Shuttle Pod 36 – Star Trek: Discovery Trailer Reaction

At the edge of the universe, discovery begins… and you get there on a shuttlepod…

Subscribe to Shuttle Pod: The Podcast on iTunes, Google Play Music and Pocket Casts!

Recorded the night of big Star Trek: Discovery trailer release (May 17), the Shuttle Pod crew, joined by fellow TrekMovie editor Matt, discuss their first thoughts on the trailer. This podcast was made fresh and delivered hot and ready just for our loyal listeners.

We break down our thoughts on the cast, the style and design of the new show, the visual effects, and discuss what the trailer may be revealing to us about the plot of the show. We also discuss a certain other sci-fi show premiering this fall, Seth MacFarlane’s The Orville, which released a trailer of its own this week and is clearly targeted at Star Trek fans.


Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Gene Roddenberry had an uncompromising vision for the future, and added to it after TOS with TNG. Lightning struck twice against all odds.

Unfortunately Trek is recently in the hands of people who have an uncompromising need for nostalgia. They want to revisit their childhood show and have no interest in pushing further in to the future and the unknown.

For the last 13 years we’ve all had to sit through their prequels. The more money they throw at them, the harder they fall. STD was doomed the moment the word “prequel” was assigned. It’s toast, it’s for an older generation and all but the hard core fans.

STD had the budget to end all budgets. They could have imagined a progression of technology and society like no other, grounded believable theatrical magic in current scientific theory far beyond the touch screen TNG era when flat screens, indeed touch screens and computers with any degree of fluid voice interactions seemed so far ahead that 400 years seemed optimistic.

Well right now the space age is finding it’s legs again, commercial spaceflight has gone from a pipe dream to casual facebook videos of rockets landing and car sized robots on Mars in less than a decade.

What do we get instead of pushing the boundaries once more? Another attempt at clawing on to TOS.

It seems to me that we’re not going to be able to move forward again until the current generation of TOS fans completely obsessed with nostalgia are gone. Maybe in 20-40 years someone will come forward and state their case for doing something radically different, unshackled by the past and not afraid to be bold, but respectfully familiar enough to genuinely appear to be linked to it’s heritage.

It’s just a damned shame that this opportunity to do just that has clearly happened before it’s time and squandered by the prequel generation unable to let go of the past.

Star Trek TNG TNG would be a bore. Everyone at peace, free energy, all wanting to be like perfect socialist humans. Going to Andromedia… looks a lot like the Milky Way only now our ships go warp 9.9999999999 and have super shields where the only thing left to do is become non corpual Metrons.

TNG was a Bore.

TNG was NOT a bore.

It’s one of the best sci-fi series in the history of TV. Period.

The first season, I’ll give you that but TNG was probably one of the best sci-fi shows on tv in the last 30 years

Ehh, TNG was shit while Riker was beardless. Once that grew in it became iconic TV.

I have to agree. TNG was a snorefest. Let’s have boring cardboard cutouts talk the audience to death with mindless technobabble, re-arranging the sensor array every other episode to solve some ridiculous problem…while an even more ridiculous B-story occupied almost half the episode. And heaven help should they argue with one another…much less have a fistfight or sex. Post TMP Trek has evolved beyond that…..yawwwn. Instead of writing it like a science fiction series (namely one from 1966 called Star Trek), it was usually written like one of Scotty’s technical manuals. Sure there were shining examples of TNG’s potential…Inner Light…Yesterday’s Enterprise…but out of the, literally, hundreds of hours of yakety-yak…those examples, sadly, were the exception rather than the rule. The LAST thing they need to do is pattern the series after TNG. Unless they only want the handful of TNG fans who supported Nemesis and Enterprise to tune in.

HEY, nothing wrong with Socialism.

From a friendly European to an American.

Unless (sadly) one lives in Venezuela

That’s less of a failure of socialism and more of a failure of one particular socialist government that reacted to every crisis in exactly the wrong way

One can’t expect a monkey to understand human society and technology. Equally, you’re not able to understand a society based on such (still utopian) principles, which most certainly will become reality some day. (btw people once thought flying is utterly impossible, and they even thought that the Earth is flat).

Wow, this guy doesn’t shut up, does he?

Lol Look what happened after Voyager… (screwed up ENT which could have been awesome) and then ST 2009 (screwed up with Kahn). Got to keep up the pressure or the studios ignore lessons learned.

You think his comments are going to “keep pressure” on them? I don’t even think HE thinks that, he’s just a goofball moaning on a Star Trek website because his mom upstairs doesn’t want to hear it anymore.

It’s funny because I’m a VP and engineer with three kids and it’s a miracle I still care about Trek after the boredom that was VOY. And just because in like 1986 the CBC would show ST:TAS when I was like 6 and then my Dad watched TOS and the movies with me. Wagon Train to the Stars on the frontier will always be more exciting then utopia humans who have it easy. I’m not even saying the utopia is bad – I’m saying it makes for a snoozer series where the crew is so bored of the universe they play in their holodeck.

I’m all for the utopia but what the rest of the galaxy isn’t going to be the same so it’s good to see those ideals tested when you have a fleet of Klingon ships facing you! Star Trek as much as I like it. When you watch it back now. VoY is pretty dull. The last few seasons of DS9 were some of th best and we’re gritty. TNG even had Drama and if made today would have been so much better without FX or budget restraints


“…the crew is so bored of the universe they play in their holodeck…” that is exactly what was wrong with it, too much navel-gazing. I wish Star Trek would un-invent holodecks and the transporter, and that they would HAVE to make land-fall on a planet for some R&R shore leave, and show a massive task force of engineers under-taking the Herculean task of Terra-forming a less-than-ideal planet. DS9 shot some drama and honest-to-goodness conflict into that era (one way to un-invent the transporter is to have several disasterous battles where away teams and entire regiments of landing parties were captured, due to “signal capture”, thus rendering the transporter militarily useless).

I agree 100% with you.i been saying TOS needs to buried in history and never be heard of again.
I hope Paramount never does another Star Trek movie until they agree to do something new and different. Right now Star Trek is just another Scfi show or movie like any other out there.i do disagree with you on one point.I and many others were around when the TOS aired for the first time.I know as great as that show was,I have had enough of Kirk and Spock.You want the TOS buy the DVD’s or Blu-rays and enjoy.But let that era rest in peace and move on.Fans that love TOS let it go.If you really want Star Trek to go on and at the same time get the Trek you desire,let TOS go!

Nemesis bombed in 2002, that was a TNG movie. Enterprise bombed in 2005, that was a TOS (-100 years) Prequel with completely new characters. DS9 and VOY while they have their fans, the wider world do not care much for at all.

TOS was very successful, right through until TUC in 1991. So, maybe this is the reason that CBS choose to stay with that period and around those characters today…

Star Trek is Kirk and Spock. All others are simply spin offs…some better than others….some fashioned closely to resemble their namesake, some are far removed. The world knows TOS and JJ’s TOS-centric movies made more money than the TOS or TNG movies could ever dream of. Trek is a business, you’re not ever going to bury TOS. Sorry, but that’s just wishful thinking.

What the “world knows” is that after its shaky beginnings TNG became the most successful Trek TV series ever made, by far, in terms of viewership and its cultural impact while it was still in production. You can dislike the series all you like, and as someone who grew up on TOS I happen to prefer it myself. But facts are facts.

What makes Star Trek so unique is that it appeals to a diverse audience, and for many different reasons. What appeals to you may not appeal to someone else. Star Trek is not some vision set in stone. It is a living, breathing entity, forever evolving. You see Star Trek Discovery as a rehash of what you find boring, therefore limiting yourself to the possibilities that stem from the short trailer.
Gene Rodenberry knew one day that he would pass, and Star Trek would live on forever, so he wrote a bible that explains what Star Trek is, and where he would like to see it go, and although the powers that be have felt the need to go outside the established “Commandments”, the franchise has come this far, in spite of all the people that said, “This idea won’t work,” and “The acting is stiff.” Star Trek has managed to thrive, because it offers something to EVERYONE, including you. That’s why your here, arguing your point. Because you LOVE Star Trek, and want to see it as you think it should be. I know, because I’m like that myself- to a point, but I have faith that Star Trek will continue to thrive, and ST Disc. will exceed all of our expectations.

I think they were inspired by my old high school band class. They look ridiculous. But ain’t all that shiny gold and silver purty!

Don’t much care for them myself, truth be told. But they may grow on me, and in any case, it’s hardly a deal-killer, as I don’t like the TWOK and FIRST CONTACT-style unis either.

Wow. Did I understand someone say the uniforms looks more like JJs TREK? Did I misunderstand this comment? I think it’s pretty clear they are modeled after ENTERPRISE uniforms.

There’s a lot of blue in JJ Trek too, which is also inspired by ENT ;-)

Heck there’s a lot blue in The Cage, and let’s not forget TMP which is a direct return to The Cage color schemes.

Enter Prize
I appreciate that you have a thesis to your argument, but what’s missing is the reason why prequels per se are bad. ENT and the Bad Robot Trek movies are very different. I don’t see any evidence of excessive “nostalgia” in ENT and certainly not in the BR movies. The BR movies use superficial things from TOS—-names mostly—-as callbacks, in an attempt to establish Trek-cred with fans of TOS. But, I wouldn’t call that nostalgia. And neither did I get any sort of overly nostalgic feeling from ENT. I agree with you that the BR movies have been largely a travesty, and I don’t think of them as Star Trek, because they only resemble Star Trek in their most superficial attributes—-names, likenesses and backstories. But, the problem is not that they’re prequels. I don’t know how you came up with that as a diagnosis. The problem with the BR movies is that Paramount has been trying to turn Trek into a Marvel-like franchise. They’ve been chasing audiences who never liked Star Trek, and making their Star Trek movies as un-Star-Trek as possible (to wit: ST09 was sold as “not your father’s Star Trek”)in order to win those audiences—-and overtly rejecting actual Star Trek fans in the process. The problem with ENT was totally different. Those who called it “franchise fatigue” were basically correct, though the fatigue was on both sides of the camera.

Agreed, on all counts.

I understood that you would want a new Star Trek series in the 26th century … like Star Trek Uncharted. Me too. But this STD may be the first step to that, I hope. Have you seen? ….

So what you’re saying is that you’re excited for the new show?

I don’t think we’re clear about your opinions yet. Perhaps you could create a newsletter we could all subscribe to?

While I completely respect that view, I don’t view the time period as a limitation to great storytelling. In comparison, the Star Wars prequels weren’t bad because of the time period, it was bad because it was bad storytelling. I know the concept of a “prequel” is overplayed, but its not a death sentence.
If the characters and the dynamic between the characters are interesting and serve a good story, this show will thrive. That is true of any series of any genre.
This really just comes down to the time era you prefer. It already looks better than anything Voyager put out. My own taste is of the classic era, but If this were set 100 years after TNG, and the trailer looked as cinematic and as promising as Discovery, I’d be happy with that too. It’s Star Trek.

I’m late to the whole new trailer discussion around here, but I’ll be brief…

Here’s what I know – the classic TOS show was a wonderful product of it’s time, with it’s own unique aesthetic, tone, sense of fun, and watchable characters.

Now this STAR TREK DISCOVERY spin-off *may* end up being a worthwhile watch eventually…but never in a million light-years will I be able to look on it as being a supposed prequel to the TOS show set in the same ‘prime universe’…no matter what the makers claim.

So I’m not even going to try. Like certain other ‘official’ canon TREK product, I’ll just ignore it’s ‘stardates’ and merely imagine it to be set in some ‘ALTERNATIVE universe’, where the ‘Kirk’, ‘Spock’, and ‘Enterprise’ that the trailer refers to are NOT the actual ‘prime’ TOS ones, but ‘alternate universe’ versions in fact.

This way, I’ll be able to enjoy this show (if it’s any good) without every ‘re-imagining’ getting on my nerves along the way. I doubt that it is shaping up to have anywhere near the same sense of overall fun that the original TOS show had, and the laughs certainly seem thin on the ground judging by this trailer. But if the storyline is sombre, that’s fine…but I sure hope some of the actors in this will be as watchable as the original crew were, to keep everyone interested.

I’ve come to accept might need to come to that if only so we can one day see the ENT potential realized – post ww3 earth must get its act together and work with strange aliens or end up nuked by Romulans cut off from dilithium where landing parties can’t just beam themselves up or set phasers to stun

I love this trailer and I’m thrilled at the prospect of new adventures with this crew. Seeing the new ship designs, alien races, and crewmembers had me pumping my fist with excitement. I’m intrigued the stories that are being set up with a Klingon conflict and the relationship between Sarek and Burnham. I love the updated look of the uniforms and bridge. While the Klingons looked different, they always look different. No big deal. The look of the show is amazing and reflects the type of production values that few TV shows can match. The sets and stories are being updated for modern audiences. The producers are embracing the brave new world of TV and Trek fans should to. For those that want slavish devotion to TOS, check out Star Trek Continues or just rewatch TOS. As for me, I’m all in. Can’t wait until the journey begins this fall!

The Klingon’s didn’t even look the same episode to episode of TNG.

Agreed and TNG is beloved. ST is all about boldly going forward, not getting stuck in the past. I hope all ST fans will just give DSC a chance to succeed or fail on its own merits once they see it. The trailer looks pretty damn awesome to me and I can’t wait for more!

I’m perfectly happy that they upgraded the Klingon look. Come on! Nemesis’ make-up work was god awful, showing the very edges of what you could do with increasingly high def video/film. Try taking a shot every time you see an appliance edge; you’ll wind up in the ER. It’s fine, too, if those are ancient Klingons. But, the present day make-up job had better be good. I’m also glad to predict modern storytelling; that is, long arcs. Anyway, I think we have to watch and see.

My Concern is lack of humor. Star Trek has always been laced with moderate humor and not constantly brooding like a batman series.

There’s no lightheartedness in this and looks grim.

The Orville created a better emotional response than this trailer.

My guess is there will be some humor when Harry Mudd appears.

@CD — and I have a problem with this too. Harry Mudd was not a comic figure when he first appeared in MUDDS WOMEN. Cyrano Jones now, was a comic figure. I hope they keep Mudd suitably dark and dangerous.

How so? I think you may need to re-watch “Mudd’s Women,” because that’s not the episode I remember at all. Lots of moments involving Mudd’s character (“Incorrect!”) are played strictly for laughs.

The Orville looks like crap. It looks like A MILLION WYS TO DIE IN THE WEST, set in space. Sophomoric crap starring the worst actor in Hollywood.

Agreed. It’s like, look at us, we’re gritty and all serious now!! Removal of the fun factor removes the kids and that’s always a shame because kids LOVED TOS. They played it outside, bought the toys…AS toys,not collectibles. Hook a kid and you have a fan for life. (a play from the Lucas playbook and one that Trek would be well served to borrow).
The acting looks very stilted and you’re right, it was completely devoid of any feeling of humor or fun.

Two minutes out of a two-hour pilot. Do you think a preview of “City on the Edge of Forever” would have featured the “mechanical rice picker” scene–and, if it had, would it have given a fair impression of the finished episode?

Jesus, relax.

It didn’t look like fun to me either. My baseline comparison is the third and final trailer for ST09. Now THAT was a fun trailer. Every time I see it I get goosebumps, between the visuals and the powerful dialogue. It looked like a blast, and it made me so proud to be a Trekkie. This trailer by comparison made me cringe. And that’s more or less just the trailer’s fault; I have no issue with what I actually see on the screen, aside from the weak acting.

The Reason why they can’t movie forward is because in 2006 the rights have been split when CBS and Paramount went there separate ways. When CBS and Paramount Split CBS took the rights to TNG and it’s spin offs and Paramount took the rights to TOS and the movies including the TNG movies, so the rights are so split that neither CBS or Paramount and move forward to TNG Era or beyond. But I hear all that is going to change after Star Trek 4,I hear that Paramount and CBS are in talks to become one company and the rights will be merging as well so they could move forward and we can get a Post Nemesis series.

You’ve got that a bit mixed up. Everything about Star Trek on television is owned by CBS, in fact just about everything related to Trek is something CBS has control over, such as product licensing. The current CBS entity owns anything made by Desilu, Paramount Television, UPN, etc.

The current version of Paramount (now just a movie studio) has a cross licensing agreement with CBS for the TOS and TNG movies. Remember those characters originated on a TV show first, so CBS pretty much holds all cards there.

You’re also behind on the news a bit, the Paramount/CBS re-merger talks were very brief and never very serious, and fell through some months back. Les Moonves (the man in charge of CBS) has no interest in merging back.

Do you think we will ever go Post Voyager?

Since Voyager ended theres been a sequel (Nemesis), a TV prequel (ENT) a movie reboot of TOS, and now another prequel TV series.

I’m sure if the franchise survives another few shows or movie series’ we’ll see something past Nemesis.

Matt Wright is correct. CBS owns ALL of television Trek; Paramount only has the right to make movies.

@DS9 — talk about Fake News. Matt is being kind, you don’t know the first thing about which you’re representing factual knowledge here. And your reasoning is beyond specious.

Why didn’t they do the voyages of Captain Pike? It is well known that Spock served on the Enterprise with him for eleven years. I think that would have been far more interesting than this lame PC attempt that ignores cannon. In “Turnabout Intruder” it was established that no woman had become a star fleet captain at the time. How am I supposed to watch this show that pre dates that episode and ever take it seriously again? I am not against woman being in command or anything, but at least with Voyager, Capt. Janeway was AFTER that episode not before. The only way this new show makes sense is if is in the reboot universe. I will always maintain that Star Trek spinoffs must stay true to the original 79 episodes. Do what you want, but don’t contradict the original, which this new show is slapping us in the face with. For those Star Trek fans that crave adventures past the Nero/Spock time anomaly, might I suggest Star Trek online. It is a MMO game that begins in the 23rd century, but than takes you past when Spock was lost in the singularity. Free to play and YOU get to be the captain. Been playing for seven years and would rather play that than watch this contradiction to cannon. Just saying.

Michael Markall,

Re: …no woman had become a star fleet captain at the time.

This is false. Dr. Lester was very specific that it was the captaincies of the prestigious non-experimental STARSHIPS that were an all boys club. That is NOT the same thing as NO women captains in Starfleet. They simply would be captains of other, less prestigious and well-tested, vessels in the fleet.

And that probably means, that women captains of that era looking to break that particular glass ceiling volunteered to captain untested experimental cutting edge designs which I believe ENTERPRISE already demonstrated in the case of the NX-01.

@Disinvited — While I appreciate the distinction you are trying to make, Lester never stated that starship captains were an “all boys club”. There is no evidence whatsoever that women were not allowed to be starship captains, nor that all then current starships were only captained by men. Moreover, it doesn’t make any sense for her to even mean that — Lester wanted to be with Kirk, so having a captaincy of her own would mean being separated from him. What I think is clear by context is that Lester meant that Kirk’s world of Starship Captains, doesn’t allow for relationships. In the sexist language of the 1960s that translated into: Lester is a woman, Kirk is a man, Kirk’s relationship with his ship doesn’t accommodate a woman too. She’s very specific — it’s Kirk’s “world”, he’s a straight man, and has no room for a woman. There may be female captains of starships, but she’s not talking about them — though she likely intends the same applies generally speaking as if she were using the accepted third person pronoun of “him” — no spouses, no families, no one other than the starship.

Curious Cadet,

Interesting line of reasoning, but taking over his body and killing him in hers would not accomplish your speculated goal of HER being with him either.

Besides, she makes her goal clear here:

JANICE KIRK: James Kirk is returning to consciousness in the body of Janice Lester. The Enterprise is proceeding to its next mission, on the course set before I took over command. Now the years I spent studying every single detail of the ship’s operation will be tested. With a little experience, I will be invulnerable to suspicion. At last I attain what is my just due. Command of a starship. All the months of preparation now come to fruition.

Command of a starship is what she is after and prepared to kill for — NOT forcing Kirk to be with her.

“Command of a starship is what she is after and prepared to kill for — NOT forcing Kirk to be with her.”


Even if it was definitively stated that “women aren’t allowed to be Captains in Starfleet” or “No woman has ever been a captain in Starfleet” — how could they be expected to adhere to that in 2017?

And i’m not talking about being PC– just that, how believable is it that 300 years from now, with over 100 years of Starships NO woman would have risen to the rank of Captain?

We have women Presidents and Prime Ministers, women CEOs, women in the military achieving high ranks TODAY– I don’t think it’s believable that NO woman would have been a captain by Kirk’s time, let alone any policy existing that would bar them from attaining that rank.

Seriously, people, at some point we have to stop expecting new Trek material to adhere precisely to TOS, a show that said there were Eugenics wars in the 1990s, a World War III in 2025.

I think it was cute that Enterprise tried to maintain some of that, but we can’t hold on to all of Trek’s “history” too closely given that it was written in a VERY different time.


I believe, back in college, my History, Physical Anthropology and Philosophy instructors all taught me that no matter how egalitarian a tribe or society evolves to become that cataclysmic events with horrendous death tolls along the lines of a WW III or a Earth-Romulan War cause primitive instincts to manifest in humans in regards to protecting the child bearers.

Too bad the regime change has almost certainly killed the KT. It would be interesting to see if writers would explore what the remains of Vulcan society might “logically” do along those lines?

@Michael Markall — That’s a pretty petty reason not to watch. “Turnabout Intruder” is also the subject of much debate. And if you’re going to paraphrase, try not to taint it with your own bias. The phase spoken in the episode is “Your world of starship captains doesn’t admit women.” An alternate reading of that line is that there’s no room for a relationship with her (or any other woman), in Kirk’s world of starship captains. Indeed it’s been stated several times, in various ways, that Kirk is “married” to the Enterprise. This then is the most logical reason for Janice Lester’s statement. Lester wanted a relationship with Kirk, not to command a ship of her own, which would take her away from Kirk. Nowhere was it ever established that no women were ever given command of a starship. Indeed, ENT already spoils that canon, to the extent it were true — which it obviously is not.

How can you “stay true to the original 79 episodes” when they don’t even stay true to each other! How many ships like the Enterprise were in the fleet? 12? 14? Was it General Order 4 or 7 that’s the only death penalty left on the books? Are they called shields or screens? Seriously, it’s impossible to beholden to a moving target. Just let them do their own thing.

ENT was a wonderful show. STD will be a great show. But both don’t work/will not work as prequels. That’s the problem. 10 years “before” Kirk and Spock and the NCC1701 is nonsens. Because the NCC1701 already existed in the time period of STD. Spock, Pike, Kirk were in service in this time. Spock and Pike served on the NCC1701, Kirk on the U.S.S. Farragut.

If you want to present a modern look and new storylines you have to produce a sequel, not a prequel.

I still hope the trailer sets us on a wrong track. Maybe it is a time travel or a ship from a different timeline. But I doubt the producers are clever enough to confuse and surprise us. The trailer was an act of desparation because they had to deliver something. Until now they have only produced a few episodes and the effects are not final. The “Discovery” and its crew didn’t even appear.

Nobody wants to go back to the 60s. But I think, most people don’t want ENT 2.0 with Xindi-Klingons and stories/uniforms that do not fit in the time of TOS.

“STD will be a great show.”

Then nothing else should matter. You just ended the discussion.

I wonder if Comm. Burnham was partially raised on Vulcan after her starfleet officer parents were killed in action? Sarek then helped sponsor her education.

I like this theory! I’ve been going back and forth in my mind on whether she has any Vulcan lineage or not. I do think it would be interesting to see a part-Vulcan who is decidedly human in thought-processes and culture.

I’m going with my own theory that the Commander is Spock , and that Sarek is in denial about his affair with Amanda Grayson and their love child !

The bit where you’re talking about the aging fan base:

“Is it possible that we…have grown so old and so inflexible that we have outlived our usefulness?”

That sadly, sums up a lot of Trek fans today, judging by some of the irrational hatred directed at DSC, despite not even seeing the full show yet.

Well said!

No it doesn’t , SJ ! Most trekkies just want an ongoing story that has continuity . Since 2005 , the Franchise has only offered updated unrelated movies to the long-running Star Trek Saga . Though it is true to say , that some commentors are always completely irrational .

Look at cars. If you had to “devolve” them with only the 2017 models as a guide and no knowledge of what came before, how would models look 20, 50, 100 years ago? Not even close to what they actually were.

I think it’s very possible, too, that we won’t even see the USS Discovery for several episodes. I don’t know if Michelle Yeoh is a redshirt, or whether she’ll go off in the Shenzhou. As for The Orville, it looks like TNG with a glossy big-budget make-over. It’s odd to see the too-tight marching band uniforms and IKEA beige bridge alongside state-of-the-art cg starship effects. I love McFarland when he is awake. My knock on Family Guy — and why I seriously quit the show — is the lazy writing that takes over. Not just fart jokes, but the ‘we’re so bored, let’s kill Brian’ storyline accompanied by a graphic death scene (image what kids would think if Scooby Doo got run over in front of their eyes and then laid out on a morgue slab!) That did it. I was and am … OUT! On the other hand, the first ‘Ted’ movie worked well. ‘Cosmos’ is a wonderful show (that will hopefully return with more seasons.) We’ll see about ‘The Orville.’

The Orville is A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST. Wait and see. As boring and sophomoric movie as you will ever see. MacFarlane is a one-note guy, with limited talent as an actor.

It’s a new project with many talented people attached. You may be right about MacFarlane’s range, but I will give it a couple of episodes.

At first I was thrown off because the produces made a big deal about this show taking place in prime canon. It looks more like a reboot to me, which I wanted from the get go so I’m cool with it. You can’t expect a 51 one year old show (which features a dwarf riding Kirk like a donkey) to be carbon copied into a hit 2017 scifi show.

I showed this preview to a friend of mine who was never into Star Trek, but understood and respected the Ideas of Star Trek. he is super excited to see this
series. My father watched the preview with me and immediately hated it upon seeing it. “If the Klingons don’t have smooth foreheads, I’m out, I’m not buying it, I’m done with Trek”. I have to admit that at first when I saw the deviations, I was a little hurt too. I’m in my mid 20’s and I’ve been watching Trek from the cradle, Its tough seeing something you love go through a massive change. But after seeing his reaction I realized how silly he was being.

The thing I love most about Trek is its a vision of our future. I don’t view the future through 1966 eyes, I view it through 2017 eyes. I’m calling this a reboot, because that’s exactly what it is, a different generation of Humans envisioning and writing about our future and I’m looking forward to it.

Well, my takeaway from this analysis is that I didn’t miss any of the things in this trailer that matter to me—-what the show is going to be “about” in terms of its sensibility/aim/storytelling style, what sort of themes it’s going to explore, or will it be a more plot-driven show (?), any interesting dynamics between the characters, how it aims to be different vis-a-vis the previous 5 Trek TV series… But, apparently, I just care about different things than you guys. To me, the high production values of this show were a given before I watched the trailer. I didn’t expect DSC to look dated or like a fan film. The one and only thing that you can absolutely count on in TV and movies these days is high production values. So, why would anyone expect any different from this series? And it’s not as though the images and overall aesthetic in this trailer are mesmerizing. They’re fine. They’re what you should expect. How is that exciting? And I don’t get how the images in this trailer are exciting or even interesting, bereft of any dramatic implications or thematic meaning. Is it just the fact that it’s “Star Trek” that makes it exciting for you? Honestly, I don’t get it.

I considered this more of a “teaser” than a proper trailer myself and usually teasers don’t contain a lot of character or story beats but they exist to give you a taste of what’s to come. I liked it but wasn’t in love with it. I’m sure there will be a proper trailer with the elements you spoke of in the coming months and I agree that knowing the character and story themes are much more important than simply quick scenes of action or characters spouting out of context lines. It’s hard to judge exactly what you’re watching

I got the impression that all of the footage from the trailer was from the pilot episode. Given that we know she serves on Discovery. Everything felt like backstory and set-up to her eventual permanent post. Including the fact that the Discovery wasn’t even shown in the trailer.

Sarek is Michael’s mentor encouraging her to push a bit further than she should for the greater good. Michelle Yeoh telling her that she should actually be promoted to captain, foreshadowing a stumble that keeps her from that.

The Klingon funeral definitely foreshadows some change that death inevitably brought on. Perhaps the ability to get more involved with Starfleet, which is why so many characters of from that race.

Vulcans would know a lot more about Klingons than Starfleet at this point, so Micheal having some kind of hidden agenda, owing to her relationship with Sarek would both make sense and provide some interesting inner-turmoil.

I’m hoping they handle the Vulcan/Klingon/Starfleet politics with intelligence and timely resonance.

Many keep complaining that Discovery looks more like the Kelvin timeline than Prime timeline. Technically USS Kelvin is from the Prime timeline. So if you compare the design of that ship (exterior and interior) and the uniforms the officers on that ship are wearing with Discovery, it’s not strange it looks alike.
Even Enterprise looked more modern than TOS. In the 60s TOS looked futuristic, now it looks old fashioned.
Star trek is about our future, even though it’s fiction. It should look futuristic.
In my opinion Discovery succeeds well in this.

While the USS Kelvin ship and crew were ‘officially’ meant to be from the ‘prime’ TOS universe in J.J.’s movie, the stylings looked more like an updated version of the ‘Next Generation’ era to me.

Yes, STAR TREK DISCOVERY is looking suitably futuristic in an updated way…but it stylistics are quite reminiscent of the J.J.’s ‘reimagined’ movie. Fair enough, but that just makes it easier to look on this new show as being set in an earlier point to that particular ‘reimagined’ effort, rather than viewed as a prequel to the original series.

Couldn’t agree with you more, MV84. It’s about the future. I don’t want DSC to look like TOS just to make a section of the fanbase happy. Let’s use modern visions of the future to shape the show and have the look and technology keep pace. Does anyone really think we’re going to revert to giant push buttons like on the original Enterprise? The show should represent a vision of what we believe the future could look like and not be carved in stone based on what a set designer thought looked cool 51 years ago.


Look Guys… you can have different tastes. You may hate the look. You may hate the seemingly violated continuity. I dont say i am all for it.


Kirk, Spock, Sarek, the Klingons, the Vulcans and their whole Era are becoming the Stuff of popcultural Legends here.
Think about it, it’s like the Western Myth. It`s like victorian age movies. We always be wanting to revisit the “past”. Nobody complains “Oh well, another World War II Movie, can they just stop making these and only show contemporary or future war stories?” NO ONE WOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

It’s like with characters like King Arthur, Robin Hood, like Hercules, and in mordern times even like James Bond, Batman or every single the Marvel Character. These characters are in my opinion not defined by a narrow minded look that will never change. And they become independent of who plays them. Every generation will come up with their own interpretation – of values, of origin stories and so on.

The original trek lore is becoming a true legend, and that is something to celebrate, not to condemn!

If this series succeeds, it might aswell spawn a new era of star trek stories, and you may get your 25. Centurie series or Anthology movie series (my favourit option) soon enough.

I loved the trailer. I know the SP crew was not happy about the opening, but the trailer was edited in a way to tell a story. It was literally story boarded. The opening introduced setting and character and was captivating, especially for casual viewers. It may sound stilted to veteran ears, but the actual dialogue won’t be. I thought the line “We can’t set a course without a star” was poetic yet true. It will be nice to have good writing in Trek TV for a change.

Brian seemed to suggest he had more to say about aspects of the trailer that concerned him–perhaps about TOS grace notes or lack thereof–and I wish he had elaborated.