Jason Isaacs Attempts To Clarify Controversial Comments About Star Trek Fans

Over the weekend, the New York Daily News ‘Confidential’ gossip column reported some controversial comments from Star Trek Discovery’s Jason Isaacs, who plays Captain Lorca of the U.S.S. Discovery. The article got the notice of Star Trek’s first captain, William Shatner, and has resulted in an exchange of tweets between the two actors.

Tabloid quotes Isaacs talking about ‘outraged’ Star Trek fans

The article quotes Isaacs saying:

“I don’t mean to sound irreverent when I say I don’t care about the die-hard Trek fans. I only ‘don’t care’ about them in the sense that I know they’re all going to watch anyway. I look forward to having the fun of them being outraged, so they can sit up all night and talk about it with each other.”

The column also added the following, but without any attribution: “Isaacs, 54, said the new show will throw away the legacy of William Shatner and Patrick Stewart.”

Shatner responds

Apparently that bit about legacies got the attention of William Shatner, who tweeted a screen grab of the article to Isaacs with a ‘hushed face’ emoji:

Isaacs clarifies and issues a dare

As it was from a gossip column and possibly being taken out of context, we awaited Isaacs’ response, which came late Tuesday night. He took exception to the NYDN coverage, denying he said anything about the legacy of Shatner and attempted to clarify his comments about fans. Isaacs also followed up his response to Shatner with another tweet, apparently directed to fans who took umbrage with the comments from the Daily News:

Shatner just responded to the first tweet, and he seems to accept that Isaacs was not being portrayed accurately by the Daily News (which he refers to as the Daily Mail, which is actually from the UK).

As for Isaacs’ “dare” to those who claim they won’t watch the Discovery, Shatner notes “a challenge has been made.” 

So that appears to be it with this latest little Discovery controversy.

Star Trek: Discovery premieres on September 24th on CBS with all subsequent episodes on CBS All Access in the US.  In Canada Star Trek: Discovery will premiere on Bell Media’s CTV and the Space Channel on the same night. Netflix will launch Star Trek: Discovery on Monday, September 25 to countries outside of the U.S. and Canada.

Leave a Reply

210 Comments on "Jason Isaacs Attempts To Clarify Controversial Comments About Star Trek Fans"

Sort by:   newest | oldest

To be fair, Isaacs has a point about some of the “fans” – the ones who are constantly littering the boards with their hatred, their sense of superiority over fans whom they deem “not true Star Trek fans”, and are constantly griping about their discomfort ( to put it mildly ) about “Diversity”.

Their is no equivalency of optimistic, hopeful, loving fans ( who do wish and hope for the best with DSC ) with fans who are spitting malice and have decided DSC must be condemned ( without the show even airing yet) – and yet, there is no doubt, the hateful fans WILL be watching. EVERY EPSISODE.

I know I’ll be watching… Orville.

-Star Trek Nerd

Devon. I think that may be the best thing to do.

Well, I get to watch both!

I’ll be watching both as well.

Me too!

I am excited for both as well!

I agree with you Spock Jenkins. Plus I will add that there is nothing wrong with wanting the show to stand on its own two feet. We already have Kirk and Picard. I want to see Lorca be his own captain. Add something new to the universe…no need to do retreads.

The show is going to tank huge.

Will you pay me one million quatloos if you’re wrong?

I have my concerns about the show however I am reserving my complete judgement until the show airs. Why don’t we all wait until then to declare it a failure or a success.

Hmm. That sounds way too reasonable to be a viable position.

Steph, I think it would be wise to wait until SEVERAL episodes have aired before passing judgement. After all, most fans agree that the first season of TNG was awful, but it went on to become excellent. ;-)

Yup. DS9 took a while to get into its stride as well. And the Kazon years aren’t a good indication of what Voyager became (there’s a before and an after Kes/Seven of Nine).

@Corylea,

That was the case in the 80s & 90s. Nowadays if a show doesn’t hit the mark by the second or third episode, people will simply turn to watch something else given the amount of options they have now and not wait for the show to improve.

This applies to all new TV shows and not just Star Trek.

Good point!

Very possible & quite likely.

paying to watch really makes it an easy call to skip (unless the 1st hour is dynamite, in which case I’ll be surprised and a little bummed.) Gonna skip the rest anyway, because I put my money into TWIN PEAKS, which is paying off more than I had hoped.

Hmm. Strange position for a genre reporter to be in, not watching the first Trek series in over a decade. But without a doubt, it is your money. 😊

@Michael Hall – Kevin Martin is not a real Trek fan.

Thanks for clarifying, Thompson — if you mean, ‘not a lemming who embraces anything with the brand slapped on it,’ you are, for once, correct.

Michael Hall, I’ve got lots of family med issues and real-world stuff to deal with, so in terms of disposable income, there’s just not any. Paying for a month of TREK — even if I could possibly justify if as a writeoff, which is not a certainty since I have been on hold with CBS for a confirmed/assigned VFX article over the last three months now — is not practical.

Well, I hope you didn’t take that as a dig because I certainly didn’t intend it that way. I think you’re a fine writer and am sorry to hear of your financial issues, but it’s your money and you need make no explanations to me in any case. Peace.

Twin Peaks is over soon, and a well-timed trial or one month purchase of All-Access a few weeks out from the finale is the cost of a couple coffees from Starbucks.

I agree with Isaacs. He shouldn’t care about attracting die hard Trek fans because they aren’t enough to sustain this show. This is a show that must attract more mainstream appeal from critics and audiences who don’t care about Trek all while being a show that fans can find enjoyment out of.

@Bud — yup, and the few of them who can figure out how to stream CBSAA, will probably be happier reliving Braga’s best of TNG hits via the Orville, on free network TV, since most are probably too old to still be living in their parents basement …

Curious Cadet, when you have to turn to tired old stereotypes to dismis people because you can’t argue against their opinions with facts or intelligence- how sad.

Really? Wow Bud, You couldn’t be more Wrong.
The DIE HARD TREKKIES are the ones who have been supporting the shows in the Past, the reason Star Trek has struggled is because Enterprise & Nemesis was because the Studios started diverting the show & marketing from recognizable Star Trek towards non fans & Alienating the Fans & Splitting the Fan base without attracting those desired new fans.

Hahaha you obviously share the view of the studios but you are totally wrong- who else but the Die hard fans would Pay for the show- that’s why they used Star Trek to Launch/Carry All Access, that’s why Netflix payed for it then CBS/ Paramount/Bad Robot disrespect the fans & their finances by making a non Prime Reboot then continuing to lie about it in the press- right up until today.

All this trying to get the wider mainstream audience. Star Trek is not a mainstream show- It can never be because it is too intelligent & sophisticated & Diverse for the general audience- How Star Trek has always survived was what it lacked in numbers it made up in passion. It had dedicated fans who supported it like it was a religion.

TNG ended up a huge popular success. GoT has lavish production values and lots of nudity and gore, but its success is at least equally rooted in the wonderful performances and storytelling. There’s no reason that Trek can’t be popular and good.

I totally agree.

“All this trying to get the wider mainstream audience. Star Trek is not a mainstream show..”

Where were you in 1966? 2009? 2013? 2016? My 86 year old uncle, was a grease monkey mechanic… would never watch a science fiction movie, but loved Star Trek. It was required weekly viewing for him. My nieces,one a school teacher, the other in college never watched Star Trek…never wanted to…watched 2009 Trek as well as it’s sequels, admittedly due to Chris Pine. My nephew saw it because it was the latest blockbuster of the week. My neighbor, who thought Trek was stupid came into the fold with Trek Into Darkness on Netflix, because his wife loved “Sherlock Holmes”. he watched it with her and has since watched the other 2 “JJ” movies. Neither of them are interested in TV Trek. Old or new…but I dare say, if the new show was on Netflix, they would probably watch it because it’s new and they are into binge watching all these new serialized shows. So Trek has attracted the mainstream…lately, more so than ever, which, in turn, has made Trek more money than ever. Trek awareness, outside of fandom, is alive and well.

Can barely follow your post, but what about Enterprise and Nemesis was a studio-driven diversion that alienated fans? Bad writing alienated the fans, and Enterprise at least had a chance to rectify that. Awful finale aside, its last two years were a fairly successful attempt to go out on a high, and that involved a lot of TOS callbacks in the final year which fandom embraced. As for JJ Trek, it’s messy semi-Trek, but financially it has done better than any previous Trek film had, it’s just too expensive to keep going at its current rate of erosion. But being a superior film didn’t get First Contact, The Wrath of Khan or The Undiscovered Country $300 million at the box office. You cannot get so riled up about CBS using Star Trek to anchor All Access. Paramount/Viacom used Star Trek this way since Star Trek Phase II was a gleam in potential Paramount Network executives’ eyes. TNG and Voyager both opened up new distribution models for Paramount that sidestepped the middlemen at the networks, and Discovery is sidestepping Netflix/Amazon where CBS has no digital presence. As for Star Trek not being mainstream, sure, it wasn’t, except when it was. TNG’s mainstream popularity was enough to launch three spin-offs, DS9 premiered to Star Trek’s best ratings ever, Voyager premiered in the top 25 shows its first week on a new mini-network’s first night, and each show since 1987 was lavished with a large budget (“Caretaker” cost $25 million), despite the misgivings… Read more »

I would point out that annoying as they are to cater to, die-hard fans could easily be quantified as at least the number of viewers “Enterprise” still had left a decade ago. For a show on CBS proper that’s nothing, but for a streaming service behind a paywall, those 3 million viewers would be the equivalent of hitting a vein of diamonds.

I can name three fans who have stopped watching Trek completely these past ten years. One of them used to post here on TM!

You should watch what your saying Jason & Jenkins. It does happen, and until this article and comments, I have not given it much consideration. But with the downward trend in quality in these last few treks (minus the special effects, those have only gotten better), it seems the logical to abandon what is now left of Star Trek.

Ps. This article actually STRENGTHENS my previous argument that Paramount hold on the Star Trek brand, and copyrights are completely unenforceable and have IN FACT been abandoned — FOR DECADES!

Anaxar. You should have followed my advice and challenged them in court with this defense. H_ll they are even abandoning the fans.

The advertisers should love this spin. I wonder. Does the studio have a clause against actors saying dumb things?

As a fan of the Trek franchise for over 30 of it’s 50 years, I don’t feel like they are abandoning me at all. I am quite excited for Discovery.

How dare you try to connect the Fans Like Myself who are reacting to Discovery disrespecting Cannon & Genes Vision, Concept, Format & Rules but Still calling itself Star Trek & wanting us Disrespected fans to Pay for their Show & The TRUMP Supporter Charlottsville style Racists who have issues with Diversity in Star Trek- They are Absolutely unrelated- one is a rel creative concern the other is Racism.

No matter what anyone here might claim, every single person here WILL be watching Discovery. It’s not even worth pretending they won’t be, because they will.

@Arggggggh — except the ones who can’t figure out how to stream CBSAA ;-)

They’ll wait for the Blu-ray! ;)

Spock Jenkins: To be fair, there is the kind of fans who put down any criticism about Discovery and who claim that those who don’t love it already now are no true fans.

And please distinguish those (many) who complain about Discovery not staying true to the legacy from those (very few) who refuse the diversity of the show. I’m tired of the media coverage about racism among fans and of the strawman attacks at fandom – perform a Google search for “Star Trek Discovery criticism” and 90% of the results are about alleged and true racist statements! We know better that for the vast majority of fans, having diversity is a no-brainer and that other aspects than just the pet peeves of the media or of the cast and crew are important. I am sick of frequently being associated with racists just because I don’t like several aspects about the show.

Regarding the clarification, it is bad journalism that Isaacs was misquoted. I’m sorry he was attacked. But in the core, it seems that the following statement was authentic: “I look forward to having the fun of them being outraged, so they can sit up all night…” And I find it offensive.

Speak for yourself. Oh, I’m sorry…is that “hateful” of me? Tough. Put on your big girl panties & grow a pair.

And NO….I will NOT be watching. I’ll watch the pilot on CBS, but I WON’T be subscribing to All Access. Bet on it, my arrogant friend.

I’ll pass, thanks. I only bet on things I care about, and there is nothing — absolutely, positively nothing — in this world I care less about than whether you watch Discovery or not.

Oh, no…you mean there are actually people out there who disagree with you? How terrible! What kind of world do we live in today when not everyone agrees with everyone else? Awful.

Not me; at least, not any time soon.

I’ve been a Trekkie since 1967, when I watched TOS on a small black & white TV in the kitchen because my father thought it was junk and wouldn’t let us put it on in the living room. I was at the opening night of most of the first several films, and TNG was a weekly hosted event.

But, as DS9 got darker and grimmer, I lost a lot of interest; I really tried to like Voyager, but just couldn’t do it.

When they announced Enterprise, I had high hopes for a return to the wonder and optimism of the original series. No dice more grim and dark, and anachronistic tech. The supplicants said “you can’t make it look like the original in this day and age”, but “In a Mirror, Darkly” showed that they could, they just didn’t want to.

As for JarJar Trek, I won’t even dignify it with an analyses.

Now we have the latest “Star Trek is what we say it is, so shut up and watch it”. I might, eventually, when it’s on Youtube.

But for now, Jason Isaacs’ position reminds me an awful lot of the ads for New Coke.

“I’m my top choice.” Awesome.

i liked that,too!

The man does not seem to suffer fools gladly, does he?

Its likely just playful banter. Nothing bad or unusual.

I loved Jason Isaacs with his first comments and I love him even more with the tweets. He’s a free thinker and a straight shooter. Everything he said is on point.

He’s a condescending, Arrogant, disrespectful A**hole who doesn’t deserve his role, at least some of the other actors get they have stepped into something special by being cast in a show called Star Trek (even if it isn’t actually Star Trek in nature)

Well, he may indeed be all of those things. Or, not. Don’t know the man. But I haven’t always heard the greatest things about Bill Shatner over the years either. Still, he did pretty good by that Starship Captain gig.

To quote Shatner. .. “Get a life.”

Trek fan 67,

Re:“Get a life.”

You can’t assign quotes to actors for merely reciting their written lines. Proper attribution for quoting goes to Robert Smigel who wrote it for his fictional Shatner character that the game real actor agreed to perform, because the line as written expresses the author’s (Smigel is a self-described “bully comic”. See his other creation: Triumph, The Insult Comic Dog) sentiments and ideas.

Save it for the pedantic dome E.B. White

…Rick Sanchez (paraphrased)…

The Lensman,

Might seem such since I abridged my normal screed where I point out Seth Meyers said the SNL writers claimed the funniest thing about the line never aired as Shatner never heard the line used before and kept exploring saying it and got it hilariously wrong every time. Smigel eventually demonstrated the proper intonation.

And William Shatner is a doe-eyed saint and Kate Mulgrew never once tried to make Jeri Ryan’s life a living hell on set. Just stop.

Sybock\'s Other Brother

Go climb a rock.

Pretty clear what he went. And yet some fans went as hilariously nuts as expected, making the actor’s original point all the more delightful.

I guess sadly FAKE NEWS from much of the media isn’t limited to politics. To much BS just to sell papers and get clicks.

It’s clear what he meant & he made the other comments off camera.

Why did you have to put ‘fake news’ in all-caps?

Because the only way to use the word ‘fake news’ is to scream it out into the world ;-)

Yeah, guess there’s no better way to put your case than overstating it.
Geez, the internet…

Just because it has become a common frase used by both sides for news thats appears to be false. Perhaps I should have used quotes. What’s the big deal?

His original comment made my like him already, no need to clarify anything

So the show is attracting idiots .

Only on the troll side.

More like the show is attracting people who a.) aren’t afraid of Trek trying new things and b.) have better things to do than complain about every damn thing this show or anyone associated with it says or does

I resemble that remark.

Congrats on being the precise type they’re expecting to eat this new slop up without question. You do realize they think you’re a mindless idiot that’ll watch anything they put the Trek name on, right?

I have quite a few questions, thanks. And you’re obviously quite a type of your own.

Jason Isaacs is clearly irreverent and thrives on a bit of controversy. Empirical evidence would seem to suggest that these are often qualities found in some of our best artist.

Hurtful trouble makers are not the same as Artists. Artists build & inspire not destroy & degrade.

Nope. Not all great art is inspirational, sorry.

He dares fans not to watch? Did he ever hear about ST:Enterprise?

Yes. And fans watched it. Casual viewers did not. Have a look at what came out of that, and guess why Isaacs is worried about attracting casual viewers, but not die-hard fans.

@Salvador Nogueira,

Fans left ENT in droves.

He is obviously Ignorant as well.

Aweh, poor little TOS butterfly purists! GET A LIFE! :P

Without TOS, there is no new Star Trek show. They need to stop messing with the ideals and the formula that made that show survive 50 years !!

I agree about the ideals (the “formula,” otoh, could definitely use some tweaking). But how do you know for a fact that they are?

Obviously you can’t read.

How so?

That show didn’t survive 50 years. It survived three years and was reincarnated again and again with slight tweaks. DSC is a tweak too.

I have a feeling Lorca won’t go beyond the first season. He’s got a doomed villain vibe about him, but then again Isaacs always does.

What’s contaversial about his comments? I don’t see anything wrong with what he said.

Really? That the Kirk & picard don’t matter, he enjoys the fact Discovery is alienating fans & dares them not to watch?
He’s a condescending, arrogant, ignorant A**hole & doesn’t deserve his “Space boots”

I think someone needs a hug and a cup of hot cocoa.

Michael.

I think you mistake Trekboi’s passion and respect of Trek and its history as as something that should be made fun of.

Very demeaning. Stop that!

DON’T LITTER!

I don’t fault him for his passion for Trek and its history, having a fair amount of that myself, and probably for longer than he’s been alive. It is possible, however, to take your passions too seriously, particularly in the case of a TV space opera. If you’re getting angrier over the irreverent attitude of a TV actor than what happened in Charlottesville, or Barcelona, or the condition of the West Antarctic ice sheet, you’re probably taking this stuff way too seriously, not to mention personally.

Really, it’s all in gentle good fun. :-)

@Michael Hall,

Seriously? Are you actually using the tragic events that took place in Charlottesville & Barcelona as a way to criticize a fan on a Star Trek forum?

Reasonable human beings are rightly angry about those horrific events but Trekmovie is not a political forum where people are allowed to express their anger.

Nah, just suggesting that views towards a particular iteration of a TV space opera aren’t worth getting frothing-at-the-mouth-upset about (“he’s a condescending, arrogant a-hole”), as opposed to real-world events that are. You are, of course, free not to make that distinction yourself.

I don’t know why anyone takes notice of newspapers any more. At best they are full of half truths. But mostly they are lies.

Not all of them. Media literacy is an important trait for all of us to improve.

It’s always lots of fun to have an outspoken actor . Will be keeping half an eye on for Discovery ! Really enjoyed Star Trek Enterprise , and even if Discovery is for the new generation , wish them well !

I have nothing against Mr Isaacs or his work. I have enjoyed many of his films and performances. However it doesn’t appear to be a secret that he isn’t fond of fan culture. My partner and i saw him at a fan signing for his show Awake at SDCC some years back and he made no effort to engage with anyone nor hide the fact that he didn’t want to be there. I’ve seen similar behavior at other conventions he has attended. At the end of the day i suppose none of that matters, as long as the show is good and he is good in it I’m happy.

That sounds like Avery Brooks. Bummer for those on the convention circuit, but my main concern will always be: is the actor any good in the role?

Avery Brooks is fun at conventions. Never seems like he doesn’t want to be there, merely that he DGAF what people think, he’s comfortable in his own skin and eccentricities. He just comes across as a crazy professor. With tenure.

One minute people claim the world is too PC and that people are too sensitive. The next minute, they complain about their hurt feelings and how they don’t like an actor. 9 times out of 10, they’re the same ones who claimed that Star Trek is now all about SJWs and not the “true” fans. To be frank, the original comment comes off as a very British way of saying “If they don’t like our take on it then good, that means controversy, and that means buzz for the show.”

I LOVE Isaacs’ response to “Go fuck yourself;” that’s a good one! :-)

I’m not offended either. I mean, we shouldn’t expect and it’s not fair for EVERY actor/actress who enters a Star Trek show to become a full fledged member of the community. Jason Issacs just wants to do a good job in his latest acting gig, get paid and enjoy the perks of his profession. If someone asks him a question, he will give an honest answer…I can imagine that this is how a REAL captain will behave!

If they don’t want to enter the community- then Don’t be on the show! Simple.

Were Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley, et al members of “the community” when they signed on?

@Michael Hall,

A dumb retort since there was no community to being with when they signed on. Those guys were the founders of the Trek phenomenon.

Uh, yeah. My point, exactly. Why is it essential for actors cast in a modern Trek series to be fans themselves when the originals weren’t? What’s important is that they have the chops to play their parts convincingly, just as with any other show. Whether or not they really love hanging out at Comic Con is really none of my business, or yours.

@Michael Hall,

Obviously actors don’t need to be fan of the franchise they’re working on. Not sure where are you getting this “love hanging out at Comic Con” prerequisite, didn’t address that in my comment and it is a dumb point as well.

My, are you just looking to pick a fight? Here’s what I was responding to, which wasn’t even your post:

“If they don’t want to enter the community- then Don’t be on the show! Simple.”

Which, in turn, was responding to this:

“I mean, we shouldn’t expect and it’s not fair for EVERY actor/actress who enters a Star Trek show to become a full fledged member of the community.”

Which means I was only agreeing with your statement that “Obviously actors don’t need to be fan of the franchise they’re working on.” Quit looking for things to be angry about.

If you don’t like what you see or hear them say then don’t watch the show! Simple.

FUck him, he should be killed of in the First episode, and have the Leading lady Sonequa Martin be out First African American Female Star Trek Captain ! ~ T

He’s drumming up buzz. I bet the producers are absolutely delighted.

Yup! Still a month to go, though.

There’s no controversy here.

*Sigh*. These days, there’s controversy everywhere.

thus far, i have not subscribed to CBS All Access. No plans to do so.

I plan on watching the first episode on CBS. If it’s knock your socks off, maybe…maybe I’d spring for it. But there’s no reason to rush into a subscription. I’ll see what they are selling first on CBS. Otherwise I may just wait until it comes out on DVD/Blu-Ray down the road (if it’s at least average you can bet CBS will milk what they can out of it, including DVD sales). As someone who likes consistency, I do have concerns, but I’ll try to keep an open mind.

“Meanwhile the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different cultures and races, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.”
Douglas Adams was right. He just neglected to call it “social media”.

Hee! Good one!

All in good fun. I wouldn’t count on Trek fans watching no matter what is put out anymore — that didn’t work on the last two movies. I’ll watch, and if it’s good I’ll continue. But nothing is guaranteed past the premiere. And is he saying Lorca is going to be less classically heroic than previous captains? That could be a problem for fans and non fans.

While Trek fans complement themselves for saving TOS or Trek in general, their sense of entitlement is now holding Trek back. Might be time to jettison much of the base if Trek wants to recapture its edge and move ahead.

So Moauvian Wapul, who is going to watch & Support (buying merchendise/attending events) Star Trek if they Jettison the Star Trek fans who have supported the franchise for Decades?
Casual fans? CASUAL Fans? do you know what Casual means?

It is so mind blowing- Star Trek’s “EDGE”was its utopian future, that people wanted to live in- that’s exactly what they are Jettisoning to attract the general audience.

Sad to say I’m older than the vast majority of these people, yet I’m too young to have had anything to do with TOS being saved in its third year. People take this stuff way too personally.

Only Doctor Who rival Star Trek for having lasted so long with a largely uninterrupted line of continuity. It’s a wonderful thing, but after so many decades it becomes a huge issue when nitpicking fans take umbrage with everything yet are hypocritical at the same time.

What’s really unfortunate here is that, like many others these days, he’s using the ”haters gonna hate” excuse to dismiss all the criticism, valid or not.

Being as not a single episode of the show has aired, I don’t think he owes the “critics” any respect at all. After 09/24, of course, DSC is fair game.

But we have seen things: trailers, production stills, news articles. So the criticisms are not totally blind. True that we don’t have a full picture and should wait to pass full judgment, but we have enough to start making preliminary assessments.

Very preliminary. Criticism of what’s been seen so far is fine (I’ve had some myself), but asserting the show is going to tank because you don’t like the uniforms is just plain silly.

The problem is that both sides (mine, who are not liking what we’re seeing so far, and your, who, apologies if I misread your statements, are quite excited for it) are far too often building strawmen of the other.

I will watch at least the first episode (I can watch more for some time, as I livr in the U.S. amd can’t justify paying more money for something I won’t use almost at all), and hope to be wrong about my feelings so far. But I have neither seen nor read hardly anything that seems like it adheres to ‘Star Trek’ lore or history.

No, I don’t think that they should be using papier-mâché rocks or anything of that sort, I do hope that they update the visuals but remain true to the in-universe era they claim to be in. I do not see that. I see nothing that indicates it, nor do I see the hopeful, optimistic future that propelled ‘Star Trek’ to be a cornerstone of sci-fi pop culture that ir became.

Again, I do hope to be wrong. I really want ‘Star Trek’ to be back, but so far, I simply am not seeing it. I see generic science fiction (which can be fun, I love many simple, cookie-cutter sci-fi stories), but not ‘Star Trek’.

Sorry,
“…and yours, who…”
“I can’t watch…”
“…as i live in the U.S. and…”
“…that it became.”

Damn typos, LOL. I really should proof-read before sending. ;-)

Good reply, and no apologies necessary. I would characterize my feelings at the moment as “reasonably excited, with caveats” (see what I did there?). Not too dissimilar to where I was prior to May of 2009, since I love Trek and always hope for the best, especially when fresh faces (and hopefully new ideas) get their chance, as the unproduced Phase II, the early years of TNG, and the latter part of the Berman era show what can happen when things get stale. But for all my hopes I was badly burnt in 2009, and remain wary as a consequence to this day.

I wasn’t going to watch before, and I’m certainly not gonna watch now. This guy can really go fuck himself.

Didn’t know there was a substantive difference between “not going to watch” and “certainly not going to watch.” Fascinating.

He did just Fu*k himself & the show lol

How so? You really think most people care?

No he didn’t. How?

Your man strikes me as quite the hysteric, sorry. I’ll bet I’ve been a TOS fan longer than he’s been alive, and Isaac’s comments don’t faze me at all.

I think the thing that sort of gets under my skins more than anything is the show runners saying this is part of canon and so forth and it’s looking more and more like a reimaging. Frankly, they’d be better off just pulling off the Band-Aid and admitting it’s a reimaging. Sure it might get the purists upset…at first. And some would not come around, but they’ve lost those people anyway so might as well just come out and say this is set in a different reality.
Personally, for me, I would have preferred a different time period. Had they gone say 100 years past Nemesis, that’s far enough removed that they could do pretty much anything they wanted and said it was part of the prime timeline. As long as they didn’t suddenly rewrite history, something like saying the Dominion War never happened for example, they’d be pretty safe. But 10 years before the original series. There’s just no way you can shoehorn that in, say it’s part of the existing canon and hope the fans buy into all the inconsistencies. Why they even wanted to try to tackle that is beyond me. Abrams movies got around it by basically creating a different time line, and having Leonard Nimoy be the anchor between the two. It was actually pretty ingenious, as I have noted before, allowing them to say Star Trek (2009) is a sequel, reboot and prequel, all at the same time.

Well, I thought Trek 2009’s multiverse wrinkle was a huge bit of nonsense on multiple levels. But may I ask, respectfully, why this is so important to you? Even if every Trek series going forward was a sequel, would you be able, on a visual level, to take TOS seriously as a depiction of life three centuries from now? Now there will be a contemporaneous show that doesn’t fit with its ’60s-era design and production values. So long as it doesn’t contradict anything story wise, what difference does it make?

The old it has to be a complete recreation of TOS or total reboot & nothing in between.
Ughh.

I hear your point, but I would respectfully say that there is a difference between updating and using more modern technology to create a show and it’s look AND completely redoing a shows’s look so as to ignore what has gone before. There is certainly no need to create a set design for what a starship and its crew might have looked exactly like 10 years before Kirk and Co, some care should be taken. Everything I’ve seen of this show looks as if it’s JJverse set design. Fine. No issues. Set it in JJverse. But, if its prime time line, think creatively as to how to update a look while remaining true to cannon.

Yes, the classic series is a 60’s idea of the future. No need to redo that. But, if you’re going to do a prequel, you have to respect what went after. My opinion.

Look, personally, and its hard to tell in posts, I have no antipathy or anger re the new show. I hope it does well. But, for several reasons, I am extremely apathetic about it, and won’t pay extra money to watch it on a streaming service. I’ll likely read episode recaps on line, and that’s it. I’m a die hard Trek fan, but I’d rather have seen them move forward rather than revisit the past yet again.

Well, I hated the production design of the Kelvin films for the most part, and think what I’ve seen of Discovery so far is actually a good deal closer to the design lineage of TOS in many respects (though admittedly it’s still quite a stretch). But it won’t stop me from watching the show, even if I myself would have preferred something closer in style. To each, his own.

I disagree that it’s closer in line with the classic series lineage, but that, in itself, isn’t stopping me from watching. It’s an amalgam of reasons. I do wish the show well, but I’ll be sitting out. I may read episode recaps/reviews to see what the story winds up being, but not more than that. Honestly, I have less issues with the JJverse designs because of the alternate universe deal and history changing aspect of the story. I’ve watched a lot of Trek over the years. I think they should have moved forward not back. But that’s my two cents only.

I don’t know that DSC’s Starfleet designs are too far removed from “Enterprise.” Really, unless we subscribe to Simon Pegg’s desperate after-the-fact attempt to explain every JJ Trek inconsistency as being down to the time rift affecting everything to Chekhov’s hair to Sulu’s sexual orientation, we have to consider that the look of the Kelvin is largely a Prime universe design we need to accept as much as we strain to justify Nero’s highly un-Romulan ship and makeup. Based on that, DSC isn’t wildly off base, it’s just the Klingons that people get into a tizzy about, as if we all really think that KISS wigs and outdated costumes are gonna fly in 2017.
JJ and co. got credit for trying to keep Prime fans happy but also got their wrists slapped for doing it messily. Trek fans act like semi-socialized pets all the time, you never know if they’ll appreciate or bite you at any moment, no matter what you do.

“Trek fans act like semi-socialized pets all the time, you never know if they’ll appreciate or bite you at any moment, no matter what you do.”

Okay, I’m giving you the Internets of the Day Award for that one. So long as I can steal it.

I love your “semi-socialized pets” comment. Ha. Re the JJverse Trek, I have some issues there that come down to sloppy choices they made. One big one was the Cumberbatch casting. Great actor. Wrong part. But, hey, first world cinema/tv problems. Not the end of the world.

Honestly, If I had been the producers of the new series, I would have moved forward….less issues with canon etc, and a bigger slate to create a brand new world. Heck, they could have still even used a “relative of Spock” if they wanted to. Nimoy said in interviews that Saavik stayed behind on Vulcan in Trek IV because she was pregnant with Spock’s child. His words, not mine.

In the end, first world problems. I wish the show well. Just not paying extra to a streaming service to watch. I’ll read recaps of the episodes.

I agree with all of this. I’m looking forward to Discovery but I also think they should just call it a reboot and be done with it. Its this very strange line how they keep saying everything is ‘in canon’ and yet we now have a Klingon war that never really existed and Spock suddenly has an adopted sister. Again, not the end of the world for me personally but I can understand how it would bother others they basically just redid this era of Trek from the look of the ships, Klingons to the uniforms but then claim its all in line what has come before.

Its a very nuance argument. I really wish they set it after Nemesis they could’ve done anything they wanted. In fact if you imagined this show 50 years after Nemises, basically everything about it from the uniforms to the Discovery ship itself would fit right in because nothing in that time period has been written yet.

Hopefully it will all work itself out and fans will embrace it but it is a gamble.

Again–can you take TOS seriously as a believable vision of life in 2266? So why worry about a modern show somewhat contradicting it?

Thats why I said they should just call it a reboot OR simply put it post-Nemesis and you wouldn’t have this problem at all. I love TOS but it looks way too campy and dated today. The fact they say with a straight face they are trying to keep within canon of that shows is the entire problem. Why even try???

I think you lose more in calling it a reboot then you do in having it be an actual visual reboot but labelled a canon-contemporary.

I really think part of the JJ films’ issues was that once they stumbled a bit, it was far too easy for people to not care and turn away because it wasnt “real”.

I DO think Discovery could have avoided the whole debate had they chosen a different era, but I maintain post-nemesis wasnt the right fit. Enterprise B would have been because the updated visuals would have been far less stark than they are in the TOS era

One could argue that the creative team was getting worn out, but no one charged with making what became “Enterprise” was particularly jazzed about setting the show post-24th century. The argument was always, “What’s going to be really that different and exciting? Shinier sets?” I suspect Bryan Fuller had some ideas as he mulled over his anthology plans, but the reasoning behind making a show set around the TOS era is that it’s highly marketable. It ties into JJ Trek and TOS, that’s a better sell these days than saying someone is Jean-Luc Picard’s great-grandniece on the Enterprise G.

Yeah, the ships are bigger, and can fly all the way to Andromeda. Who cares? What matters are the people, and their connection to situations and events we care about.

Michael Hall,

Re: Yeah, the ships are bigger, and can fly all the way to Andromeda. Who cares?

Well, to be fair, the ships flying all the way to Andromeda groundwork was laid in the original series with the Kelvan modifications. And I’ve pondered whether NOMAD’s modifications ever approached or exceeded those…

I’d always assumed the Kelvans insisted on removing their modifications as a condition of releasing the ship, possibly their own version of the Prime Directive.

Michael Hall,

Re: Kelvans insisted on removing their modifications as a condition of releasing the ship

That wouldn’t have made any sense. The Enterprise had already exited the Milky Way. If the Kelvans insisted on removing their modifications when Kirk forced them to turn over control of the ship, they all would have been VOYAGEResque stranded in unknown unexplored space. Besides the Kelvans had not only modified the ship but themselves as well so the mods all had to be human manageable and comprehensible.

Maybe after they all got back to Federation space such a deal might have been brokered but the contamination would have already happened with Messrs. Scott and Spock having ample time to analyze and make at least some rudimentary intuitive leaps at the technological possibilities.

But thanks to future writers in future series we can imagine Section 31 took over any and all such research.

@Damian — what inconsistencies? So far I haven’t seen a thing that violates canon.

Maybe in the future there is so much peace that even a small skirmish sounds like a war! I’m sure ya’ll historians who dropped through the guardian of forever to set things right.
Wow.
With “fans” like these….

I won’t be watching it mostly because paying $10 a month for CBS All Access isn’t something I’m willing to do at this point. I get a lot more content for $10/month on NetFlix or Hulu than I will with All Access. If I could see CBS Network shows without delay, maybe I could see it as part of the cord cutting. But I’m not ready to do that yet…

Its actually $5.99. $9.99 is without commercials but I hear you.

Apple is now investing heavily in original content to try and stay in the OTT game. Its gaining momentum.

I totally understand the perspective of not being there yet for some people. I currently only have Netflix as an OTT (I have WWE Network but its a terrestrial channel in Canada, though it does cost me $12.

For other OTT’s, when I’ve been intrigued by one or two programming options, I’ve chosen to purchase the disc.

Its sort of amusing in some ways that the idea of Star Trek on a streaming service has resulted in quite a bit of pushback from fans. Maybe a bit of irony there.

When you look at Netflix and the break down of its revenue for streaming which is in the 90+% vs its original disc rental, as an industry trailblazer, we see whats coming. Disney, ESNP, Apple and others, the investment is showing us the new reality. The push is on for premium content via streaming.

Maybe, but I honestly still don’t get all the pushback and resentment. I understand that some fans on fixed or limited incomes honestly can’t spare the $5.99 a month, and that’s a real shame. I don’t make a huge amount of money by any means, but I’m pretty debt-free and consequently have a fair amount of discretionary income. But back in the day when I was much younger and poorer and getting Trek back in any form seemed like an impossible dream, I would have been ecstatic to be able to part with a few dollars a month to get more. That so many seem unwilling indicates to me that the fan base is still jaded, and I fear that doesn’t bode at all well for the future of this franchise.

Just sign up for one month 29 days out from the season finale, and then cancel. With inevitable free trial offers, you might even be able to pay nothing and binge it faster. If CBS can’t keep subscribers beyond how long it takes to watch DSC, then that’s a problem for them to solve, but the All-Access cost is not a viable complaint IMO. It costs a couple of Starbucks to subscribe and cancel.

I think they’re telegraphing they are making the show they want to make and don’t feel constrained by anything. Which means it will be heavy duty PC filled SJW bullshit non stop.

or, ya know, a war story.

Admins, can you PLEASE do something about the spamcrap from idiots like Greg Sirmon and others who ONLY come here to spread right-wing hatred? These are NOT Trek fans, NOT good people, and NOT the right kind of posts to allow here. You really need to start maintaining some standards here, or it’ll become a Fox News comments section instead of a STAR TREK site. For the love of Trek, PLEASE ban all these right-wing hate attacks!!!

I don’t see any right wing hatred PaulB. I see concerned Star Trek fans who see the “diversity” not as natural and organic like the original but agenda driven. There were no “hate-attacks” except form you injecting attitudes and opinions that aren’t present.

How about explaining what makes the diversity on this show any more or less “natural,” “organic,” or “agenda-driven” than anything that came before? Seriously, go ahead.

Jack D – Haha. You’re funny. Your ignorance (or willful denial) of the right-wing hatefulness that floods this forum is your own problem. I mean, I literally replied to a clear case of right-wing bigotry, yet you’re saying there’s none here. Yeah. Right. Whatever.

Don’t bother replying to me ever again. You’re on the list of right-wing trolls that I won’t ever waste time with again. Bye!

It’s very hard to defend people who attack diverse casting and PC and morality tales in Star Trek of all things.

Very sad to say that’s where we live now. But it’s still a minority of people and fandom.

What–just get off the bus from Charlottesville, fool?

Yeah I agree with you no doubt it will be an MSM SJW PC friendly appeal to the masses type of syfy show with the Star Trek brand slapped on it! At least it will not last long & get cancelled sooner or later so there is hope after all for the true Trek fans!

Notice how the dweebs who use lazy neologisms like “MSM” and “SJW” can’t even be bothered to spell or punctuate correctly, let alone know anything of Star Trek‘a history or the beliefs of the people who made it? It literally never fails.

And who are you? New to this site, I suppose.

What on Earth do you think has been the bread and butter of every single Star Trek series since 1966? Or charitably, if we can’t call TOS exactly “PC,” since 1987?

The casting of Nichols and Takei was as peecee as it gets.

The series will be limited to CBSAA so any damage to the franchise should be minimal at best.
ST Discovery be a fart that lingers too long in a couch cushion.

Not watching. Mostly because I don’t want to bother paying for the extra service required. But the material shown and the big F you that seems to be given from the creators and now the star of the show doesn’t make me want to pay for it at all.

How many people here have real life friends (not online keyboard wariors), workplace colleagues etc who they know for a fact who are going to pay out a subscription to watch this?

Was not watching anyway but now I will ensure I never ever watch or contribute a single dime to this show. Liked Isaacs as an actor but after his misguided, pretentious & arrogant comments it has ruined me ever watching anything in with him again. How can an actor be so out of touch & bite the hand which feeds him but I guess the direction of this show is designed to promote that type of selfish attitude so I hope it gets cancelled before the first season even completes its run!!

Your potential loss, whatever. For decades William Windom never made any bones about the fact that he considered Trek to be nothing but a silly TV sci-fi show that he did just for the money, and that he couldn’t care less about it or the fans who took it so seriously. Yet his portrayal of Commodore Matt Decker has been a gift to fandom for the past fifty years. Because in the end, you see, that’s what matters: the work.

Michael Hall,

Re:Windom’s Pride

If I recall from that time, wasn’t that more a factor of Windom’s pride in MY WORLD AND WELCOME TO IT? Or better stated as perhaps Thurber himself? He did touring Thurber shows as I recall.

His role in Night Gallery‘s “They’re Tearing Down Tim Riley’s Bar,” too. He took a lot of pride in that.

(His attitude towards Trek may have softened towards the end, considering he reprised the role of Decker for an early episode of “New Voyages.” Or maybe he just liked sharing some screen time with BarBra Luna. Who wouldn’t?)

His comments kind of remind me of when Daniel Craig was first signed on as Bond. Craig was never great with the media and always managed to say some things which old-time fans found inflammatory.

He’s entitled to his opinion and I learned a long time ago that when it comes to actors it’s best to try to judge them by the quality of their work and ignore their personal views as much as possible because they will almost always end up offending or disappointing somebody.

Now that I’m in my 50s the success or failure of a TV show or movie (even one with the name Star Trek attached to it) doesn’t mean that much to me; I have bigger issues to deal with.

Tony D–

Remember in the ’70s when the fans would get all incensed when Roddenberry would talk about Paramount wanting to recast the roles of Kirk and Spock? Well, it happened in 2009 and it turns out I could have accepted it just fine, if it hadn’t been such a terrible movie otherwise.

Passing the half-century mark definitely changes your outlook on what’s important.

I do remember the hoopla around Xon replacing Spock and Decker replacing Kirk on Phase II. The funny part was that the news was so slow back then (I got most of my info from Starlog) that the issues were often resolved before I even knew they existed :)

Hitting the big 5-0 definitely changed my outlook on a lot of things. Nowadays if I see or read something I don’t particularly care for or agree with, I just shrug my shoulders and move on.

I like this guy.

I love how people will always quote out of context.

I won’t be watching. But, I also wish the show well. I applaud the diversity and the casting.
I am a die hard Trek fan, but I honestly refuse to pay extra to a CBS streaming service JUST to watch. I’m not even going to pay just for a month to watch the show all at once. That’s the main reason. So, when Isaacs says he knows the die hard fans will watch….maybe so, but maybe not.

I’m also feeling a lot of apathy re the new show.

First, the look of the show is JJverse not prime timeline. Silly complaint, but one can update and still remain true. Second, the show is again revisiting the past rather than moving forward. Third, the “Spock’s sister” (my words) aspect. I’d believe this only one way….were she Sybok’s daughter that Sarek was raising.

Again, I have no hatred, only apathy were the show is concerned. I have no doubt it will be well acted, well written and well made.

But, sorry Mr. Isaacs, I’m a big fan of your’s too, but I won’t be signing in. Good luck, though. I mean that.

Why wouldn’t an adoption be legally viable to make Michael Spock’s sister?
Forget whether you think it is a good idea or not.
Why wouldn’t it be legal?
an adopted family member is still family.

Yes, you’re right, but my comment wasn’t whether it was legal or night, but rather in line with canon. I find it believable to think a daughter of a brother we know Spock never mentioned (as stated in Trek V) would also have never been mentioned. However, I just dislike (my personal opinion only) the idea of shoehorning in a relative to Spock (via adoption or whatever other means) into the Trek universe. Again, only personal opinion here, and not meant in any legal sense of her being his sister or not.

It may never be all that believable, though possibly good writing could make it work. But, you know what? If it results in some interesting storytelling within the confines of this particular show (and some insights on what it would be like to be a human growing up on Vulcan), that takes precedence over canon for me every time.

I totally agree with this view.

I respectfully disagree, but I see your point.

Wow, my opinion of this guy just plummeted.

I’m gonna pretend I never read this or even heard about it. The last thing I need is the media stirring up controversy between DSC actors and ST fans, if that’s actually what happened. Looking forward to DSC and Isaacs. Shatner and Stewart still rock. And there we are.

Sounds like harmless banter to me. Pretty sure he’s just having a lark there.

Wow. I can’t believe people here are actually defending him and actually agreeing with what he said. Everyone involved with this show shows a clear lack of respect for what makes Star Trek so great in the first place, I’m sick of them thinking it needs to be reinvented, they’re trying to make Star Trek into what they think it should be like and not what it is actually like. Damn shame on you.

Better stick with your copy of “The Cage,” then, because Trek has been reinventing itself ever since.

Actually this is a brilliant marketing move and possibly even “staged’. It causes controversy and gets people talking! It certainly makes me curious to watch.

@ Scotty – I doubt it was ‘staged’, as it seems a strange move to deliberately alienate some of your core potential audience beforehand. No, I think he was just carelessly made some flippant comments which effectively gave some of this franchise’s audience the middle finger.

That’s fair enough, and I won’t hold it against him, but I certainly wouldn’t call it an inspired ‘marketing ploy’ of any sort. I reckon this particular STAR TREK ‘spin-off’ has enough divisive things going for it already, without adding more.

I’ll be downloading it, I’m not super excited, I don’t know why they had to call it Star Trek, if the old stuff wasn’t good enough just rebrand it something else…I’d still download it :)

If the NY Daily News ran an article stating that water is wet, I’d go turn on the faucet just to make sure. A total rag.

Not a problem, Jason. I will, in fact, NOT be watching with the exception of the pilot. I have enough bills to pay for entertainment. I’m not subscribing to another & paying an additional $6 to $7 a month just to watch one show. That was a stupid move on the part of CBS. The show should have been on Netflix here in the States as well (I already pay them nearly $20 a month for streaming & DVD service).

Maybe a little less time spent with the TV overall would be a good idea.

He’s an actor. It’s a job. As long as he does a good job, who cares.

@Marja,

I didn’t know that part of actor’s job is to antagonize their potential viewers.

I think you understand that’s not what she was saying.

Star Trek “Fans” are some of the biggest snowflakes out there. They act like they’re entitled to Star Trek ONE way and then get bent when someone says something that is critical against them. They need to get a life and move on.

wpDiscuz
Advertisment ad adsense adlogger