down about them losing Bryan Fuller and pushing the series back 6 months.
What a shock! NOT! Like anyone didn’t know the main character would be a black woman. The attempts at “diversity” this show is going to is so laughable. I wanted to watch a new Star Trek series, not a platform for far left social justice.
How can you see anything through your white sheet?
Some truth here… I wasn’t shocked at all with the choice of a black female.
You shouldn’t have to be ‘shocked’ last time I check you can hire more than just white people to be leads in every film or show. Listening to you people is beyond sad and proves we still have a way to go.
Yes what a shock, not hiring a white person. What is the world coming to right?
I didn’t realize hiring someone black was now ‘far left social justice’? If this was 1956 you could pen it that way. But since this is 2016 and there are tons of shows starring black people and in fact the first Star Trek show had a black lead over 20 years ago now I think you should stop pretending we still live in the 50s. More for your sake than ours.
Just a quick reminder that Rogue One has made more money in less than a week than Beyond did its entire run.
When can we sell Star Trek to Disney? Please?
I really enjoy “Sasha” from TWD. She’s attractive, feminine but tough at the same time. Great choice imo!