Watch Preview Of EW ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Cover Shoot From Sets Of U.S.S. Discovery

The upcoming issue of Entertainment Weekly features a cover story on Star Trek: Discovery. The photo shoot was done on the sets of the show and this morning EW released a video to promote the issue.

Lorca issuing orders (and going off-script)

The preview also includes some actual dialog and scene

The imposing Captain Gabriel Lorca strides across the Starship Discovery bridge, squinting at the raging battle on the viewscreen, rattling off orders to his crew with rapid precision. There’s a Federation ship under attack by Klingons, and the Discovery is rushing to join their fight. “Lock on the Bird of Prey!” Lorca barks. “Basic pattern Beta 9. Hard to port! Fire at something, for God’s sakes!”

Too late.

The Klingons blast the Discovery. Lorca and his shipmates lurch hard to one side. The high-tech set’s thousands of lights flicker anxiously, conveying the ship’s wounds.

Apparently the “for God’s sakes” was an ad lib and episode writer Kirsten Beyer (who has been described as Discovery’s ‘keeper of the canon’) pointed out that “Star Trek is creator Gene Roddenberry’s vision of a science-driven 23rd-century future where religion basically no longer exists.”

Inside the U.S.S. Discovery

Transporter room


Cast on set

Note this is the first time we are seeing the cadet badge for Starfleet. The four bars likely represent that she is a fourth-year cadet.

Shenzhou comparisons

Transporter room

The Shenzhou transporter room on Star Trek: Discovery

Transporter room



Three covers

The new issue of EW will have three collectible Star Trek: Discovery covers.

The new issue of Entertainment Weekly will be on stands Friday. You can buy all three here, or purchase the individual covers here, here, and here.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The purists will love this new transporter pad design ;)

Not all of us.

All of them with a brain, and who aren’t total morons, he means. Arathorn, you really should clarify, in the future.

You’re not a purist. You think diversity is a brand-new agenda, and not embedded into Trek from the start, as it is and was.

I’d say I could be a purist, if it means good stories with wonderful, logical concepts. I still want to see the whole transporter room in action. Especially if there is a good fist brawl between character there. I guess I will have to tune-in, in September.

Until ST2009, I have always been happy with Trek sets. Looks like they are looking above average for this Trek show. The uniform collars still bug me though. At least it seems to acknowledge a future Wrath of Khan’s pinup tunic. The costumes still look like it needs some work. Especially the Klingons. How can you be a proud Klingon warrior and wear something that rediculos?

DON’T LITTER! (click the link!)

Interior reminds me of the grey and steel of the Ent-E a bit……

Bravo to Trekmovie for bringing this community such up-to-date coverage of the roll-out of this new series. Your insight, dedication and non-stop efforts are much appreciated.

Ermm… Does the ‘keeper of the canon’ know that ‘My God’ as an expression was used in quite a few Trek épisodes and movies?

EX: ‘My God, Bones, what have I done?’ – Kirk to McCoy, watching the No-Bloody-Letter Enterprise burn up in Genesis’s atmosphere, Star Trek III

In TOS, it was supposed to be that there was no religion. This was Gene’s vision of the future… no religion, no money, an Earth united.

Yes, but there were exceptions, especially in colloquial speech. Like Bones’ “Lord, Forgive me.” before shooting Nancy Crater. I applaud the fact they have a “canon watchdog” on set, but let’s hope they really know their stuff and don’t render the whole thing too bloodless. And for the record, I hope they overruled him/her in this instance.

Still… Gene wanted to keep religion out of Trek. The statement was true. The problem is that Gene would go against his own vision and continuity if it fit the script or what he wanted to tell. Gene never kept to Gene’s vision at times. Regardless, the statement is true… Gene’s original vision was that there was no religion, no money, and a united Earth.

It is certainly part of the mythos that has grown up around Star Trek, much of that coming from Roddenberry himself in his writings and lectures, etc. And clearly, he wanted to avoid anything that would have smacked of religious conflict or prejudice between crew members. But a casual review of ST:TMP reveals multiple references to God, even a “My God” to boot. And that was unequivocally Roddenberry’s baby.

Saying “…for gods sake…” is a colloquial expression, not a tacit nod to religion. In our day it has become interchangeable with other…colourful metaphors, such as “for f#*ks sake”. Would they rather that was used instead? Oh, and with all due respect…the whole no religion in Star Trek…what about the Vulcan monastries, monks, etc., or the death rites of the Klingons. GR mat have said no religion at the time, but from what has transpired under both Gene’s, and his successors, guidance is no religious conflict. Te removal of religion, money, nationalism from Earth removes the present day conflicts that we have that revolve around them. It doesn’t earn they don’t exist in the galaxy at large. Star Trek V anybody?

Yes exactly. For the record I’m an atheist and I still say stuff like “oh my god” “I swear to god” “God I hope this works” etc all the time. Its just an expression. Yes rooted from religion but not everyone who says it literally mean God is the subject in the statement, its just another way of saying ‘darn it’.

But I also agree I don’t think Star Trek was against the idea of a god itself maybe just the religion aspect of it. There have been plenty of times they did allude to God’s existence, especially in TOS. Kirk out right stated he believes there is just one God in Who Mourns for Adonais. And of course what I find interesting in Star Trek the most scientific minded people in Trek, the Vulcans, are deeply spiritual people as well. Maybe their spirituality doesn’t really need to believe in a god, and AFAIK its never been made explicitly it does but for a lamen like me I always thought prayer means its to a god of some kind. So even if humans have done away with religion the fact it seems so important to others like Vulcans, Bajorans and Klingons especially says a lot.

As has been pointed out religion is referenced several times in the original series, as is money. Remember Kirk saying “Do you know how much Starfleet has invested in you?” and Spock saying “100 thousand, seventy, blah, blah, blah” before Kirk cuts him off? What do people think he was referencing there, flowers? Head of cattle? Bottles of Saurian brandy? No… it was money. And didn’t Uhura have to pay 10 credits a piece for those damn tribbles after she asked if they were being SOLD?
The big question is WHY these things deviated from Gene’s original “vision.” I remember watching a documentary on that and the writers basically saying “because Gene’s unadulterated vision simply didn’t work.” And therein lies the concern I have with the new series. There is so much talk about this “utopia” that Gene originally envisioned and their effort to bring that to life, but NO mention of the things that actually made the series compelling that weren’t a part of that vision at all. Kirk, Spock, Bones, and a lot of the rest of the crew were pretty messed up, made a lot of bad decisions, were selfish (many times), self centered… in other words; human. But it was their conflict and overcoming that conflict, against the backdrop of fantastic new situations and circumstances, that made Star Trek so revolutionary, inspiring and, most of all, relatable. I can’t help but feel like modern writers, directors, and even fans have forgotten that. It’s like there is this “Star Trek checklist” based on Gene’s “vision” that everyone is going off of and end up completely missing the whole point.
I’ll give the show a chance but I can’t help the feeling that I’m watching a trailer for small-screen edition of the 2009 Star Trek reboot. Hope I’m wrong.
And what is up with the uniform insignias? What are they all wearing Enterprise symbols 10 years before the ship was built? Maybe an origin story there?
Anyway, hoping for the best.

I’m pretty sure colloquial expressions like, “My God” will live on for centuries even if the underlying meaning is no longer practiced or believed in. For example, one theory for why we say”Bless You” after someone sneezes originates during the Black Death because if someone sneezed it was thought that they had the disease and were most likely going to die. We don’t believe that anymore, but still say bless you.

Very good point. hopefully it was a throw away type of “oh Gene wanted no religion” that EW picked up rather then the Canon Keeper actually thinking that is true that you can’t say “God” in Star Trek.

Not to mention frequent references to the creation mythology, especially in TWOK. Kirk even quotes Jesus at the end of the SM sequence. “Physician, heal thyself.”

Gene’s vision be damned. Being THAT pedantic with casual language is absurd, and a bit fascistic.

There is a line though, colloquialisms don’t really cross it.

KIRK: Mankind has no need for gods. We find the one quite adequate.
(From “Who Mourns for Adonais?”)

But with a lot of TOS there are plenty of inconsistencies – for example, there is a christmas party in Dagger of the Mind. and then there is : “Mankind has no need for gods. We find the one quite adequate.”
– James T. Kirk, 2267 (“Who Mourns for Adonais?”). What about the wedding scene in a chapel in Balance of Terror?

Right !! And there was an episode during TOS that the crew thought people were worshiping the sun and Uhura pointed out not the sun but the Son of God. Can’t remember the exact episode.

I’m an atheist and reference god often, especially in expletives. But even when something mildly unfortunate happens, I’ll mutter things like “ugh, god hates me.” But I’m still a rabid atheist.

So you use God in expletives. Typical Atheist.

Is that an insult? If so, go jack some D.

Why not?

Yeah we atheists do that at times. It means nothing. Just an expression of frustration. I will bang my knuckles against the metal of the machine I am working on and mutter it out loud! Happens all the time.

Does your God tell you to be a racist? Probably not. But I wouldn’t assume that you’re a typical Christian.

The same here. I often mutter goddamnn when flustered even though I have zero belief in any god. Just an expletive to me.

The good thing about being an atheist and using God’s name is that you don’t get to worry whether He finds your mention appropriate for the occasion. Let’s just remember, for those who believe, they should be really, REALLY careful when saying “God.” It should not be used in vain, say the Commandments. :-P

The other good thing is that I don’t have to capitalize his name!

God is not a name. God is a job designation.
His proper name is taboo hidden under the tetragrammaton (the “YHWH”) –
precisely to prevent people from use it in vain.

“God” can be said all the time, it’s no different than saying “Postman” or “Dinner Lady”. ;)

And when people refer to the postman, do they say “Look, the Postman is here, He came to deliver my mail, and He is wearing a blue hat and His trousers are nicely pressed!”

No, just the catholic people say this!

What about Jeez? Is it okay to use it as well, or do I have to get a permit or something? :-)

Bread & Circuses.

Sorry, I’m not hungry nor do I feel the need to be entertained.

Thanks !!

There is a world of different between TOS Roddenbery and TNG Roddenbery. The Star Trek writers guide is all about TODAYS HUMAN IN TOMORROWS WORLD. We still have personality clashes, we still have differences, we still have religious debates (see Bread and Circuses referencing the Son of God, Chapel with marriage in Balance of Terror, etc) and Star Trek was optimistic because we would still better ourselves and do well “out there”. He was all about capitalist democratic America winning out over the communists (A Private Little War, Omega Glory). Only in TNG does Roddenbery come up with the rules that religion must be out and only socialist progressive humanity will make it. This is pre-TOS so I am good with primitive humans with all their drama in the story out there Wagon Training to the Stars. The evolution between TOS Roddenbery to TNG Roddenbery I would theorize is the result of finding himself a “visionary” and the realization that religion equated to guilt over his sexual conduct, sleeping with actresses, that could be eliminated by removing religion.

Well said, Commander. By TNG, Roddenberry had went to visit the guru on the mountain top one too many times.

Bread and Circuses

And that’s just one of MANY instances throughout all the movies and series. How many times did Bones say, “My God” or other characters for that matter? This is just more bigotry aimed at people of faith, which Roddenberry didn’t do. Bread And Circuses is a great example of addressing religion (which still DID exist in the 23rd century) without demeaning it or those who believe. I highly doubt it would be a problem if he’d said “Allah” instead…

Gene had a view on religion, but it was in Star Trek in various guises at various times. I don’t specifically agree his vision was some no/anti-religion thing, I see it as mostly secular. This is a point where, if you take a polarised position, you’re gonna invite unresolvable debate and arguments. His best legacy is a future vision of peace, the rejection of monetary greed and true acceptance of differences, expressed thru the IDIC. That diversity obviously includes allowing people to believe what they wish (a God, gods or no gods), in peace with mutual respect. There are plenty of references to religion existing in 23rd/24th century, on Earth as well as on other planets.

As for me, I’m a Syrranite follower of Surak. Peace and Long Life.

All sounds and looks absolutely amazing. Roll on September 24th!

Seeing all those uniforms together, I have a few observations: I have no trouble telling the copper from the gold. That’s a non-issue. I still don’t like the excessive side trim, which is glistening in the light on one of the uniforms in the middle. It’s garish. And finally, I don’t think I like the way the zipper slants across the front of the uniform at a diagonal. I thought I liked it in earlier shots, but seeing so many full length uniforms together, it’s not a very attractive asymmetrical feature which defines the front of the uniform — in a way the TNG uniforms asymmetry was. These are not a big deal, and I suspect I won’t even notice these issue much in the course of the story since most shots will be in close-up, and likely not straight-on group shots otherwise designed for marketing purposes.

Yes, the side pieces are a bit distracting. But perhaps once they see it in action for a season, they might make some alterations as TNG did.

In some of the pictures, it looks to me like Stamets’ side trim is gold while the shoulder piping is silver. Yet in other pictures, they’re both silver. Is this just a result of the lighting, or an actual thing?

Love the transporter pads and the TOS-style blinking light display. That’s Discovery’s transporter room? Wonder where the Interviews were shot — thought it might be the bridge at first, but then I saw the folding chair.

Yup for all the people whining about Shenzhou’s transporter room which is clearly an older design, Discovery’s suits a ship newer than Enterprise. Very similar but updated.

These pictures look great. I hope the series will be this brightly lit and this isn’t just for the photoshoot. The trailers are all very dark.

@kent — nope. just for the photoshoot likely. A brightly lit bridge like TNG era ships really doesn’t make any sense. Even the early TOS bridge was a mix of moody lighting to emphasize the drama. We’ve moved past that kind of stylized lightning design, but even as a practical matter we’re rapidly learning that brightly lit work environments don’t mix with starting at digital workstations all day long. Unless the bridge is an optical course, people don’t really need to see it brightly lit.

Everything I see makes me more excited for this show. I grew up with TOS and have enjoyed everything since, TNG, was quite dull the first couple of seasons, but it got better in time. This is going to put Trek back on the map after the abysmal Nemesis. Beyond finally felt like Trek again. Looking forward to seeing what this new team gives us!

And people said this didn’t look like Star Trek! More Star Trek than TOS, if you ask me!

How can it be more Star Trek than the original series? That doesn’t even make sense.


3 years of TOS where they staggered around a lot before really hitting on their own foundation. The TOS films did far more, especially WoK to really cement what Star Trek was and looked like.

So I understand what Torch means. These images fit the vast majority of Star Trek that isnt TOS. TOS is now the very very small part of Star Trek that simply looks out of place.

Yea, that “keeper of cannon” can go take a flying leap. Total BS! It’s an expression for pete’s sake.

From my comment above… the keeper of cannon is right:
In TOS, it was supposed to be that there was no religion. This was Gene’s vision of the future… no religion, no money, an Earth united.

Still… Gene wanted to keep religion out of Trek. The statement was true. The problem is that Gene would go against his own vision and continuity if it fit the script or what he wanted to tell. Gene never kept to Gene’s vision at times. Regardless, the statement is true… Gene’s original vision was that there was no religion, no money, and a united Earth.

That goes for the idea of no conflict too.

You have people whining about the so called conflict in Discovery and how it violates the rosey outlook of TOS. Which is absurd.

Both shows depict a humanity that over-came petty issues and united as one Earth to explore space and meet others in space they have conflict with.

“You have people whining about the so called conflict in Discovery and how it violates the rosy outlook of TOS. Which is absurd.”

I’ve missed those posts, thank God. Is it too much to ask people to actually know a little something of which they are offering an opinion? Yes, I think TNG was a creatively bankrupt snooze fest. But I have watched every episode and I can cite exactly WHY I think it is a creatively bankrupt snooze fest. If people are going to talk about TOS, I wish they would at least have the decency to have watched it…ALL of it, not just the funny episode with the fuzzy little balls…or Trek 2 the Wrath of Khan. I don’t agree with you, TUP. More times than not! lol But, sheesh, at least you speak from an informed opinion!

…no conflict in TOS?


Thank you Jon.

Sure, but that wasnt how it was in practice.

Hopefully she’s a REAL keeper of the canon and not another self professed expert in the vein of Bob Orci.

I don’t like the idea of any show runner trying to stick too closely to Gene’s vision. There’s that documentary that showed how when Gene got sick, TNG’s showrunner (Berman?) became obsessed with hewing too closely to Gene’s so-called vision in his absence, that things deteriorated, and gave writers no freedom to tell quality stories. I think they should use gene’s vision more as a guide than a GPS, if you catch my drift.

Gene’s “vision” should be the last thing anyone involved gives two hoots about. Star Trek is what Star Trek is. And Gene was forced out a long long time ago for a reason. Thank you deeply for Gene for creating Star Trek. But his baby grew up to be much more than he could ever have made it.

Perfect stated TUP….all the credit in the world to Gene for his creation, but the show was at it’s best when other’s built on his creation. The shows Gene wrote and were most involved in were far from the best Star Trek.

I’m sure it was just something that the EW reported picked up on and tied it that way. Much like when some of the fans see something they don’t like and jump on it. I have a very enthusiastic wait and see approach. But from what I have seen so far, they are doing all the right things.

True. I guess generally taking such information with a grain of salt is the most reasonable thing the fandom could do.

Nah. Even if so, Roddenberry wasn’t that meticulously consequential about it. It’s Star Trek, not John Lennon’s “Imagine”!
In the episode “Balance of Terror” we actually see crewwoman Angela Martine genuflecting before an altar, implying she’s possibly Catholic. In “Dagger of the Mind” we learn that they’re celebrating Christmas on the Enterprise. Also common exclamations with clearly religious connotations were found throughout all series and films. Even in “Star Trek Beyond”, Scotty says “My good Lord!” at one point.
And who could forget Dr. McCoy’s outburst in regards to the Genesis Device in TWOK?

In short: I would wager that Trek’s future is just as secular as most late 20th/early 21st century institutions in the Western World, but not atheist.
I guess “agnostic” would be the most suitable term here.

“Star Trek is creator Gene Roddenberry’s vision of a science-driven 23rd-century future where religion basically no longer exists.”

Is this statement accurate, that Gene’s vision was for religion to no longer exist? I know that he didn’t want it in his show but did he want to deny its existence in his Trek? That statement alone will be enough for the Alt Right to cry havoc, more so than promoting diversity. I’m not religious myself so don’t care but don’t want to give ammo to the fundamentalists. Back to Lorca saying “for God’s sake”, that shouldn’t be an issue since non-christians say that or “for Christ’s sake”, etc. Didn’t Bones drop a “goddamn” or two in the movies?

Well thats kind of how it goes, the more science & education the less need for story books (the bible) & dogma- intelligent, independent people don’t need it because they can think for themselves, so no there would be no religion in an advanced intelligent educated society- hence no war, sexism, racism, homophobia or internal conflict.
Religion is at the root of all or societies problems.

@Captain Whino Religion is not the root of societies problems, not only is your statement so blatantly false but you’re also showing intolerance as well as discriminating against most human beings seeing how most human beings are part of a religion.

“It’s about you flying a god—- computer console when ought to be out there hoppin’ galaxies.”

-Bones, “Star Trek II”

As for what Bones said in the movies, only TMP had Gene as a writer or producer…. Bennett dismissed his input for ST2 to ST5.
But in the original series, Bread and Circuses referred to Jesus and God. There were other references to God as well. An exclamation of “God” being against what Geneset up is clearly an overstatement or overapplication.

Yes!! The sets look great and are properly lit. Not grim dark.

I wonder if they are going to look like that in the show, of if this is just lightning for the photo shoot.

@Xon — most likely lighting for the photoshoot.The bridge should not be brightly lit anyway. It makes no sense either from a dramatic point of view, or a practical tactical point of view. This is not 1960s TV, or even 1990s TV for that matter. 1080p flat screen TVs, and 40 years of computers in the workplace have changed the way such things should look.

Looks amazing. Maybe some of the whiners not liking images of Shenzhou will like Discovery more since it’s newer than Enterprise it can be advancements from that ship.

Everything looks great. Very excited!

Also, with Geourgiou pictured on Discovery with Lorca, perhaps she doesn’t meet her end in the premiere.

idk, I’m wondering if those pix are just for promo shot, and not from any scene. Feel very staged. Either way, looks amazing!

They’re definitely staged for the photoshoot.

I hope you’re right (IMDB has her in for the whole season) but these images are just from a promotional photo shoot so you can’t really go by them.

These photos give me a little bit more hope.

People in Trek have always used the word “God” in an idiomatic sense, so the use of the word doesn’t contradict the idea of 23rd century Earth having moved past religion.

I know the lighting for a photo shoot is going to be different, maybe they’re using the house lights instead of studio lights, but I love the lighting and the sets as seen here. I hope they shoot the show with more of this style of lighting. I think that’s a possibility, as these are finally shots of the USS Discovery’s interior, rather than the USS Shenzhou.

At this point, my fear is that the producers have seen TOO MUCH complaining from idiot fans here on Trekmovie that they are second guessing EVERY little choice, including things like the use of “god” in an expletive.

This is why fans need to STFU.

True, but – as I recall, at least – references to ‘god’ in an idiomatic, colloquial sense were less common in Trek dialogue than in contemporary speech, even if they did still exist–this goes doubly so for TNG onwards.

I suspect that’s what’s happening here–pruning down the modern day idioms, at least to some extent, to give the dialogue more of a ‘Trek’ feeling.

I prefer the Shenzhou look honestly to what I am seeing on the Discovery. Looks like a more primitive “space-travel is hard” starship conductive to more entertaining non-TNG pre-TOS stories. Worry Discovery will end up like the ENT-D – free power, galaxy is so safe let’s throw some kids on her. Hope her capabilities do not outmatch that of the Constitution class.

I like the idea of the old space-travel is hard look. The original Enterprise was both a magnificent technologal marvel and something that could fall apart at any minute plus something that could be pushed well beyond its breaking point and still get them home.

But its 2017 and its always going to be sort of a gritty core wrapped in a sparkling package.

I was a big fan of the “we’re the only ones out here,” feeling TOS often portrayed, that it might take ‘weeks’ for a transmission to reach Starfleet. That was pretty much gone by the time TNG rolled around. I’m hoping Discovery retains some of the mystery, the vastness, the solitude of space travel.

Agreed, it made it that the Captain of a Starship was essentially THE senior commander of the entire Federation out there since it would take potentially months to get a response from Starfleet Command and you had no chance of back up, no fleet of starships coming to save you… making everything super exciting (“on my authority… we are crossing… the neutral zone”, cue the music!). This was one of the elements that I thought would make Enterprise so exciting (just think, it will take YEARS for a response from Starfleet command)..Delivering a message to Vulcan, Andora, etc was faster by literally flying a ship over or firing off a drone as opposed to subspace communication that whole stories and episodes could be based on the added drama this creates.. and then suddenly there was subspace communications like TNG. Lame. Is there real historical analogs for this – yes. Back in the sailing age (even the US vs the Barbary pirates with the original naval frigate fleet) that was the way it was. And even for Mars we’ll probably have to wait for telemetry.

I get your point on this but I wouldn’t hold my breath o. This is the same Star Trek show being made by Alex Kurtzman….the same guy who wrote STID and had Kirk and Scotty talking to each other from the Klingon neutral zone to Earth like someone talking to each other in the same city. Even in the 24th century a message like that would take a day to reach from Earth.

For people expecting that kind of show I have a feeling they will be disappointed. That said maybe they will have certain elements to those things but my feeling is its going to feel pretty advanced based on everything we know.

Yeah I do not know why they want to make it so hotelish. Why do these writers not get that half of TOS was the Starship being pushed to the edge with not enough power (“SCOTTY – WE NEED MORE POWER!!! WARP SPEED IN THREE MINUTES OR WE ARE ALL DEAD”, “SHIELDS COLLAPSING!”), potentially stranded or needing replacement lithium/dilthium crystals? Free power, easy space travel = boring stories!

So if it’s bright and well lit it’s “too hotelish” and if it’s darker, or more cluttered, with a more claustrophobic feel it’s “too grim-dark!”

They really can’t win, can they?

First off I like Discovery thus far. I say ignore the handful of TNG fans still left, they can continue their comedy on Oreville – Wagon Train to the Stars / Horatio Hornblower in space all the way! Never have I said I did not like ST VI cluttered functionality!!! The more Hunt For Red October the better especially for a TOS prequel! More buttons! More displays! Fill up those cooridors!!! Where are the security guards and engineering techs? Where is the dilithium crystal chamber?? 23rd century Fire extinguishers, plasma torches, first aid kits everywhere!! I’d even be ok with a No SynVaping sign if Meyer wanted it!

I get what you’re saying, but I wouldn’t say there’s “a handful of TNG fans still left” considering TNG was the most popular, acclaimed Trek series of all contemporarily, and the TOS audience who watched it in the 60s is starting to die off (some are now in their 70s).

Statistically speaking there are more TNG fans alive and still watching than there are TOS fans.

Also, while I understand your desire to see “horn blower in space”, you seem awfully focused on tech and visuals, rather than the story.

You do realize most people who watched TOS are senior citizen are right? I just find things like this odd as if you forgotten Star Trek has had 20 seasons of TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enteprise but seem to think all those fans who watched it for literally decades no longer count.

I’m on Reddit and believe me when I say there is a lot of fans who started watching Trek much later who are fans and never seen TOS because it looks and feels too old for them. And for the record I grew up watching TOS in the 80s so I been a fan as long as I been alive practically but I can never get over this bizarre thinking from people like you, as if TOS is the only one that people care about. Some TOS live in this weird bubble.

And this show was never going to look or feel like that. Again when will you guys GET it??? Enterprise didn’t look like a cheap 60s show. The KT films certainly didn’t look anything like that. I have no idea why thought Discovery would either. Stop living in the 60s.

Don’t those doors behind the interviews look similar to the NX-01 sickbay doors?

Dear “Keeper of the Canon”,

Oh. My. GOD. Trek drips with religion in all 5 series. Why is it that practically every non Terran species has a spiritual/religious philosophy ( Klingons, Vulcans, Bajorans just to name a few.) but humanity is consigned as the token atheist?

I’m not saying this to promote theism but Roddenberry was nuts if he thought humanity would jettison all religion in just a few hundred years.

Dear Old Trekker: relax.

Well said

Well, maybe not ALL of humanity. Maybe there are still religious people somewhere out there living in their own enclaves, refusing to acknowledge the new everyday reality and unable to give up their obsolete anthropocentrist worldviews.

But they sure don’t get enrolled in Starfleet – much like we don’t let mentally disturbed people into the army.

“But they sure don’t get enrolled in Starfleet – much like we don’t let mentally disturbed people into the army.”

You mean like trannies? :)

Its about as realistic as jettisoning all capitalism, particularly because Western capitalism has strong Calvanist Christian roots.

Typical modern day Trek fans: talk about the one minor nitpick they have (the use of “God” or not) and ignore how great the sets are, how amazing all these new images are, and how exciting the things said in the video were.

Kudos, Trekkies.

Its very true. If they had 99.9% of Trek fans loving every single thing, that fractional issue would result in the vocal minority screaming about how stupid the creators are and how they simply will not watch it ever again.

Its wildly bizarre

Klingon “Bird of Prey” in the pre-TOS era? Looking forward to the show, but c’mon.

Enterprise showed that Klingons in the 22nd century had a retro Klingon Bird of Prey, so if it somehow is an intermediary version, it can work.

Agreed they were in ENT but lame. ST was more exciting when Romulans had Bird of Preys with cloaking devices and plasma torpedoes and Klingons had massive battlecrusiers with disruptors and marines ready to board (see Starfleet Battles). And how exciting is it when the Romulans and the Klingons are working together to crush the Federation sharing tech? Whatever the writers can do to get that back… do it!

I don’t understand why that’s better. The Romulans and Klingons always have powerful ships, weapons, soldiers– does it matter what we call them? Silly and nitpicky.

There were Klingon birds of prey in Enterprise. Maybe watch Star Trek before you criticize it?

I truly don’t get the whole Klingon drama. Has everyone forgotten the drastic and profound changes made to the Klingons in Star Trek the Motion Picture compared to TOS Klingons. I remember. 60 vs late 70s/80s, 20th century Klingons vs 21st century. How can people who love a show about the future be so bound by the past. We’ll always have what came before but can surely be open the future and a new or dare I say next generation.

Because it would be like making star wars without chewbacca or r2d2 or c3po or darth vader. See what i’m getting at here?

The complainers claim the changes to the Klingons from series to series, movie to movie and even season to season were so minor as to be unnoticeable. This is not true of course.

Make sure those white men are in the background EW. Remember the agenda.

What’s your agenda? Being an idiot? Well, success then!

Look, it’s another one! Thank pasta there’s someone out there looking out for the white man! The struggle is real!

Trump era snowflakes aside, racism goes both ways. Everyones struggle is real to them. So yes, the struggle is real.

So the millionaire who claims to struggles when he loses his job and has to sell his 5th house– that’s really a struggle just because it’s real to him?

Not all “struggles” are real. The OP’s struggle of white oppression is not real.

Prejudice can certainly go both ways but racism is a matter of systematic oppression. It most certainly does not go “both ways.”

Excellent way of putting it, AM.

@AlanMorlock I’m assuming you’re American and if so, tell me how exactly people are being systematically oppressed these days? I thought under the law in the U.S. everyone is equal. Also yes it does go both ways, you just want an excuse to be a hypocrite and make excuses instead of taking personal responsibility.

Wow, Jack D, a real Snowflake Racist!
You people are surreal.
We are all equal & the idea that white people (I am as white as we come BTW) are superior & must take prominence & anything else is some attack to promote inferior race/sex of people above “Us” is so incomprehensible to the rest of us.

@Captain Whino I don’t know how you got all that out of what Jack D said, you’re making baseless accusations against someone.

No, TM11, he;s correct. Jack is a racist and bigot. Too many of them crawling out of their holes lately.

Agreed, this needs to be called out, every time.

No TUP you have no evidence to make those accusations. I remember when accusing someone of being a racist and a bigot was a serious accusation but nowadays everyone throws those words around without having a leg to stand on. Stop it with all the BS rhetoric.

Pay no mind to the racists in the back, TUP. Keep saying it like it is. I know I will. The “evidence” is plain for all to see.

There is no evidence. He posted something that to me looked like a joke but of course everyone has to pounce on him and accuse him of being racist when there is no evidence of that. But then again I’m assuming you’re liberals which makes sense considering you can’t even have a logical debate or hear other people’s viewpoints without labeling them something. It just proves you have nothing when you cry racist all the time.

This stuff should not be allowed. Should be immediate banning.

It’s been shocking to me, and very disappointing to see this kind of crap spewed by people who are supposedly fans. As I told the owner of the Trek Prop Zone, who provides a home for this racist crap, spend a little less time focusing on the pew-pew and props and more time on the message and we’ll all be better off.

What do they talk about there? I tried to get a peek a few hours ago, bu the BBS is locked down unless one signs up for an account.

They talk about “social justice warriors” and the poor, poor white man. The final straw for me was when a few good people started civilly posting against this racist stuff, the owner of the forum deleted them!

I must say the reponse from most folks here when this stuff comes up has been great to read after my experience on Trek Prop Zone. It’s reassuring to know most real Trek fans see it for what it is: racism.

White people have been front and centre on all but one previous Trek series. Men have been front and centre on all but one previous Trek series. White men have been served better by Trek – and almost everything else; Trek’s generally been one of the most inclusive of the major franchises, and even it has historically given white men top billing – than any other demographic.

And now you’re pissed that, for once – ONCE – you’re not getting put up front and centre, even though you still make up the majority of the cast? How fucking selfish can you be, dude?

It’s not selfishness, it’s racism. Plain and simple. These people think the natural, normal state is for a white man to be in charge, on top. Anytime there’s an exception it’s because of “political correctness ” or an agenda from “social justice warriors.” I mean, what else could it be, right? Anytime a white man isn’t the Boss, these people are demanding an explanation. It’s gross to see this in Trek fandom.

Please go back into whatever hole you crawled out of.

Hopefully by agenda you mean Star Trek period. Which has always been about the vision of equality among human beings. How can you be a Star Trek “fan” and miss one of the biggest freak’n themes. Keep watching hopefully one day you’ll get it.

So Jack, explain to me a black man, how you as a white person are being ‘persecuted’ because of this show having more characters of color in it than previous ones?

Just popping in to say all the responses really feel good to read as a Trekkie. The increasing presence of opinions like OP’s in Trek fanspaces never make sense.

The captain of the ship is a white man in the front and to the lead’s right. How fragile are you that this is somehow awful for you?

You’re in the wrong fandom.

We get to see Lt. Saru’s hooves for the first time here! (Third to last picture)

And this is supposed to evolve into Kirk’s era of Star Trek. Sorry, just not buying it. Terrible production design. Just horrible. Who approved this stuff?!

I’m buying it (Literally and figuratively), mostly because they’re retconning Kirk’s crappy TOS era Trek.

What would you know about design anyway? I am an actual designer, and I think it looks fantastic.

If everything was reversed and TOS was made today and looked like TOS looks, everyone would say how horrible it looks because it looks nothing like anything else in Star Trek.

Enterprise – Kelvin – Discovery – TMP – TNG. Ill keep repeating it. Thats the design aesthetic. Will it always be perfect? No because you have different creative people, different modern production design sensibilities and different levels of technology in the designs and effects.

But THAT evolutionary design within the universe of Star Trek looks perfectly reasonable and relatable and consistent.

TOS doesnt fit. But thats okay because the look is no longer canon, the second Discovery airs.

@TUP pretty sure TOS will always trump everything else in regards to canon, cause you know it’s the ORIGINAL series. Without TOS we wouldn’t have Star Trek at all, show some respect and appreciation.

No, TOS will always have a special place as the originator but it doesnt trump anything in Canon. In fact, its probably the series with the most canon changes since it was first.

No one loves TOS more than me, but as far as canon goes it’s the most inconsistent, messed up show in the franchise. The lore of the 23rd century during TOS would change from episode to episode. It has taken Herculean effort from fans and writers to retconn all the inconsistencies in TOS. Remaining faithful to TOS leads to madness.

I’ve seen all of TOS and I’ve never seen any evidence of it being inconsistent with canon.

Are you joking? You better watch it again. I’ve seen them all too, hundreds of times each, and I can assure you TOS is charmingly riddled with inconsistencies. Hell, they can’t even be consistent about Spock’s rank from week to week. United Earth Space Probe Agency anyone? The vulcans were conquered? Those are just the first things that pop to mind, there are many, many more. The series was half over before they achieved anything remotely like a consistent canon, and even then they’d throw it out the window on the slightest whim. And when it wasn’t being inconsistent, it was often establishing canon that was frankly stupid. No female captains? No one has ever seen a romulan before Balance of Terror? Romulan ships can only travel at sublight? Gimme a break.

Someone else said it and was ridiculed for it, but he’s/she’s 100% right. TOS is the last place to look for consistent canon to follow.

I’ll definitely rewatch them all again and see if I spot anything, but as far as I could tell I didn’t notice anything inconsistent. Everything that people have stated can be easily explained from what I’ve seen. I think one of the problems is that we don’t know for sure what exactly is hard canon vs soft canon in certain contexts and how they are supposed to be interpreted, some fans have a very strict interpretation of it and see even the most obscure and minute details as hard canon whereas other fans interpretations are much more flexible. Has anyone ever done a detailed analysis of all of Trek’s canon cause if so I’d definitely be curious to see what they found?

SO now you add a caveat that there is hard canon and soft canon? Canon is what is seen most recently. So no more canon arguments please. Watch the show first and then we can discuss canon.

TOS was VERY inconsistent. And understandably so. Just because there are ways to explain it doesn’t mean it wasn’t true.

Um, TM11, its time for you to go away if you’re going to simply ignore reality.

@TUP here you go again with making BS arguments. I never said whether or not I agreed with hard canon or soft canon or whatever interpretations people make, I was just pointing out the different interpretations. And actually no canon is not what is seen most recently, you seem to like being a revisionist.

@Torchwood without TOS we wouldn’t have Star Trek, you’re a moron.

Who approves this stuff? People who think Star Wars is cool lol

If you think this looks anything like Star Wars, you need take some Brillo to your eyeballs.

People who arent burying their heads in the sand, their butts or their stack of 60’s era Styrofoam rocks and TOS betamax tapes.

Oh, come on. Don’t be an instigator.

Kirk: Go to the devil.
Lang :we have no Devil, but we understand the habits of yours…

Then there is pretty much all of Trek 5.

Playing pretty loose with it, they are. It’s a reboot alternate universe as far as I’m concerned. Too many cooks in the galley that have been appointed self-proclaimed experts, when it appears they’ve never really even watched the show.

Don’t like all the black Panels in the back walls- the glass/translucent panels were always interesting.

Not a fan of that transporter design — either of them. Rather tacky and the scale look so awkward imho. Overall though the show is looking great!

Does Burnham only have lieutenant pips in some of these shots? Does she get busted in rank? That would explain her rooming with a cadet.

I have a feeling her status as first officer is on Shenzhou. I think she gets demoted.

Considering her learning nothing at the academy & arguing with her commander to commit an act or Terrorism/war- I should think so.

None of us have seen the show yet. You don’t have enough information to make that conclusion.

From the very beginning its been implied that she gets demoted, fuller talking about her as a “Lieutenant Commander with caveats” even before we knew her name.

Thank God they were just having fun with the other Hidious Transporter Room design.
I couldn’t have watched the show with that monstrosity every week.
But the Uniforms are still a total fail- they look like such a Joke- I can just hear people going “Look at the geeky Star Trekkies running around in their Space tracksuits” Ughh so embarassing- the Original Design & the JJ Redesign are so much more practicle & relatable & recognizable as Star trek- these are SOOO far off the mark- you can’t even tell which rank or division people are from.

@Cpt. Whino — riiiiiiight … because all the other Star Trek uniforms before this wouldn’t be embarrassing for a cos-play fan to run around in?

Exactly. As if walking around in a Kirk uniform at the mall people would point and say “wow, there goes one cool guy!”

The TOS uniforms are iconic of course. And among the silliest of all the franchise Uniforms.

The unis might have been the thing Enterprise got right the most. Im not a “fan” per se of the Discovery unis. But I won’t let it drive me insane or anything.

I could not disagree more. These uniforms are dope! I can’t wait to rock one for Halloween. My favorite are the motion picture uniforms but the Discovery uniforms are a close second.

The new uniforms didn’t do much for me at first, but after seeing the trailers and recent interviews on my TV in high quality… wow. That blue color is stunningly vibrant. I love it.

My guess is that, if the show succeeds, we’ll see new uniforms every season. I would kinda like to see TOS style rank stripes eventually.

Ranks one thing but it is very easy to see which division people are from. Gold is still gold, blue is now silver and red is now copper.

Now that’s what I have been kinda missing so far: A good old crew photo featuring the entire cast. Like back in the day when promotional material for new Star Trek series would almost invariably consist of shots of the new crew, a beauty shot of our newly introduced “hero” space vessel and then just mostly some stills from the pilot episode and maybe a couple of portraits of individual cast members.
And yes, what had struck me as a bit un-trek-like before was the extreme focus on Green’s and Yeoh’s characters.

To be fair, this show is meant to be much more of a character piece than an ensemble. Its a bit of a different mode of story telling than post shows.

There’s also been the matter of there being multiple ships with different crews, some apparently moving between the two.

Yeah, I know. I guess I’d just prefer a character-driven ensemble piece…

I didn’t know that Kirsten Beyer was involved. I absolutely love her Voyager relaunch novels. This explains why there’s been such a long delay in the release of the next one. Her involvement gives me hope for the storytelling. The sets and uniforms are beautiful; however, they are not era appropriate. They’d be accepted without question if this was a post-Voyager series. At least the Discovery’s transporter pad looks like what a transporter pad should look like unlike the Shinzhou’s. The ship would be fine if it was styled correctly. I’m thinking the Shinzhou gets destroyed. It appears that it will be from the trailer. That’s how Michael Burnham joins the Discovery crew. I’ll be glad I won’t have to look at it very long.

Ugh. Yellow alert. Energize defense fields.
Where the $#@$ is Nicholas Meyer? Avoid snore Trek TNG, more Horatio Hornblower in space please!!!

Nicholas Meyer wrote the second half of the pilot… you know, the episode from where most of these images are from.

I shouldn’t really call it a pilot, of course. Should say “the second half of the 2-part premiere.”

Thank “God”!!!! Lol

No need to capitalize “god” he’s not real.

Nick Meyer is, and though he wrote and directed my favorite ever Trek movie (TUC) he was not involved in any of my favorite Trek episodes (which are nearly all post 1991).

That’s a nice opinion on Star Trek. My favorite episode of Trek is The Doomsday Machine. My favorite movie is Star Trek TWOK. It’s ok to disagree! I respect you like TNG, you fight for your corner. I’ll fight for TOS Wagon train to the Stars. Maybe we meet in the Middle???

We don’t need to meet. You enjoy what you enjoy, I’ll enjoy what I’ll enjoy, which is way better than what you enjoy :)

We will have to respect each others opinions and respectfully disagree, isn’t that what IDIC (from awesome TOS pretty much ignored by TNG) is all about??

Looks like Star Trek (2009) meets “Galaxy Quest.”

I agree, but since I love Galaxy Quest, that’s a good thing.

Maybe Beyer was being sarcastic and joking with Isaacs. If not, it’s a weird reading of Roddenberry’s aversion to religion. Even in TNG’s ultra Roddenberry utopian society, this sort of colloquialism was used.

“Lieutenant, sometimes the moral obligations of command are less than clear. I have to weigh the good of the many against the needs of the individual and try to balance them as realistically as possible. God knows I don’t always succeed.”

-Picard, “The Enemy”

Just let people talk like people, okay. And stop treating Roddenberry like he was L. Ron Hubbard. It’s creepy.

“Excuse me… what does God need with a starship?”

“Good god, man, get out of there!”

@Spike well said.

Discovery’s transporter room looks much better than the one on Shenzhou. Still don’t like the uniforms.

Not sure why Kirsten Beyer is giving Jason Isaacs hard time for saying “for God’s sakes”, we have heard that expression many times before on Star Trek from Picard and others.

Unfortunately, Kirsten Beyer (who has been described as Discovery’s ‘keeper of the canon’) appears clueless. An entire movie was made about finding God, and in TOS, “Bread and Circuses” Uhura makes a reference about the planet inhabitants and the Son of God, deliberately clarifying it is not sun. It is clear religion does exist during this time period. Hopefully this is not their idea of keeping canon

My dreams of Nicholas Meyer on the bridge telling them to ignore all that boring Trek that followed Star Trek VI… this is Horatio Hornblower in space … are dashed here (thought the trailer says different!!!!). He is still involved right?

What are you talking about?

And what the heck are you talking about? One comment about god, and suddenly she’s a clueless show runner who you have no faith in? Get the hell out of here.

What makes you so angry about someone about liking Nicholas Meyer Star Trek II Horatio Hornblower in space Trek vs TNG Voyager?? I think one can have a rational discussion on the subject. I know for a fact that Meyer would have been ok with the dialogue because it made it into his previous Trek movies.

Angry? I’m not angry.

But how do you have any idea that Discovery isn’t what you want? And why is Nick Meyer, who did “Horatio Hornblower In Space” in a few movies, somehow the ONLY one who “got it right” to you?

Trek has been around for 50+ years. Just because that’s the style you like best doesn’t mean it’s the definitive style. Get over yourself.

I am glad you are not angry. I don’t think he is the only one to get it right, I just think he did it BEST.

For the movies, I agree. It’s really the only way to do Trek on film, and still keep it like the show. But Trek in my opinion, was at it’s best between season 3 of TNG and season 5 of DS9 (1990-1996).

Disagree. I mean I liked Best of Both Worlds (an evil cybernetic race bent on forcing peace through everyone having the same thoughts with Captain Picard a bad guy) and I liked the Dominion War in the Gamma Quadrant (Sisko blows up a Romulan ambassador to save the Federation?? Galaxy class starships being blown out of orbit?); the rest I think was a forgettable write off. It in my mind never came close to the magic that was Trek during Star Trek II, III, IV and VI (the Genesis Arc) which perfectly mixed action and adventure, exploration, conflict and optimism an aging sea Captain and crew and threw them onto the frontier. I admit however that even that does not hold a candle to the awesomeness of TOS Treks that truly were Wagon Train to the Stars – Doomsday Machine, Balance of Terror, Errand of Mercy, City on the Edge of Forever, No Man Has Gone Before, Trouble with Tribbles, etc when the Enterprise really was the only Starship in the Quadrant and the Federation seemed to just be expanding on the frontier.. if only it had done so with consistency!!

@Michael — I don’t recall they found God. In fact, I don’t recall any Starfleet personnel involved in the search who weren’t brainwashed by Sybock — an excellent metaphor for religion in general. Uhura may well have explained the historical context of the Christians from B&C, but I don’t see any evidence she worshiped God, or anyone else for that matter.

I can’t help it, but in this picture, Stamets looks like Brienne of Tarth…

I must say I do love how it does down in these Trek forums and comments areas. Sometimes it’s even better than the articles themselves. No shade (You all do great work)

You’re welcome!

Ok. I’m def gonna upgrade to 4K just for Discovery

Has it been officially announced this will be streamed in 4K? Netflix has the ability, but as of now, CBS All Access is limited to 1080.

I haven’t seen anything yet. Id think Netflix will want it in 4K especially as they promote it as a Netflix series. It will be interesting to see if Netflix DOES stream it in 4K and CBSAA only streams it in HD. If so, Im sure its something CBS will rectify in time.

A good 4K TV will make your 1080 look really nice though. I just got a 4K TV (and an excellent 4K player) and I popped in my Sopranos 1080 Blu Rays. Sopranos was not an award winning blu ray transfer to begin with, but it looks magnificent on my TV.

Dang, I think they are starting to win me over. I tried to resist, I really did! I guess resistance really is futile to good marketing. I am being assimilated!

But, yeah, this is starting to look good. I’m still not a fan of the uniforms and Klingon re-designs, but everything else looks great. Here’s hoping…

Yessss….let the fun of being an excited fan wash over you.

The transporter room, while more familiar, is so large it almost looks like something out of Star Trek Online! Another noticeable point is the two “domes” in the middle of the upper & lower pads are definitely reminiscent of those in the transporter chamber on the reboot Enterprise (RIP)…

Also, off that topic, does Jason Isaacs think he’s playing one of the Thunderbirds? 😜

I’ve also noticed that not just the transporter room but a lot of the sets appear quite large, for example the Shenzhou bridge in the first trailer. Apparently these are big ships where space isn’t limited. I’m not complaining, I only observed that they seem to have a lot of spacious sets.

“Apparently the “for God’s sakes” was an ad lib and episode writer Kirsten Beyer (who has been described as Discovery’s ‘keeper of the canon’) pointed out that “Star Trek is creator Gene Roddenberry’s vision of a science-driven 23rd-century future where religion basically no longer exists.”

This show is infuriating more and more people every day lol. Star Trek is filled with religion and not once has it ever been stated it doesn’t exist in it, it most certainly does and there are tons of examples showing this. And even if you disregard that this just doesn’t make sense from a practical standpoint. Most of humanity believes in a religion and always has so it is highly unlikely that we will ever not have it. One can easily make the comparison that it’s more likely that we’ll have religion in Star Trek’s time than having gay people, that’s not homophobic that’s just statistics. I could care less if they have gay characters on Star Trek but to have that and then say that religion no longer exists is BS considering there are more religious people than gay people. It’s kind of hypocritical of them, just saying.

@TM11 — religion is a disease that intelligent people in the pursuit of truth and science will cure themselves of. Homosexuality is a natural state of existence. Statistically speaking at least 10% of those serving in Starfleet will be gay. But those who join Starfleet have likely left religion and worship of supernatural beings long behind. At least that’s what Roddenberry presumably thought …

Religion is a disease but yet homosexuality is natural lol? What are you smoking?! You’ve literally just shown how intolerant you are of people of faith which as I said make up most of the human population. I don’t care if you’re religious or not but don’t go putting other people down for their beliefs and calling it a disease, that’s not very Trek of you. And in my opinion it takes stronger and more intelligent people to have faith and believe in a purpose and creator, instead of being cynical pessimists who think that life has no meaning and that it’s somehow possible for things to just pop into existence without having been created by something or someone. So it actually makes more logical sense to believe that there is indeed a higher power.

I get what Cadet was saying,. Religion is a state of mind. Being gay isn’t. But I respect religion. Religion has been the root of an awful lot of terrible things in human history.

But having a sensible belief in something that helps define humanity as a good species is not a bad thing. The teachings of Jesus are good things. Aspiring to be good is a good thing.

@TM11 — yes homosexuality is natural, that’s a well documented part of the natural world. Religion is an artificial construct by humans, who are grasping desperately for answers to an existence their small minds can’t comprehend. And you’ve shown yourself to be a homophobe and a bigot, among your more appealing attributes — you’re officially on my no reply list now.

@Curious Cadet lol your liberal hypocrisy is showing. No homosexuality is not natural it serves no purpose. Religion is not an artificial construct from the beginning of humanity religion has existed, and no religious people aren’t desperately grasping for answers we just simply believe that there’s a higher purpose to life than just existing. And you’re accusing me of being a homophobe and a bigot just because I have views that are different than yours, FYI I have a gay cousin and a close gay friend and I also actively advocated and fought for gay rights. I think that you’re the bigot for attacking people of faith.

@TM11 it is infuriating more and more people. Just the same whiney few.

I love the Trump-like “so many people”, “everyone says” etc. Like even the whiney few know they are the overwhelming minority so they have to make their position sound more important by exaggerating the numbers of people who dislike what they’ve seen.

Obviously, we need Star Trek more than ever. I hope this show infuriates them.

Actually it’s not a whiny few it’s probably about at least half the fans or even maybe the majority. As I’ve said before just take a look at all the comments online like on YouTube, the majority of people see this show as very problematic. Also I take being called Trump-like a compliment so thank you.

Holy shit, you sound just like him.

@Karidian lol thank you. I swear every time I watch him I notice I’m starting to talk more and more like him, even including the hand gestures lol.

Not a compliment. Why are you here?

Its not half the fans. Not at all. far people who are negative will take the time to post that sentiment than the ones who see no reason to complain.

How often do people write a pleasant review for something versus a negative one?

There have been many short comments from people that are not regular posters here and on other sites that are positive. And even among the most regular posters, the open minded far outweigh the negatives.

The amount of people that are condemning this show at this stage is so few as to be insignificant. And Id imagine CBS would laugh it off. The show hasn’t even aired.

@Karidian I’m here because I can be. Are you saying that just because I like Trump I can’t be here? How intolerant of you.

@TUP You’re mistaking things as being negative or positive instead of viewing things from a more logical and pragmatic standpoint. People have legitimate concerns and criticisms that no matter how hard you try you can’t just brush them off as being negative or a minority view.

Those sets look fantastic!….. for post Nemesis, maybe. Not for prime in the timeframe given, though. Shame, updating the original looks would have been easy to do and still have it fit.

They update the original looks and they do fit. This silly criticism is becoming a joke.

I hope this purist on the set trying to nix Isaac’s ad lib of “for God’s sake” isn’t a portent of some extreme form of PCism seeping into this new Trek. Both the original series and all its successors made generous use of colloquial expressions like that without the fanfare and almost entirely separated from any religious context.

I agree. But I am afraid it may be.

My impression was that the producers were reading comments on Trekmovie by you and others and are so afraid of betraying Gene’s vision that they’re walking on eggshells trying to make you happy, and are just making it worse.

They should read the comments and get Nick Meyer in the Directors Chair ASAP!!! The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one!!! Lol

Religion may not exist, but God does. Nice try. I’m a person who believes in God & loves science & Star Trek. Evidently, Kirsten Beyer (who has been described as Discovery’s ‘keeper of the canon’) has an agenda against the God of the universe. Plus, Trek has been talking of these issues for a long time throughout the cannon. This sounds like a bias against believing people. Good Job! I guess science only people will be watching your show, now.

I honestly don’t get how people like this ever become Star Trek fans. What a strange world we live in.

I confess, I have a huge bias toward science. So do most Star Trek fans. Are you sure you’re in the right place?

Lol I’m an engineer so I had a nice chuckle on your “biased towards science” and don’t get me wrong, I’m not super religious (honestly our science just isn’t there yet) but I just want to know that when all the science of thermodynamics shows that Energy Cannot be created nor destroyed (and energy = mass).. and then you look at the big bang and the fact that the universes expansion is ACCELERATING… and then entropy shows that the universe has an end… how do go explain why is there anything (apart from the fact that there must be something since you are here?!?!). There is a real reason why the Big Bang theory came from a physicist that doubled as a Catholic Priest (Georges Lemaître) since the thermodynamics shows there should NEVER have been a start, but at the same time has an end. I’d like to know, seriously, would be a great help in my work as a real objective scientist where the energy came from that cannot be created or destroyed yet has an end and a beginning.

It’s all thanks to an invisible man in the sky! Of course! By god, I believe you’ve cracked it! What an amazing short cut!

Just because someone believes or doesn’t believe in God, or uses the phrase a colloquial and abstract way does not mean they are let’s say conservative, right wing, ignorant or event religious. Star Trek fans should not gang up for cheap shots on someone just because they have something nice to say about a very abstract concept.

Next question?

Which god exists?

Thor? Zeus? Ra? Quetzalcoatl? Jesus?

There are so many “gods” that people have created to explain what they didn’t (and don’t) understand and so many to choose from! These gods were made up by people with rotting teeth who thought the world was flat, didn’t have antibiotics, didn’t know about the atom and never saw the world from orbit.

Perhaps you are referring to that wise and loving invisible sky “god” of that bible book who commands people in it to murder gay people with rocks, kidnap people during war and use them as slaves, kill women who do not bleed during sex on their wedding night, and instructs fathers on how to sell their daughters to a man who rapes them (and even says how much silver should be paid.)

Is this the god you are referring to? The one that says the universe was created in 6 days?

If I want a book of fiction with a talking snake, I’ll go for Harry Potter, as that work of fiction is actually entertaining and doesn’t celebrate a character that killed more people that Hitler by drowning them in a flood. Or I’ll go for Thor, as I can actually see him on screen and he’s super hot with killer biceps and great hair. Yum! (I guess I’ll just have to hope silly superstitious christians don’t murder me with rocks for being gay and thinking Chris Hemsworth is sexy AF like their book commands them in writing to do.)

Religion is garbage and it’s time to take out the trash.

How was this picture taken on set? It’s clearly a crappy copy & paste job.

Why put a multitude of small Starfleet insignia on uniform and even on boots? It’s like putting hundreds of little flags or emblems on a uniform. Completely unecessary. One insignia on the uniform is sufficient and it’s traditional in Trek.

Real world branding. Talk about nitpicky. Oh, brother…

It does seem a bit overdone, though I love the uniforms overall. I am glad, however, that the creators ignored the “purists” and are using the classic delta rather than giving each ship a unique insignia. No visual cue says Star Trek more than the classic delta insignia, it was a huge mistake for Star Trek:Enterprise to ignore it.

i think madam yeoh really be very good in this part. she has very nice eyes and very nice hairs. she is very good actor, i am excite about this televisual

I hope we won’t be seeing much of the Shenzhou’s transporter room. To me it looks WAY too much like what a transporter would look like if H.G. Wells built it in the late 19th century and was using it to transport through time.

No religion? I guess that’s true if you completely discount the entire series that was Deep Space 9….

@hatemyself — well to be fair, Roddenberry was dead by DS9. I also don’t recall any Human characters worshiping a present day Earth religion. But to the extent DS9 did depart from Roddenberrys philosophy, DISC is returning to it. The point being, whether there were ever hints that religion might be alive and well on Earth in the 23rd and 24th century, there’s nothing compelling DISC to acknowledge it, since it was indisputably never a major aspect of Trek, which means that DISC won’t be diminished by avoiding it either. This is just another excuse for those who don’t like the idea of DISC to bash it as not being genuine Trek without having seen a single episode.

That makes even less sense than Discovery crew all wearing Enterprise insignia. What this shows is that Discovery has found yet another way to violate Star Trek canon. Religion is not a focus of Star Trek but there are references throughout several Star Trek series illustrating that religion is alive and well during the TOS and TNG and DS9 eras. There’s a cross visible during a wedding in “The Balance of Terror”; a Hindu symbol on a woman’s forehead in “That Which Survives”, “Murder is contrary to the laws of man and God” says the M-5 computer in “The Ultimate Computer”; “Bread and Circuses” seems to feature a planet of budding Christians; Kirk says, “Man has no need for gods; we find the one is quite sufficient” in “Who Mourns for Adonis”; Hinduism exists in TNG (“Data’s Diary”); “Dagger of the Mind” refers to a Christmas party and Picard imagines or relives a traditional Christmas in the Nexus in the movie, “Generations”; there is a chapel beside a Federation colony grave and mourners are heard saying “Amen” in the TNG episode, “Sub Rosa”; DS9’s Sisko quotes the Bible; In the DS9 episode, “Penumbra” Kasidy says she would like to have a priest perform her wedding.

But, but.. how can anyone like Star Trek if it had religion?? You’d think they watched it for the action, adventure, characters all in the final frontier or something.

@Zoe — nice list, but all you’ve proven is that there’s evidence of past religion, and network censors. Christmas is practically a secular holiday now. Prove any major character on Trek worshiped a major Earth religion, and you may have something to debate.