‘Star Trek: Discovery” Will Be ‘Intelligent, Cinematic, and Grittier,’ says CBS Exec

Star Trek: Discovery Logo with New Delta Shield

CBS Interactive CEO Jim Lanzone sat down with CNET’s The 3:59 to talk about Star Trek: Discovery. While he couldn’t reveal much, he did reiterate that Discovery will be “grittier” than past Star Trek series, but indicated that, much in the spirit of the Trek franchise, it will break new ground “culturally and philosophically”.

Lanzone stressed that, much like each of its predecessors, Star Trek: Discovery will “break new ground.”

“It is definitely being done in a different way than it has been done before. It’s going to be very cinematic, very high production value, and grittier, the way a lot of premium cable shows are today. That’s definitely the approach that the team has taken.”

He went on to say that, while Discovery will be different, that’s not unusual for Star Trek.

“The intent is to make a great Star Trek. The people who are doing the show are not CBS executives, they are very talented showrunners. They are people who are steeped in Star Trek and are all very deep into the history of the program and I think the show reflects that.

It is certainly going to be very original and, in a good way, different than what has been put out there before. But that has always been the history of Star Trek. It has always broken new ground culturally, philosophically. It has always been a very intelligent and smart show beyond the dynamics of science fiction and visual effects. Knowing who is making this show and the people who know who the creators are, they know all that and that is absolutely a big part of the show. ”

No plans for naked Klingons in DSC, but anything is possible

Lanzone caught some flak in the past for his comments about the possibility of Discovery having sex and violence, given that it is being broadcast via CBS’s online platform All Access. Since then, the show’s lead Sonequa Martin-Green has gone on record calling the show “bigger, rawer, and grittier”. With that in mind, The 3:59‘s Roger Cheng asked him straight out: Will there be Game of Thrones-level violence and sex?”

“I highly doubt that. The difference is you could if you needed to, right? If the showrunners and creators wanted to tell that story they could because living online there are technically no ratings. In the past someone asked me that question and I said ‘yeah, theoretically’ And then everybody went berserk saying ‘I can’t believe you are going to have naked Klingons!'”

If you’re looking forward to naked aliens in Star Trek: Discovery, you may be disappointed.

Premiere date still set for fall

“Sometime in the fall,” is all Lanzone had to say about DSC’s premiere date, parroting CBS CEO Les Moonves, who has said that Discovery will hit the airwaves “when it’s ready.”

Listen to the whole interview at CNET.

Sort by:   newest | oldest

News is coming fast and furious now. Hopefully a trailer soon.

As for sex and nudity, sure why not. I’d be thrilled however if we didnt have the cheap titillation of Enterprise. If there is an organic reason to show a male or female naked, then do it. If there is an emotional investment in love story, show them having sex. Make it meaningful.

Star Trek: Fast and Furious? I could see it TUP. ;)

We already had Star Trek: Fast and Furious…

It was called Star Trek: Beyond.

Are we still on that one scene that lasted all of 5 minutes maybe?

“As for sex and nudity, sure why not?”

Just me, but I’d prefer Star Trek remain a family-friendly show. If you want explicit sex, nudity and violence, watch Westworld, Outlander, or GoT.

Precisely. Let’s have at least one franchise our kids can still grow up watching with us, like we grew up watching it with our parents…

Unfortunately, those days are long gone I’m afraid. Believe me, I’ve been contemplating on this sad truth for weeks and months now, but there is nothing we can do about it. The “innocence” of TV that we used to love as kids is gone. As a teacher, my heart is bleading when I see my 13-17-year old students talking about GoT, TWD or American Gods these days, but who can blame them? For them, it’s standard TV, they don’t even know they’re watching extraordinarily “adult” material. They don’t know anything else these days… You cannot feed them Knight Rider, TNG or SeaQuest anymore…
Nowadays’ parents have to adapt. Either they watch these new shows with their kids, helping them to deal with uncomfortable aspects, or they leave them alone, watching the stuff anyway with their pals…

….or instead of justifying poor entertainment choices completely remove the garbage from the home instead.

I have four kids and no way in hell are they going to watch any of those shows in my house.

My wife and I got rid of the cable in 2010 and it was one of the best decisions we ever made. We do have Netflix but the adult content shows are all under password.

Life lesson…..don’t justify evil….avoid it.

All true Smike. We live in a very different world today. Now kids carry phones that can get them graphic sex with just a few clicks. When I was a 10 year old it was pretty hard for me to something like that because it was all restricted. Unless someone had it in the house it was basically as hard as trying to drink alcohol at that age. Now every kid can watch it as freely as they watch all those shows you named. Yeah its a different today, the ease of media thanks to the internet has made it that easy. And today there are few good family shows on. Look at the stuff that even gets nominated for best shows today: Breaking Bad, True Detective, Faro, Game of Thrones, American Horror Story, House of Cards, Orange is the New Black and on and on. These are all highly acclaimed shows but very adult shows. Kids hear these are quality shows they want to watch the good stuff as the others. Who is wasting their time watching stuff on Freeform? What teenager wants to watch the dreck off the Disney channel? Thats the other problem, the stuff for kids are really just for kids. There isn’t a real middle ground anymore. TV doesn’t do light action shows anymore outside of what you find on the CW and again a lot of that stuff feels too dumb down. Many watch but others want to watch more complex shows and those… Read more »

BBC does Doctor Who just fine, without raw grit, sex and violence, enjoyed by adults and kids the world over.
Why can’t CBS do it to trek?

They have no idea what they are meddling with here.

What we today consider family-friendly is simply the legacy of 1930s Hays code. That’s what started the era of prudishness in movies, which later carried over to TV. Good to see it go away finally.

100% agree Star Trek was one of the few shows my entire family watched together in the 90’s. Why the hell does it have to be Star Trek SJW?

Just don’t get it.

Yeah no Enterprise-level immature nonsense and honestly don’t want nudity either…but if it works on the screen, then they can go there I suppose. But I certainly don’t watch GOT for the tits.

Orville better not steal any glory from this show! I cant critique what I haven’t seen. Wish the fan base could hold judgement until we see something

If Orville steals the glory from Discovery then it’s obvious Discovery has no business existing.

If Orville is well received it will do little other than help Discovery by bringing Trek discussion back to the masses.

Come on, is anyone thinking Oroville runs more then five episodes? What little info there is available already has the ‘what were they thinking’ stink on it….

Yep Because Star Trek was Dark & Gritty.
It’s so painful watching these visionless people slowly series by series, movie by movie tear star trek apart & make it unrecognisable & indistinguishable from all the other dark gritty misrible dystopian science Fiction shows that star trek once stood apart from.
These people are gutless, they are afraid to follow star trek’s unique vision & stand alone, instead they are obsessed with making star trek just like every other show instead of it remaining the one beacon of hope in science fiction for our future.

I hope that these are just buzz words for the non Star Trek fans & that they are not going in the direction they seem so obsessed with reveling in.

Oh the pain, so painful is the pain! Hyperbole much? I know I keep repeating myself but you “fans” who think any Trek now in the future will resemble your beloved old series and series of six movies are in for one helluva let down. Trek is changing (for the better) so change with it or shut up. Discovery is going to shock all the old farts who think this is going to be like TOS. I’m excited for this show BECAUSE it’s going to be vastly different. Why the hell after 50 years you’d want the same old tired Trek is beyond me. It won’t work, it will never work so stick to your idiotic fan films if thats all you want.

Your troll skills really suck.

Why don’t you show us how it’s really done?

I’m straight.

Me thinks you doth protest too much.

What do you do but shit all over the board.
What a trogloydte.

troglodyte

Sometimes the truth looks like trolling. I suppose your denial makes truthful statements look like trolling but that’s you’re issue, not mine. I notice you didn’t or couldn’t refute what I said.

see above

Exactly these Fans really need to shut up and except the Fact it won’t be like the PC TNG, have you ever seen that show it was painful to watch it was so clean and Family friendly, I remember when I was a Kid I was forced to watch it and I was board to death.

It’s ‘bored’.

Ah spelling police – the last bastion of the keyboard warrior without a valid argument.

see below

I love TNG. It will probably stay my second favorite show behind DS9. But yes TNG is what Roddenberry wanted. Hell thats what he wanted for TOS as well. Other people just stepped in and changed it. DS9 was the first show where he had zero input from Roddenberry and look at what we got? Yes a LOT of Trekkies didn’t love it at first but today its adored to death. There is zero wrong with TOS or TNG, they are great shows for what they are. But to me, Trek doesn’t just HAVE to be these shows. They obviously played it safer with Voyager being the first show on a network again and with all the complaints about it, its ratings were great early on and always better than DS9s so it did something right. I think Enterprise was trying to be different in typical network thinking (sex it up!) while giving us a bit more of a TOS vibe. And I would say it worked when they went farther with it in fourth season but it was third season I thought they were trying to think outside the box again. It didn’t work as great as the Dominion but they were trying to shake it up at least. Thats what Trek needs to do, shake it up. It doesn’t mean it has to just be more sex and violence but its good to get it out of its comfort zone. I have a feeling thats what Discovery will… Read more »

For this premise to be correct, you’d need to demonstrate that
A. The changes are beneficial and shouldn’t be protested,
B. The changes are not too great to divest Star Trek of what makes it unique, as the original poster claimed, and
C. That Star Trek as it was- the thing still popular enough to be remade 50 years later- actually IS ‘old and tired’ and not a viable model for what the franchise should remain.

Barring proof of those points, this riposte is mere bluster.

y’all need to control your emotions a bit

I’m only a tv auteur , albatrosity ! Excitement is a Kellerweis beer , crisps and an enjoyable show !!

I’m not a Vulcan. :-)

The issue at hand is R-rated Star Trek.

People want to watch the show with their kids, not have f-ing tranny orgies and other SJW bullshiz.

Brian Fuller is a sick and twisted dude look at American Gods and what the hell he is doing with the Muslim gay scene with CGI kum shots and stuff. Seriously absolutely disgusting.

American Gods is based off a book he is adapting. Its a mature show that is suppose to be for adults. And its an amazing show but no not for everyone lol.

As for ‘SJW’ I guess that means they have gay stuff in it. Gay people exist like you do and have sex like you do. Get over it.

Except it Star Trek is going in this direction it’s going to be like every other dark gritty miserable dystopian science Fiction show out there except that or go in the Corner and cry.

You mean like DS9? Horrible version of the Trek vision IMO

well said Trek boi

We are going to end up with more guardians of the galaxy crap

Tate reveals his bigotry. Good to know.

Grittiness for gritties sake. Sigh! No problems with “grittier” when it serves the franchise and the story (I’m looking at you nuBSG, The Expanse). In the case of Trek I don’t think it serves either. Seems more like the trend dujour.

Well funny enough BSG is a perfect example. A franchise that was never considered “gritty” given a new flavor, and it excelled. The backlash to the re-imagining was loud and fierce from the older fans when it debuted.

BSG got accolades, but it was never a big hit. People forget that Enterprise actually got better ratings than BSG.

That’s a rather unfair comparison when you consider that BSG was on a 10pm on the Sci-Fi network. Enterprise was on an actual network.

BSG made a far, far greater impact (it is remembered as one of the greatest tv programs of all time) than Enterprise ever did.

@VOODOO Agreed. Cable and Network cannot be compared. Even Enterprise, on a newer network like UPN, could not be fairly compared to shows on the “big three” (ABC, CBS, NBC). Viewership numbers for networks and cable channels pale in comparison to those three. Even CW’s bigges shows today struggle to attract half the audience that a big show on CBS does.

Voodoo… No, Enterprise was on UPN, a network with far, far lower viewership than the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) or even Fox. UPN was in the end a failed network. By the way, I lived in two different cities during the time of UPN, and neither city (Colorado Springs and San Angelo) had a dedicated UPN affiliate. What time did I have to watch Voyager and Enterprise? 9pm on Sunday nights (10pm Eastern Time) after Fox programming on the local Fox channel.

I’m not arguing that BSG didn’t have a bigger impact, just that ‘a bigger impact’ doesn’t pay the bills. They need viewers, not awards. Maybe going ‘dark and gritty’ isn’t the answer here. In fact, how many ‘dark and gritty’ shows actually get big ratings? It seems to me that most have flopped.

@Thorny

BSG was consistently among Sci-Fi channel’s highest viewerships, particularly in 2004-2007. Viewership slowed in the final two seasons, but it still outperformed shows like Stargate.

Sci-Fi frequently referred to it as their flagship series, and said it was a tremendous success for them.

Torchwood… the last two seasons, it was outperformed by “Eureka” which was decidedly not dark and gritty. Maybe a lesson to be learned there?

Uh, story… Annihilation of the known human race. By definition “gritty.” I would say that the original BSG failed on that score. The tone did not fit the magnitude of the story. It was Star Wars-esque kiddy fare. The emotions and situations (e.g. “grittiness”) represented in the nuBSG are spot on given a mass genocide. Trek represents an optimistic ideal of a inquisitive, enlightened, and adventurous human race–grittiness just does not work well unless it is merely a jump on the bandwagon of the current zeitgeist. Sometimes TNG took the ideal a bit far–there can be action/adventure too. But “gritty Trek,” no. “Gritty BSG,” yes. One fits the story and overall concept of the show. The other doesn’t.

I’ve always found the Klingons to be pretty gritty. I found DS9’s Dominion War arc to be gritty. I’ve found the Xindi to be gritty. Year of Hell. Chain of Command. There are countless examples from all the series. “Gritty” is just a buzzword for drama. And if there ain’t drama, then what are we watching? Let Trek be gritty, but still be optimistic. Gritty is a tone, but optimism is a message.

“One fits the story and overall concept of the show. The other doesn’t.”

Voyager’s concept was very similar… so…? I’m not sure of your point– especially considering we don’t know the concept of Discovery.

Maybe I am using “gritty” as a synonym for “dark”, although in fairness I think it often is. In my opinion, Voyager should have been grittier than it was given the overall story concept. For a lost in space, survival-themed show things were rather hunky dory. All supply issues could be solved by Neelix foraging and cooking up a batch of soup. Power reserves never seemed like much an issue (let’s waste resources on the holodeck). Then there is the whole assimilation of the Macqui. In this regard nuBSG did much better. I think a bit of grit served DS9 given the emergence of the station from a conflict situation and the competition for the unique resource that was the wormhole. But I think a ship connected to the Federation in the usual way reflects a more “normal” situation for Starfleet personnel and Trek. Point taken that we don’t know much about Discovery yet, so I will give it a try once it emerges from the AllAccess ghetto. But the buzzword “gritty” makes me nervous. I’m tired of repetitious War Trek stories. I’d like to see some exploration and real, hard sci fi concepts mixed in with my adventure–and a reflection of the overall optimism that is, in my opinion, the soul of Trek. The hackneyed concepts I’d like to see Discovery avoid are: 1. big bad, unstoppable alien force of immense power, and obiligatory war arc 2. villain bent on revenge for reason ‘x’ 3. the destruction of our… Read more »

I watched every episode of nuBSG. It was absolute trash. It was a soap opera. I have no problem with adult content, but every show doesn’t need it. It is lazy in most cases. Can’t write a competent story, then throw in the sex and violence and call it “dark” to distract the easily distracted. nuBSG was crap. A convoluted story, and I use the term story very loosely, with idiotic twists and a plethora of hand waves whenever the inevitable contradictions occurred.

Star Trek SJW here we come!

Nicholas Meyer gives me some hope. Though I guess I won’t find out for awhile. Can’t justify “another” streaming service as much as I like Trek–especially one so skimpy on content.

Sex. Seriously? Why do we need full on sexual stuff in Star Trek? Lets keep sex down to appropriate levels. Star Trek should remain friendly to younger viewers in my opinion. Personally, I really hate sexual scenes anyway…

I don’t think there’s reason to panic when the show is being described as “grittier”. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was far “grittier” than anything seen on Trek before. Even Roddenberry didn’t like how militaristic it was. Regardless, TWOK is seen as the best of Trek by fans and non-fans alike. Then there was DS9, which showed a “grittier” side of Trek, but within the context of the show it made perfect sense. In fact, I’d say DS9 was truer to Trek than any of the other spin-offs.

I have a good feeling that the showrunners are going to treat Trek with the respect it deserves.

Yeah, a lot of fans in the 90s I knew hated DS9 for being “too dark”, “too grim and gritty” and claimed it “wasn’t real Trek.”

I remember those days when DS( came out and the TNG Fans hatted it saying shit like ”This is not TNG it’s to Dark and Gritty these people are not smiling all the time like in TNG this is a War series” or how about ”Sisko is a brute he is not Picard Sisko is quicker to pull out the Phasers this show is not Roddenberry’s vision.”

Action adventure, yes. War Trek, no. It has been done to death and is so formulaic. I’d like some creativity.

I loved TNG Best of Both Worlds, but it also ruined a lot of Trek. The _________________, an unstoppable alien force with special ability(ies), bent on conquest, is targeting the Federation. The Federation is getting crushed by the _____________________. After losing several battles our heroes finally outsmart the enemy and through pluck, determination and ingenuity (with a dose of TNG-esque technobabble) the Federation overcomes the ________________. Same with Wrath of Khan–loved it, but it also ruined a lot of Trek. ____________________ has a vendetta against Capt. ______________ or Starfleet or the Federation. ________________ will stop at nothing to avenge his ____________________. __________________ is unstoppable, but _________________ is not as smart and resourceful as he thinks he and is outsmarted by our heroes through a combination of smarts, inqenuity, pluck, and determination. Oh, and the Enterprise explodes or crashes at some point (again, loved Search for Spock where this had some emotional heft but now it is dropped in willy nilly to generate some “stakes”). All in all it is lazy storytelling–action/adventure formula. I’d love some story and dreaming. TOS had plenty of action/adventure but it also had a healthy dose of real science fiction instead of the playing the same trope all over again. That’s my two cents.

A true comment there , Torchwood ! But DS9 wasn’t at all dark and grim , but just a good Star Trek Series . In fact , it was a little darker visually !!

In comparison to much of TOS and TNG, DS9 was plenty gritty, particularly in the latter half– some very dark stories with ambiguous moral messages, and often ending on very dour notes.

It wasn’t played as cinematically as today’s gritty dramas, but the grit was there.

You did read the article, right? Where they said “we highly doubt” there will be lots of sex and/or nudity? Just that, if the story called for any, they would be allowed. I trust that it won’t be sex-ploitative like GOT, and if there is ANY at all, it will be something to serve the story.

Calm down you muggles. We haven’t seen a damn thing about this show yet. These are just buzz words to get you going. BTW I’m all for female nudity but I don’t need meat and two veg in my Star Trek.

Hack fraud.

I’m down for either. :) Heck, they could throw in some alien genitalia too.

Same, Ashley!

Yeah I feel the same way. Show some nudity if they must the world won’t stop spinning over it.

DS9 already did grittier, although pretty tame by today’s standards. But I know a lot of trek fans who didn’t like DS9 for that reason. Maybe this will be a great show but I think making it change a lot, too much like current shows would detract from it. Star Trek was about optimism for the future, people working together from different backgrounds to explore space and what it really meant to be human. As a lifelong Trekkie I really hope this is good.
As far as the nudity, if we bring that in, then I’ll pass.

If by grittier and dark we get the likes of DS9s:

THE QUICKENING
A CALL TO ARMS
IN THE PALE MOONLIGHT
THE SIEGE OF AR-558
INTER ARMA ENIM SILENT LEGES

Then, we’re in for one hell of a great show!!! Bring on the grit!

They half-assed the grit on DS9 to get the stories by producers who wanted a relatively fam-friendly show, but yeah, those were some FANTASTIC shows, and if they take that kind of story, and make it as high quality as something like True Detective, i’ll be very happy.

Not all Trek has to be the same.

“The people who are doing the show are not CBS executives, they are very talented showrunners.”

It’s interesting that a CBS executive took pains to be specific about this.

It is, isn’t it. Maybe this CBS exec knows that he doesn’t get Star Trek, but he’s aware that there’s something there people love?

I sure think he knows that his uber-boss doesn’t. And that perhaps the corporation has painfully learned enough about disruptors like Netflix to understand that their decades-long culture of meddlesome, all-hands-on supervision of their programming needs to take a step back if this experiment is to succeed.

I think of it as similar to how Microsoft created Xbox; nobody else at the company was allowed to dictate requirements to it.

How is a modern day series with 2017 “high production values” going to work as a prequel to TOS?

Why the hell didn’t they just do a series set sometime in the future of the original timeline instead of another prequel?

Because they are f***ing afraid.

Maybe because they wrongly assumed that Trek fans that preach openmindedness and tolerance would actually be openminded and tolerant about a new Trek show…

Because the prequel era held more appeal for the people writing the show. Simple as that. I really don’t care when it’s set, and I am so baffled that it’s such a big deal to so many.

Luckily, we don’t have to understand people’s closed-mindedness in order to enjoy the show. I do wish however, that everyone could enjoy it! It’s their loss, I guess. That is, if it’s truly the “good” show I hope it to be.

Setting it farther in the future, following what’s been established, would present it’s own writing difficulties. Not saying it’s impossible, but it does put viewers into less familiar territory. And by that I mean it becomes less human and less relatable.

Setting it in the future of Nemesis presents two big issues in my mind: 1) nearly all the major powers audiences are familiar with are at peace: Klingons, Romulans, even the Cardassians are all allies of the Federation. Sure, they could manufacture a new menace, but I think most mass audiences would be disappointed that the traditional “enemies” aren’t really enemies. I think TNG did a good job of using the Klingons as foils while still being allies, but even that gets old pretty fast. 2) the technology post-nemesis is pretty bland, and prior episodes set in the future have established an even more utopian universe than we saw in TNG-era. After 5 series, the writers pretty much wrote themselves into their own corner by making the technology so super-powerful that it solved any problem. Ultimately, it would take a lot of contrivances to create a universe that presented a compelling scenario for stories. Either that or some creative avenues would be needed. But creative avenues are needed for a prequel, too, so it’s pretty much a wash at that point, so i’m sure they asked themselves– all things being equal, which is a more fun playground for our writers? Again, all things being equal, I’d choose an era where the Klingons and Romulans are still advesaries, and technology is primitive enough so as to present real problems and creative solutions to story challenges, other than “remodulate the shields to multi-spectral frquency” or “activate a inter-fractal tachyon surge through the… Read more »

Come on Trek was never as exciting as when they “activated an inter-fractal tachyon surge through he quantum deflector matrix.” That was edge of the seat stuff. Despite the thrill I’ll add another point to my list of “hope they don’ts” for Discovery I listed above:

deus ex machina technobabble

I just don’t buy this excuse. What made DS9 any less ‘human and relatable’? You guys think too much about the technology aspect but the DS9 characters, even the non-human ones, were the most relatable to me outside of the entire franchise because they were written as flawed characters. Thats what drama is. Roddenberry wanted this utopia in the 24th century and everyone is perfect. That was done away with by third season of TNG. Even Voyager no one on that ship was unrelatable. You couldn’t have a beer with Tom, Be’lanna or Chakotay?

I don’t know where does this argument come from? Do people think another 100 years difference humans will all act like Data? Civilization has been around thousands of years now, yes we evolved but we’re still not that different than humans several thousand years ago in terms of basic emotions. My guess in another thousand years, we’ll be smarter and more innovative but there will still be racists, war mongerers, deadbeats, killers and everything else under the sun as today. Hopefully not as much of it but it will always exist.

You kind of mistook what I was saying and ran with it… I mean less human in a very literal sense. You go farther into the future, you have an even bigger Federation. What are the chances that you’re going to have a mostly human crew anymore? In fact, it’d start becoming more likely that you’d only have a few humans if any on many ships. It no longer becomes alien crew dealing with humans, it becomes aliens interacting with other aliens or the occasional human. Think about Spock, or Data (android, not alien, but still..), or any of the alien characters that have to integrate into a human crew. As a writing device, they’re used as an outside perspective on humanity, which is really what Star Trek stories are about.. human issues. If you’re writing an all alien crew, you’re writing a whole different thing and that can be tricky for a writer. Think Farscape. They had to come up with a lot of different alien races interacting, and so they went very heavy on the human element of John Crichton because he was familiar.. the relatable character. His humanity actually ended up humanizing the alien characters more. Again, it’s not impossible to write, but it becomes more difficult, unless you write the alien characters as being more human-like than they actually would be, which is actually what already happens unfortunately… Otherwise, Torchwood got it right. The technology is a big obstacle. People complain about continuity all the time,… Read more »
Sorry I still don’t buy this argument. You act like its 5000 years into the future or something. Its up to the writers end of the day, why do people keep forgetting this? If they want to have an mostly human crew in the 26th century it will be a mostly human crew. If they want to have a more alien crew in the 23rd century, yeah, guess what? I just think people over think this stuff. Star Trek ISN’T real and I mean by that (since everyone knows that) is that this projection people have a future farther out is all just made up hokum at the end of the day JUST like the stuff presented in the 23rd century. They can present it HOWEVER they want. There is no guidebook to any of it. But people talk about it as if its a fact. Again its just based on the writers. I mean last time I checked the KT films for instance took place in the 23rd century and yet they manage to build not only personal transporters but one that can zip you across half a quadrant…from Earth. I have never seen that in the 24th century shows. Did you see the Yorktown base in Beyond? Has anyone ever seen something that advanced in the 24th century? My point? IT DEPENDS ON THE WRITERS!!! Period. And GUESS WHAT Discovery will probably have some super advanced techno thing too because everyone is just coming up with cool things… Read more »
Yes, it’s fiction. Writers can come up with anything they want as long as it can get made. But that’s not the issue here. I’m simply suggesting what the challenges would be in writing a series set in Trek’s future based on people’s canon requirements. What you suggest is that canon and rules don’t matter, only what the writer’s come up with, and that’s exactly what so many people complain about here with setting something before or during a time that’s been established. I personally have no problem with changes. In fact, I’d be fine with setting something farther in the future, but I think they’d have to find a way to reset canon in a way that won’t keep their hands tied. Building upon canon isn’t anything new, especially for any long-running series (and especially with anime). However, it makes it less accessible to new audiences and casual viewers who may have missed a few eps or a whole series which would explain some of the current plot points or story arcs. But that’s the problem. Many people here that complain about changes and want it set in the future, want something that is inaccessible to others and fits perfectly with canon, regardless of the logistics of making such a thing. As someone who’s seen most of Trek in all it’s forms, I could point out things like the Enterprise-J, which had Xindi as part of the crew, and the interior had a very Cardassian design influence. So by… Read more »
I guess I just disagree with those ‘challenges’ thats all. They made nearly 500 episodes of the 24th century. There are tons of sci fi novels and stories that take place much farther in the future. No offense to people here but just because you don’t have the imaginations to pull it off doesn’t mean others don’t. I mean I suspect when TOS first came around, writing a show several years in the future probably seem like a challenge at the time. They figured it out. No matter what century they set these shows in there will always be people to figure it out. And again they can write the 26th century how they wanted. This is the problem with Trek fans, there was a five minute scene in Enterprise mentioning the Xindi and now that means they would have to have some big pressence on the show. No, not at all, all it means is we know they are part of Starfleet now. It doesn’t mean you have to even show them. And there could be tons more aliens, it doesn’t mean every ship has to have tons of more aliens though. Some ships could have less than what we seen in other shows. Of course what’s funny is DS9 had the most aliens than any other show. There were more alien characters than humans. There were only 3 main human characters on that show: Sisko, Bashier, Jake and O’Brien. The rest were in fact all aliens: Kira, Dax,… Read more »

Oh and never seen Farscape, not even a preview of it. Only heard about it.

Farscape is difficult to take at first…first episode and the music is horrible. But it becomes a very good sci-fi series. More creepy and deadly than most. It grows on you. (Make sure you wikipedia the proper episode order)

Because the way a set looks has nothing to do with where it falls in canon continuity. Saavik was played by two different people in back to back movies. How was that even possible? Holy disaster Batman!

Because they say that if they do a Post Voyager series nothing could challenge the Federation because they would be too powerful.

Eierlegende Wollmilchsau. (?)

Genau!

I’m not a fan of graphic lingering violence which seems to excite Hollywood Producers and directors . But I do like a Series with sexy men and women in it . In Voyager , a nude Janeway and Chakotay would have cheered me up . And there are some very nice scenes in Enterprise with a petite yet yearning Vulcan , but they missed out on the bare-chested Captain . Hopefully Discovery has some of that !

Star Trek: Discovery should be a PG 13 or higher rating. An adult themed sci-fi show on demand pay channel.

The CBS Producers seem to be saying Discovery is an adult-themed Series , Carl !

I would LOVE that. Yeah bring it! At the very least I would like the language to be a bit more adult like the films. This is actually one of the reasons I’m glad its on a streaming site and not on goody two shoes CBS. The Good Fight drops the F bomb (from what I’m told) it would be nice we can get a more adult Trek show as well.

I’m not a prude, but I just don’t think Trek is better served graphic. I’ve been watching ‘American Gods,’ which is good, but there’s no doubt that the sex scenes are explicit for the sole purpose of titillating the audience. I remember some from the book; others look grafted on. I’d hate to see Trek pander like that. I am looking forward to seeing a really fine TV treatment.

Man this is ALL good news to me! As much as I still have my doubts on it, especially being a prequel, I have to say this is exactly what I wanted to hear regardless of the time period. I want Trek to CHANGE, to do something different, to be push the envelope when it has to, to shake things up. THIS is why DS9 is my favorite show because it did all that and more. Discovery doesn’t have to be GOT to get me excited, if its DS9 in terms of doing something different I’m already sold. And no it doesn’t have to be dark or about war, I don’t mean in THAT sense (but fine with it) but just have a different tone and feel. I loved the fact Sisko wasn’t a Captain and was raising a son. I loved it was on a space station. I loved a Ferengi was on the show. I loved that antagonists was just as much of the show as the heroes. I loved it dealt head on with religion (I’m an atheist) and politics. I loved the morality grey stories. The fact the show was serialized. These were things I could never imagine on TOS and TNG which were more sanitized (although both had some of these moments for sure). Loved them both, but I didn’t want a dozen spin offs all doing the same thing. Voyager TRIED to be a bit more gritty but it basically became TNG in the… Read more »

Lost me at premium cable shows. If you think these supposedly great cable shows on nowadays are better than shows of yesteryear, I mean your entitled to your own opinion but that’s not for me. Hollywood still struggles trying to plaster a hip new tone or style to literally everything. Movies are still trying to recuperate from every franchise trying to make their new reboot “The Dark Knight of….”. It happened with tv shows 15 years ago with Lost and now it’s Game of Thrones. I can’t stand this type of thinking. How about trying to be different and do what you want to do. Even though I’m not a huge fan of the Marvel movies they were the one studio who didn’t succumb to the “darker, grittier, more realistic” approach every other one did.

I seriously doubt Discovery will reach GoT or TWD type of gore, nudity or violence. I think they know their audience well enough since the dark and gritty Into Darkness is panned by fans.

I’m kind of undecided when it comes to dark, gritty Trek on the level of those “premium cable shows” that flock in by the dozen these days. On the one hand, I want DSC to do well, so I guess it has to take a cue from The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Westworld, American Gods etc., but on the other hnad: would that still be Star Trek? Bloodily going where all the other non-Trek genre shows had gone before? There is one thing nobody should be worried about though. Lots of posters mention they want Trek to remain “family-friendly”… I would subscribe to that notion a lot, if it was my call to pick the TV programs for 11-17-year-olds. Unfortunately, it ain’t! Take a deep breath and adapt to the sad truth: the kids are already watching TWD, GoT, Westworld etc. While these shows are not INTENDED for them, that didn’t keep them from watching. This may worry some conservative parents or teachers, but on the long run, it’s a development that cannot be stopped. One more Star Trek show adding to that “disaster” won’t make a difference…TWD and GoT are the most popular shows among teenagers and even younger kids love zombie make-up these days. “Naked Klingons” are the least I’m worried about while there are man-eating female reproductive organs on our TV set for everybody to see… It was a development once was started by Firefly, NuBSG and Lost that has gotten out of control more than… Read more »

Star Trek SJW baby!

WE’ll have tranny sex, lesbian sex, sex between inner species. Hell if the fans complain enough there might even be heterosexual sex….doubt it though.

By season 3 we’ll have the interacial interspecies orgy.

Yeah baby!!!!

Now you’re getting it. Maybe there will be an Antifa riot in the mess hall to get safe spaces away from privileged white male ship captains

Man I hate it when an executive describes a show as intelligent and gritty. It often takes itself too seriously and turns out poorly.

Here’s to hoping they strike the right balance.

I love how every generation of Trek says this one will be “grittier.” DS9 was “grittier” than TNG. ENT season 3 was going to be “grittier” than seasons 1 and 2, with an edgier, angrier version of Archer. “Gritty” in pop cinematic sci-fi has also always been the aesthetics of Star Wars, often personified in the Millennium Falcon being a “bucket of bolts” vs. the various iterations of the Enterprise (epitomized by the NCC-1701-D bridge being a 1980s Hilton Lobby in Space). Whatever it means for Discovery, apart from the dirt-under-the-fingernails realism of “Game of Thrones,” is anyone’s guess.

‘ … very high production value, and grittier, the way a lot of premium cable shows are today. ”

Oh Dear. You can kiss any hopes of seeing anything new and creative goodbye!

In their own words, it’s going to be just like “… the way a lot of premium cable shows are today.”
Basically, they’re completely lost and they’re going to take the “zero risk” path.

I just hope it captures the optimism and tone of the original series. I don’t know if grittier is the right thing for Star Trek. I find that the most successful sequel series’ really capture what made the original version great, while still updating it for the modern times.

The best example I can think of is Dallas TNT. The writers of that show really knew their stuff, and managed to bring in 3 original characters, making them important, but not forgetting that there should be newer characters to take the reigns and carry the show. It was a perfect mix of old and new, and exactly where the show should be had it never gone off the air.

In a completely different genre, I think Fuller House has also done a great job capturing what made the original show special while having a great time.

If this show is supposed to be a true prequel, then they have to really know their prime universe canon, and the show should FEEL like the Captain Pike era.

“Gritty,” huh? I hope they’re careful with how they do that, since part of what I like about Star Trek is that the Federation is generally a nicer society than the one we live in.

The federation is a nicer society, but members outside the federation aren’t. The Klingons and Romulans were pretty gritty in TOS, as compared to the generic quality they took on in TNG. So was Harry Mudd for that matter. Unless they change the character of the Starship crew, then I don’t see a problem being grittier …

Yes, Curious Cadet, it does depend on WHAT they make grittier; I hope you’re right and that it’s the non-Feds that will be “gritty.”

wpDiscuz
Advertisment ad adsense adlogger