Watch New Footage Of Lorca and Burnham In Latest ‘Star Trek Discovery’ Web Promo

This morning CBS released a new web promo for Star Trek: Discovery on Twitter  with the message “We are a long way from home.” Unlike the promo released last week, this new one features some new footage from the show mixed in with previously seen footage from the two trailers. Check it out.

 

We are a long way from home. #StarTrekDiscovery

A post shared by Star Trek Discovery (@startrekcbs) on

What’s new in the new promo

The new promo starts off with a new shot of Sonequa Martin-Green’s Michael Burnham.

There is also some new voice over. It is unclear if it is dialog from the show but it appears Burnham is talking to T’Kuvma, the head of the Klingons saying:

We strive towards this dream of peace where all species can share common ground. Yet no dream will protect us from you.

This is accompanied by a new shot of T’Kuvma and some close-up shots of the Klingon armor and a Klingon hand grasping what appears to be a bat’leth.

Later in the promo we see a new shot of Jason Isaacs as Captain Gabriel Lorca. This includes dialog of him which is used as voice over: 

The work we do is hard. It is not with out sacrifice. We are a long way from home. But I know it is sacrifice worth making.

We also see a new shot of Lorca and Burnham walking along a corridor of the U.S.S. Discovery with the exchange:
Lorca: “You know what we need to do…”
Burnham: “We need to win.”
Lorca: “That’s the spirit.”

Other observations

  • From the new promo we can see in the USA this will be rated TV-MA
  • Note that Burnham has no insignia at all in her scene with Lorca, this seems to indicate she may not officially be back in Starfleet yet after her “fall from grace.” For more on how this fits together, check out our article on everything we think we know about Burnham.

 

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.

Sort by:   newest | oldest

And yet again if your outside the US you can’t view the video :-(

Someone will have it up on YouTube shortly I’m sure, they always do, studios too dumb to realize that lok

It’s on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/qv1vjwt6r_8

Thanks

Love your handle – isn’t that “part of the brain that controls time-perception”?

Thank you, just watched it, am looking forward to seeing this

It is a US show…

Actually, it’s produced in Canada and paid for by Netflix who stream it worldwide EXCEPT the US (and Canada).

It’s filmed in Canada, but produced by CBS Television Studios, Secret Hideout (Kurtzman’s production company), Living Dead Guy Productions (Fuller’s production company), and Roddenberry Entertainment, which are all US companies. Netflix paid a licensing fee to CBS for worldwide distribution rights.

@MattR — there has to be an incorporated Canadian unit producing in Canada, that’s the only way they can get the tax breaks, and pay local actors.

It’s available on SPACE and CRAVE TV in Canada.

And the Canadian Premiere will be on the CTV Network (akin to CBS). Although, we get CBS too so I assume it will be simulcast on CBS and CTV?

@DataMat,

So?

why are you surprised?

I know! Allergic to free advertising? Plus Netflix funded this more or as much as CBS no?

It’s more about who has distribution rights. Since Netflix paid a licensing fee to distribute it worldwide, it would want marketing materials to reflect that it’s a “Netflix Original.” If you’ve seen any of the Netflix commercials, they don’t mention CBS All Access since that’s not available outside the US yet, and could potentially confuse customers.

In Australia. No problem viewing it.

This looks good… really good.

Looks like it will be rated TVMA.

That’s kind of disconcerting.

Its great. It means the writers have the freedom to write the stories they want without dumbing it down for kids. I DO understand those people that want to watch it with their Children, but I certainly expect it not to be Game of Thrones level language, nudity, violence.

Nope, I don’t want to watch it with kids (I don’t have). But I want Star Trek to appeal to the inner child in myself and I want the old Star Trek that was family-friendly FOR MYSELF.

Plus, I hate having a bad conscience about this show’s very existence, because in the end, it will be watched by kids anway, whether it is suitable or not. And that’s something I feel bad about, especially concerning Star Trek!

Fuller said from the beginning the show was going to be more adult. Anyone who has seen Fuller’s other work, especially American Gods, knows the kind of material he likes doing. That said of course, I don’t think he ever intended the show to be that graphic sexually or language wise but he does seem to suggest it will be more of that than other Trek shows.

And I’m fine with that. I don’t think its anything wrong for these characters to sound and act like real adults. I don’t know anyone that doesn’t curse and sex is a natural part of life. As for violence, I’m trying to figure out what could they show at this point you don’t already get on regular TV now? CBS oddly has shown some of the most graphic shows in recent history. I use to have to turn away watching a CSI or Criminal Minds episode so I don’t think it will ever be anything like those. They may show a little more blood here or there but again, thats just reality.

Star Trek always dealt with mature themes. Some of the best episodes did. Like I said, I doubt you have to worry about sex, nudity and language, but Im perfectly content if they push it.

Every series pushed the ratings to what was acceptable at the time. We even got partial nudity in Enterprise.

While in theory I have no problem with nudity of any kind in a show, in practice it depends on how it’s executed. Enterprise was one of those shows were it became a problem for me because it was clearly a ratings grab. If the nudity feels “natural” then I am okay with it. None the less this could still be a show you could watch with your children because nudity and it’s “usage” is a topic that should be discussed.

“…it depends on how it’s executed. Enterprise was one of those shows were it became a problem for me because it was clearly a ratings grab. If the nudity feels “natural” then I am okay with it.”

Nudity on Enterprise??? What are you talking about Sorry, but some tank top nipping in the decon chamber and some T’Pol rear “nakedness” on one or two occasions is not the kind of “nudity” I’m worried about. I’d be perfectly fine with that stuff again. That stuff wouldn’t even be considered “nudity” outside the US.

Nope. When talking about my dislike for nudity, we are talking Game of Thrones kind of scenarios or worse: From Dusk Till Dawn, Species, Lifeforce, Night of the Demons, American Gods… Nudity in combination with monsterous, brutal acts, alien women devouring male victims internally, alien strip clubs with green-skinned Orion slave girls and three-breasted cat women turning into space vampires, Klingons killing each other during uncensored mating rituals… That’s the stuff I’m afraid of, not tank top nipping or a brief glance of Stamet’s backside…

Well Smike, you shouldn’t speak for the rest of the world. I lived in Korea and scenes like that was blocked out a LOT and use to be censored in theaters. Its probabaly more liberal there now though but yes every place has its amount of prudes. If that wasn’t the case adult movies would be shown with the family stuff (and I said ‘adult movies’ because I used the P word here once and it was blocked lol).

But yes I agree, nothing on Enterprise I considered nudity. C’mon people, do you all live in convents? You can find MUCH worse on your phones in literally seconds.

It’s not about living in a convent. It’s about the uncessary sexualization of women. These images can have a negative impact on young women and it’s a serious topic. Nudity, partial nudity, and even healthy sexual relationships can be shown on tv in a good way but one needs to proceed with caution.

To be fair they sexualized men on Enterprise as well. Trip and Archer had their shirts off quite a few times lol. But yes I get your point, its mostly guys who watch Trek so they take advantage.

Still I think its a little over board to suggest because you saw someone’s butt for a few seconds little girls are impacted for life. Star Trek is pretty tame stuff even when it tried to be ‘edgy’. Look at the shows actually aimed at girls today. They don’t shy off from sex or nudity. The world is just more grown up today. Blame it on more progressive ideas, blame it on the internet but I doubt few kids over 12 have not seen adult films on some level (again, can’t say the P word ;)) and its just way more prevalent today.

Of course I’m not saying its necessarily good, but I am saying its just reality. Whatever people see on a TV show is probably pretty tame to what they already been exposed to and Trek is VERY tame end of the day.

But Discovery might change that!

“The world is just more grown up today. Blame it on more progressive ideas, blame it on the internet but I doubt few kids over 12 have not seen adult films on some level…”
“Of course I’m not saying its necessarily good, but I am saying its just reality. Whatever people see on a TV show is probably pretty tame to what they already been exposed to and Trek is VERY tame end of the day.”

You are right about both. But that is EXACTLY the reason why I don’t want nudity or sex on Star Trek. I just don’t want Trek to succumb to this level that the “adult films” (internet smut) provide for, not by a longshot.

Twenty-five years ago, I actually WANTED Star Trek to cross that “final frontier”… But after 20+ years of internet smut, I want Trek to stay clean of it. Because all of this is an aesthetic and moral disaster. Simply nudity is a door opener, a gateway drug and leads to more these days online and in the end, lots of those “models” end up in unspeakable group scenarios…

I’d rather throw my telly set out of the seventh floor than watch naked boobs on Trek on a good conscience, the tame and decent as this might be end of day.

I cant wait for them to show the gay couple in a romantic way and peoples heads will explode. lol

In fact, I’d laugh if the only nudity we get or sex scene is the two men in bed. I’d give them a lot of credit if they do it.

In the premiere of Orange is the New Black, they had the lead get into a shower with her girlfriend. It wasnt really gratuitous, it was shown for a few seconds to illustrate that they were in a same sex relationship and it was a normal thing. The girlfriend was shown topless and I think it was the actors first and only nudity on screen.

Do the same with the men on Discovery just to poke the trolls.

While on enterprise they didn’t have full on nudity but they did have partial nudity. For example scenes where the ladies had no shirts on and were standing there covering their boobs. Like Hoshi losing her shirt for no good reason, T’pol covering her boobs after removing her shirt, her butt showing etc….. We have also had commentary from Star Trek 09 producers where they admitted to putting Zoe Saldana in a bra because “she looks great in it.” There has also been other evidence to indicate that as the 18-49 yr old male category wanes the clothing becomes less as they attempt, stereotypically I might add, to appeal to men.

Obviously there does not need to have actual nudity but imply it in order for there to be controversy. It was especially grating because the women were treated that way but there was no gratuitous shots of men like that. Sure they had their shirts off but it was not done to drive ratings. While you might be okay with it I was not. If nudity was shown as a natural part of a relationship fine but so far Star Trek doesn’t have a good track record for that.

Yeah I had no problems with it. But I’m a guy lol. But I do remember the ‘controversy’ in STID when they had Carol Marcus strip down in the shuttle (man that seem like sooooo long ago but same time like yesterday) and I remember alllllll the debate about it here. I remember Keachick (a woman) going on for long essays about it and that she was good with it defending it endlessly (whatever happened to her btw?), which tells you not all women are bothered by it. Of course some will be, but its all a judgement call. I haven’t found a single thing Trek does as offensive. I mean T’Pol didn’t actually show her boobs so its pretty tame TV end of the day. I grew up in the hood, I learned about sex by the age of 7 lol. That said I have a normal outlook about it and I don’t argue women aren’t more sexualized but if you are going to go down that route pretty much most of TV and films will be in question, especially cable and streaming shows where they can just do a lot more. I think as long as its done moderately like Trek does, its fine. And even then it wasn’t until Enterprise you even saw more skin and then carried over into the Abrams movies. But its not like you saw any real nudity, people in sexual positions, etc. You can find that on sitcoms today. But again, Discovery… Read more »
“But its not like you saw any real nudity, people in sexual positions, etc. You can find that on sitcoms today. But again, Discovery might take it that far. I’ll definitely be watching if so. ;)” And I would definitely be NOT watching it anymore. Just imagine Trek going fully “Shameless” to some extend… I don’t know if I had the strength ever revisiting ANYTHING Star Trek after that, not even the old stuff. The problem with (sexualized) nudity or over-the-top splatter and gore would be the damage that it would do to the WHOLE FRANCHISE! Trek would forever be sullied by that sort of boundary pushing, even if they decided to abandon it in later seasons, a new TV show or further movies. Once it’s there, there is no way of getting rid of it anymore. It would be part of the legacy for good. If there is nudity or gore on GoT or American Gods, so be it. These are independent fictional worlds that do not share a common universe with anything decent that came before. You can enjoy watching it, stop watching it or watch and hate it at the same time because it doesn’t interfere with anyting that came before. But within a pre-established franchise, it’s a whole different story. Logan and Deadpool have ruined the X-Men franchise for me as a whole. I COULD still watch the PG-13 outings, but they are forever spoiled by having watched the R-Rated stuff. Same with Marvel Netflix… the… Read more »

I get all of that but I think for most people its just not a big deal. My guess is they will show more people in bed thats just every day life. Star Trek can sex it up a bit.

Keachick defended it because it was used to criticize her beloved Bob Orci. That Carol Marcus scene was atrocious. That actress is drop dead gorgeous and as a man, I can absolutely admire her body. She clearly works hard to maintain her fitness and physique so good for her. But that scene was bad in a variety of ways. Not only in objectifying women and being a completely obviously gratuitous scene, but in making Kirk look like an immature, drooling frat boy. If the writers werent hacks, there were other ways to get Carol naked. As simple as showing her exiting her shower or changing. Or having the scene as is, but with Kirk not turning around. But they wanted the vantage point of the camera low, staring up at her while the actoress posed in such a way to maximize the view of her crotch. Ridiculous. In 09, they showed Uhura changing. Because she was in her quarters and changing out of uniform. Makes sense. They even had Kirk not really ogling her or Uhura really over-reacting. Because they are soldiers. It made sense. They had the Orion in her underwear because she was in bed with Kirk…made sense. In an earlier STID scene, they had Kirk getting out of bed in his underwear. Perfectly fine. He was with two women, fine to a degree although the scene was stupid for other reasons. Sexualizing a solider changing into a mission-specific uniform in a tense situation was the issue. And… Read more »

I actually thought (and especially in hindsight) the tittalizing on Enterprise was so absurd. it was like a couple of fanboys getting hot and bothered on the set and filming it for us. Very much akin to the ridiculous scene in STID of Kirk drooling over Carol in her underwear.

When T’Pol dropped her robe and was naked from behind, fine, I get that. It makes sense. People who have sex do that. The rubbing decon gel was idiotic. Especially since the point was, they had to rub it all over their bare skin…and yet kept the naughty bits covered, defeating the intended purpose.

“Star Trek always dealt with mature themes. Some of the best episodes did. Like I said, I doubt you have to worry about sex, nudity and language, but Im perfectly content if they push it.”

DISCO can deal with more THEMES as much as they like. I welcome that. But it’s not THEMES I’m worried about, but GRAPHIC exploitation: splatter, gore, full frontal nudity, you name it.

Could I ever accept Logan- or Deadpool-like violence on Trek? Could I ever accept Lifeforce- or Species-like genre nudity that normally comes along with violence? As a matter of fact, I just don’t WANT to accept any of that on TREK.

If they push that I’m not just done with DISCO but with Star Trek as a whole. Because those “wounds” inflicted by “golden era of TV” sort of Trek would never heal.

All of this has got its place, in horror or hard-R action flicks but not on Star Trek.

Maybe I like nudity but it always stands out as really obvious to me when watching a broadcast show where the characters are twisted in knots to make sure the sheets or something else is covering them.

If a character, male or female, is shown naked in scenes that warrant it, Im perfectly fine with it. And it doesnt have to be sexual. In fact, it works better if it isnt. Walking out of a shower…a medical emergency etc. And in those cases, I’d have no issue with kids seeing it. Most kids of a certain age know what a naked human looks like. Its the sexualization, ie. the nudity in sex, that warrants some discretion.

The thing is, nudity comes off as a hard-sell because it’s usually not a component necessary to tell a tale. The story of sex, within the story, if it’s become part of the story, can be told tastefully…with lighting…shadows…and still allow the 7 year old (who yes, has already seen on online, I know…but that’s not the point) to watch Trek along side the parent. The minute you drop the covers…if you have to have a bedroom scene, it becomes a novelty. The question is, can it be shot without novelty and tell the same story without the distraction. Is the story better told without the distraction? Or is the inclusion of nudity there because it somehow serves the story and the story can’t successfully unfold without it?? That’s a judgement call between the writers and producers and only in seeing the end-product can I tell if it was integral or not. The necessary inclusion of nudity doesn’t bother me in the least. Gratuitous exhibition, just because you can, does. Doing it because Games of Thrones does it, just isn’t enough of a reason for me.

I’m not familiar with your TV rating system. Is that like PG-13 for the movies or more like an R rating?

MA stands for Mature Audiences.
It basically means the episode deals with mature themes (which can be a number of things such as sexual content and/or violence and/or foul language), so they recommended adults monitor the content if they have children under the age of 17.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Parental_Guidelines#Ratings

It’s the R rating equivalent for television. TV-14 is the equivalent of PG-13. TV-MA is designed for “Mature Audiences Only” and is described as “Designed to be viewed by adults and therefore may be unsuitable for children younger than 17. Contains one or more of the following: graphic violence (V), explicit sexual activity (S), or crude indecent language (L).” We do not yet know which of the 3 reasons are responsible for its rating, but it is safe to say it will be the most mature of any Star Trek show ever produced. It should give parents pause before letting young kids view it. It’s worth noting each episode is rated individually, so some may be TV-MA, while others may be TV
-14. I’m not sure of the specific application for the rating in the trailer (the pilot episode only, maybe).

Just because it’s TV-MA doesn’t mean it will have gratuitous stuff in it. I never saw “Daredevil” but that’s rated TV-MA, and it’s not gratuitous. I also don’t find it necessarily a bad thing either.

Daredevil is mainly for language and I guess violence although nothing shown isn’t anything you can’t find on network TV. But yes, true story, Daredevil is so far the only MCU show/movie that dropped the F bomb. Its fitting its Punisher who does it. ;)

Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay)

Daredevil has full on sex with Elecrtra.

That was just one scene in one episode. But the entire series got a mature rating, in both seasons. Most of the show had little to any scenes of sex. The only thing they showed in season one was an after morning scene with King Pin and his girlfriend. The majority of the show however has tons of graphic violence and language in every episode. They had an episode where King Pin literally ripped a guy’s head off with a car door in season one and season two where Punisher takes out an entire prison in the most brutal way possible. And yeah, lot of cursing along the way.

To me, its so funny how everyone seems fine with the ridiculous amount of violence that happens on these shows but yet you can’t stand some nudity or sex? When was the last time people here been naked? My guess since today. Or also had sex with someone (and probably naked doing it)? Probably recently if you are married or in a relationship. Now when was the last time someone here ripped another guy’s head off with a car door? Or shot someone multiple times in the chest?

Which one of these is something everyone does and natural vs outright brutal murder and violence? And yet everyone is more worried about seeing boobies and skin. If you’re over 15 then you probably seen them in real life at SOME point. anyway.

(Even for Star Trek fans lol)

Very nice!!

GOD DAMN GEOBLOCKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It’s here Ciaran. https://youtu.be/qv1vjwt6r_8

So, both Netflix and CBS All Access will have a new episode every week, is that correct?

Yes, the episodes will air weekly on both CBS All Access and Netflix. Netflix will show it one day after CBS All Access (at least the premiere, but probably all episodes). Apparently there will also be a break after the first half of the season before the second half is shown in early 2018.

Netflix only outside the US. In the US, you need All Access

Trailer looks good but I’m very pissed off that this will be rated TVMA. Trek should never be TVMA. I watched with my dad when I was a kid and I want my kids to be able to watch with their parents. What are the aspects that will make it TVMA. I didn’t see anything in that promo (but I had the sound off). No beheadings or anything. I had hope when one of the actors talked about he wanted everyone to watch with their kids but it looks like they gave up on that idea. Crap! I love Game of Thrones but I don’t let my tweenage kids watch it and I really don’t want to watch Game of Thrones in space.

With absolutely no disrespect intended, I hope you were just speaking for yourself. I (and I’m willing to bet many other fans) are looking forward to an adult, mature Star Trek. “Deep Space Nine” crossed with “Aliens” is something I’ve wanted to see for a long time. I don’t know the DSC will be THAT extreme, but I’m liking everything I’m seeing and hearing so far.

I agree. I watched Star Trek as a kid, but I grew up. If want to watch Trek with my kids, there are TONS of episodes for them already that I can enjoy still as well. I doubt DSC will be extremely MA though.

“I watched Star Trek as a kid, but I grew up.”

Good for you, but bad for those who don’t want to grow up :-) At least not when Trek is concerned. Star Trek had it’s gloomy moments… DS9, some of the movies, but all in all it was PG-13 stuff throughout.

“If want to watch Trek with my kids, there are TONS of episodes for them already…”

Unfortunately, it will most likely not be in your control anymore what your kids will be watching in their teens. Unless the internet disappears, all smartphones implode and you lock them away from other kids 24/7, they will be watching whatever they want at the age of 12-14, the age I started watching Trek back then.
Actually I’m glad I don’t have kids myself. I wouldn’t know how to protect them in this day and age. I don’t envy any father or mother out there, who has to go through this.

Me, too. TNG had its moments, but I’m looking for something more like its own writers wanted to write: edgy, mature, and less Afterschool-Special, while still keeping to Trek’s values. I think it can be done.

well..it can be done…but they are going to need better writing that this to achieve that. I realize it’s really just a promo…but c’mon…this is the best they can cut together at this point to bring people in? “…we need to win” “…that’s the spirit.” Hopelessly contrived. Are there no real scenes yet to cut promos from? Scenes with real passion and conviction? Just half-baked line recital? I mean, Nick Meyer is involved, for crying out loud, how did this even happen? I have to remind myself of the huge writer’s room and come to accept the fact that there may be too many cooks in the Galley and poor old Nick may have not had the hands-on input I had hoped…or he was overturned by a majority who write like…well…like this…and they moved his disgruntled self over to his new Khan project.

Sorry, I can’t agree that anything useful about the quality of the writing can be derived from two brief sentences taken out of context. (And if you want tacky in your trailers, try watching the “coming next week” TOS promos for even the best episodes sometime.) And I thought the actors’ delivery in this clip was just fine. Contrawise, you loved Trek 2009 and I thought it was specularly awful. That’s great, it’s what makes it a universe. 😊

That would be “spectacularly awful.” Only worse.

Loved 2009-Trek, you got me there. Greatness! But these guys are sooo stiff and rigid, what I’d give for just one Karl Urban! I just hope there isn’t a mandate from high up that is directing the cast…”THIS is how starfleet officers carry themselves..”. Kind of the George Lucas effect, and how he directed perfectly capable actors and actresses like Sam Jackson and Natalie Portman into delivering absolutely wooden performances. And yes, it is just 2 lines…but holy smokes, what brain-trust culled through the hours of footage they have and pulled this out to cut a promo? As always, we’ll agree to disagree on 2009…but alas and alak, the jury is still out on Discovery. I want it to be great. I really do. Hell, it even has the aesthetics of the great JJ-verse…(tho I’d MUCH rather see the sets of the Cage, a more primitive frontier) But I do like the look of the JJ trilogy and welcome it. But I can’t abide by bad dialog and tepid recital of such. And did I mention plastic looking purple Klingons that are shades of the Duras sisters, having real trouble snarling and talking and sluring through their Klingon dentures? Ugh. I expect a flurry of promotion the closer we get to air-date…and will be watching with great anticipation for something to change my mind…because you’re right, it is but a drop in the bucket, presented in questionable context…so fingers crossed…cuz I love me some Star Trek…loathe TNG and it’s spin-offs… Read more »

Fair enough. We’ll both tune in on 09/24 and try to keep an open mind. For my part, in watching that first, pilot episode. . .

–IF there’s a worse-written line than describing the Federation as a “peace-keeping armada”. . .

–IF there’s worse science than a supernova that can threaten the entire galaxy. . .

–IF there’s a villain who’s as poorly-motivated in his desire to wreak havoc as Nero. . .

–IF the lead proves to be a smarmy, shallow fratboy who no one can stand, yet wins command of the fleet’s flagship over scores of qualified candidates anyway. . .

. . .I probably won’t be back for seconds.

Oh, and I don’t agree at all about the aesthetics. We haven’t really seen the bridge of the Discovery yet (and I’m hoping for some TOS call-outs when we do), but with the exception of a few lens flares and the heads-up display main viewer I think the bridge of the Shenzhou resembles the bridges from the later TOS movies far more than the sterile, plastic-y, overlit J.J. iBridge.

Agreed, Scott.

I completely agree. The best STAR TREK has never been kiddie fare, the way Star Wars is.

And really, you can’t watch GAME OF THRONES with tweenagers? That’s on you. Five year olds I can see; most tweenagers can deal with mature themes.

“And really, you can’t watch GAME OF THRONES with tweenagers? That’s on you. Five year olds I can see; most tweenagers can deal with mature themes.”

If I’m not mistaken (English is not my mother tongue), we are talking about 10-12 year-olds!?! And you want to watch them GoT? I wouldn’t allow a 14-year-old to watch it! I know I couldn’t stop them from watching unless I lock them away from all friends and technology, but I would not condone it. Gosh, am I glad I don’t have kids…

In my country, GoT is rated 16+, TWD is rated 18+. I’m not saying this is the way to do it. 15+ would be okay… but 10-12-year-olds??? The mere thought of it makes me vomit…

Dont get too upset about the tvma. Take a look at the show once released then you can decide of it is ok for your kids.

Yeah, in theory it’s okay to decide it yourself for “your kids”… I don’t have any kids and I’m glad I don’t have to make this decision, that isn’t really a choice these days.

Because in reality, you cannot decide anything for your kids anymore, at least not when they are around 12 or older. The internet and smartphones provide unlimited, unrestricted and incontrollable access to anything they want to check out and unless you deprive them of all technology and friends, they WILL watch it (and many, many other shows) anyway… But some people here think it is okay that way…

I don’t. And even if a had a GF or wife, I would deliberately not have children in this world… I couldn’t bare the mere thought of exposing them to this or any other show or movie like that, let alone internet smut…

I think my unborn kids can be very glad they don’t exist. Because at the moment I would not even allow them a smartphone until they’re 18…or any contact with friends who have access to modern media.

I would be surprised if it is way too inappropriate for kids. There will probably just be some cursing, and maybe a bit more blood than previous Treks. I doubt there are going to be GOT levels of nudity and gore.

The nudity I could do without, that is all I ask for. I just do not want to watch people having personal and private encounters on screen. I hope they can keep it modest and restricted in Star Trek.

I don’t care about nudity or modesty. Children should learn about this stuff anyway. Too much forced modesty will make your kids crazy when they grow up.

The one thing I can live without is too much violence. Not that I fear for children that watch violence, but it usually does not add to the story. So I don’t need it in Star Trek.

“Too much forced modesty will make your kids crazy when they grow up.”

You’re right. But because EXACTLY that had happened to me as a kid / teen, I’m still not fine with nudity or sex on Star Trek at the age of 37. And I’m not even religious myself (parents sorta were though).

But I want my Star Trek to be innocent, decent and non-explicite. They can “tease” things like it had been done with all those skimpy outfits in the 60s, but the first time I’ll see fully naked boobs on this show I will stop watching!

I know, it shouldn’t be a big deal, especially in my country that sells boobie calendars in drugstores and has nudity in 12+ family movies and regular TV shows.

But it is a problem for me ON TREK! I have learned to deal with it on other shows and movies but not Star Trek. I simply don’t want to and Im more than willing and hell-bent on giving this show a pass if they do it!

You have to understand that everyone draws that line in different places. When Trek was getting its start in syndication during the ’70s, there were a number of stations with religious ownership that would cut the green Orion slave girl dancing sequence from “The Menagerie,” considering it too racy for children. That was a real thing.

“You have to understand that everyone draws that line in different places.”

Of course I know that. In some Arab countries, showing your hair (or face) is considered “nudity”… Sleeveless clothes would be illegal to be worn in churches and office buildings in some parts of the world.
But for me, and large parts of the western world, the line between “nudity” and non-nude sexiness is defined by female topless and full-frontal nudity. And this is a line I don’t want Star Trek to cross, for the simple reason it never comes isolated…

They could have someone meditating in the nude, someone painting an act and show the model, they could show an tender couple having sex (non-explicitely)… I might be just fine if I drop my prudish armor and tag along the ride because it’s a natural thing…

But if you look at the RARE occassion there had been any of that nudity in SciFi and fantasy productions, it never comes alone but along with even more violence and gross sceneries… Lexx – The Dark Zone, Species, Lifeforce, Conan, Game of Thrones, American Gods, From Dusk Till Dawn… none of this is innocent “Blue Lagoon” material…

First they cross the nudity line and then they combined it with violence because it’s TV-MA already and the genre demands for “gothic” stuff… That’s what I’m worried about…

Good response, but I’m not sure I agree. LOGAN’S RUN, made in the late Seventies, has oodles of (mostly gratuitous) sex yet relatively little in the way of violence or gore, in spite of its protagonist tracking and killing dissidents for a living. These are the choices filmmakers make every day, and making alippery slope arguments only relieves them of agency and responsibility for those choices.

As for GoT, I’m not a father but while I don’t consider it appropriate for children I wouldn’t hesitate to watch it with someone in or past their mid-teens, because far outweighing the sex and violence are valuable questions about family, responsibility, and what it truly means to try to leave the world a better place than you found it. Young people know plenty about the sex and gore anyway, but they need great stories that encourage them to think about difficult issues, and the last thing they or Trek fans should want is to be limited by subject matter that’s safe for little children.

“I wouldn’t hesitate to watch it with someone in or past their mid-teens…” Absolutely. “Past their mid-teens” aka 15-16, that’s perfectly fine with me…given that the show already exists and there is nothing we could do about it. It’s rated 16+ in my country anyway. But again, the problem remains: today’s parents are no longer in control of what their kids are exposed to at a much younger age. So what I, you or the rating authorities consider “appropriate” is basically pointless. As you said, young people have seen lots of sex and gore “anyway”. But that “anyway” is what bothers me. Do “we” as a franchise really have to contribute to that overall tendency towards nudity, graphic violence and gore just because over other shows or internet smut? Because if “we” tag along those trends, “we” as Trekkers are directly responsible for those contents as we support and promote it one way or another. To me, not even “good storytelling” (as on GoT) outweighs the costs of those creative choices. GoT could be as great a show if they didn’t show any nudity or gross violence, if not even better. But then, I don’t feel responsible for what they show on GoT. It’s a franchise I consider interesting to some extend but I’m not an uber-fan. With Trek, it’s different. I have identified with that world for such a long time a DO feel a certain responsibility for keeping it “clean”…not thematically, but graphically that is. We need “mature”… Read more »

Well, I do take your point, even if I don’t completely agree. I certainly want Trek to be handled with taste and finesse, but am also glad that current mores and the streaming paywall will allow the writers to tackle more mature subject matter than the franchise was able to do previously. Hopefully the writers will be able to address both of our concerns. We’ll see. 😊

“Not that I fear for children that watch violence…” But that’s exactly what I fear. I know, it’s not even remotely possible for us to protect kids from being exposed to on-screen violence at a tender age due to smartphones and the web. But it shouldn’t be on Star Trek for that very reason. If it’s GoT or TWD, I’m not directly “responsible” as I’m not a hardcore fan of those shows. They are random shows I don’t really care about (although GoT is a great show). But with Trek, it’s different. I couldn’t stand the though of Trek being mentioned in one sentence with GoT, TWD or the Saw movies. Also, it seems to me that people don’t always mean the same thing when mentioning “kids”… As far as “violence” and “kids” is concerned, this is how I feel… Pre-teens up to 9: My god! I wasn’t even allowed to watch any genre stuff back then. I hadn’t seen Star Trek until I was 12. It’s hard to stomach that there are kids of that age out there watching stuff like GoT or TWD, even with their parents guiding them. Tweenagers (I’ve only learned that word today) 10-12: I’m still having a hard time accepting that there are people out there actually deeming GoT suitable for that age group. It gives me the creeps. Teens (13-17): Even here, I’m having a hard time up to the age of 14. For 15-17 year-olds I’m fine, but even those are officially… Read more »

Sorry. That is what school is for. Sex education. As adults we all know that sex is normal and a perfectly healthy part of life for those who choose to have that (good for them!).

But why do we need to see it on a television show like Star Trek?

Game of Thrones. What is so great about it?

Just the outstanding storytelling, acting, and production values. Beyond that, not much. 😊

And what did the romans ever do for us?

What about the wine? That’s something we’d really miss if the Romans left. . .

Everything.

Is it really rated MA??

It shows TVMA in the trailer, so I’d say yes, it is.

@PaulB — what’s odd is that the TVMA is describing the trailer, not the show itself. Maybe because there’s so many violent images edited together in the trailer? Not sure this means the series itself will be TVMA. And frankly, though this was before the current TV rating system, does anybody remember the TNG episode where the guys head exploded revealing a parasitic being living in his bowels? Talk about needing an adult rating — I’m sure that gave a few kids nightmares for a while …

I am quite sure that episode was only shown in an edited version on TV where I grew up. I was pretty surprised when I first saw the uncut version when it was released on DVD.

…… yeah. That.

I agree to some extend. That TV-MA rating is a MAJOR let-down. But TV-MA can mean a lot of things. It doesn’t have to be Game of Thrones in space. If it’s like The Expanse with a bit more optimism, it might be good. But honestly, I’m worried it’ll try to outscore The Expanse or any other “soft” TV-MA show by pulling out all the stops.

Looking great!
I actually think Burnham will start off quite ‘warmongering’ – and therefore perhaps be on the same page as Captain Lorca.

But I speculate as the series progresses, the lessons and guidance she attained from Captain Georgiou ( SURELY deceased having viewed that Shenzhou bridge explosion again ) will hit home, and she may see that Georgiou’s notion of what the Federation stands for is correct, and the ( purely speculative on my part ) “conquering” mindset of Lorca must ultimately be challenged.

Don’t forget that Vulcans are pacifists. That would have a huge influence on her attitudes as well, even if she’s repudiating what she was taught as a child.

I like the idea of Georgiou and Lorca having two different mindsets. It allows the viewers the opportunity to be pulled along with the decision making process and see what we would do in Burnham’s place. We can take one side or the other or maybe a combination of both.

On a side note I think Jason’s southern accent, as Lorca, isn’t that bad for a British guy.

Holy smokes – T’Kuvma is suffering from ‘Nostrill Overkill’.

Sybock\'s Other Brother

Go through the Great Barrier. I dare you.

Your pain is stronger. I can feel it.

Looks fine. No obnoxious ‘dark atmo’-pop soundtrack this time (and proof that good old instrumental stock music does the job just fine).
While new footage is scarce, it would seem that the well-lit look of the Discovery was not only limited to those EW photoshoots.

I still have to say that Chris Obi’s/T’Kvuma’s line (the same he had in the last trailer) comes across as sorta comical rather than threatening. Those prosthetic teeth really seem to be giving him a hard time (TNG S1 Ferengi anyone? – Well, actually only Armin Shimerman ever managed to speak clearly while wearing Ferengi teeth but it took him a while as well – about one Season of DS9 I’d say)

*T’Kuvma – dangit.

I was thinking that it might be done on purpose as an accent. I know that Star Trek has mostly used the universal translator as an excuse to have every alien speak perfect English. Maybe the Klingons on Discovery will speak English with a Klingon intonation. It’s just speculation.

I thought they said at the conventions the Klingon dialogue was going to be in actual Klingon?

Yes, amongst themselves.

But why would “Klingon intonation” result in “We huff been waiting for fomeone worffy of our attumfm”?

Just a weird accent of this Klingon house. :-P

Yeah. The bad makeup has nothing to do with it.

Oh dear, maybe they’ll have all ‘Klingon’ actors dub over their lines for better understandability. Like Tom Hardy had to for “The Dark Knight Rises”.

So… even Star Trek: Discovery is analogous to Americans vs. the rest of the world? It’s all right, I’ll still enjoy it.

You mean like the DS9 crew decided they were going to WIN the Dominion War? I think it’s just easy to feel that way because of what’s going on in the world right now. But it’s not “new” to Trek.

Um…where the hell did you come up with *that* interpretation?

Isn’t the captain of the Shenzou Chinese?

The actress playing her was born in Malaysia. As for the character, we have no idea where on Earth (or any other planet for that matter) she is from.

It still looks nothing like Star Trek. Take it in the back, shoot it, and put it out of its misery and come back to us with something better.

I think it looks something like Star Trek–I’d recognize that chevron, the bridge of the Shenzhou, or the Discovery transporter room anywhere.

Your vhs tapes of TOS are still in you mom’s basement.

And your mom isn’t watching them!

Do you mean Star Trek TOS or Trek Trek as a whole?

@TM11 — it looks more like Star Trek than TNG did. At least the bridge is round and efficient with everyone strategically positioned around the captain as designs originally conceived and mandated for over 20 years. Starting with TNG everybody else was crammed into the back of the bridge, staged for the audeince like some kind of cheap high school play …

@Curious Cadet,

“it looks more like Star Trek than TNG did.”

And the award for dumbest comment ever made on Trekmovie goes to Curious Cadet!

Nah Ahmed, only if you delete all your remarks.

Even then, he’s correct, ofcourse. TNG altered the look of TOS immensely. You’ll argue its 70 years later. Cool.

Anyone still whining about how the visuals dont look like the 60’s is being transparently obtuse.

@TUP,

The guy hasn’t watched a single episode and yet he proclaims that ‘Discovery’ “looks more like Star Trek than TNG did”? That’s a moronic statement even by your substandard.

“Anyone still whining about how the visuals dont look like the 60’s is being transparently obtuse.”

You keep repeating this stupid argument making it sounds like everyone is asking for that, guess what? They don’t. The majority is not asking for 60s era visuals.

Well, I haven’t seen any episodes either but I would agree that what we’ve seen so far looks more like TOS than TNG did. (Which is not a value judgement, as I greatly respect the work of Matt Jeffries and Herman Zimmerman.) Now, would you care to discuss the reasons I feel that way, or just continue to insist that every opinion that doesn’t align with yours is stupid?

@Michael Hall,

By all means, do tell.

Sure. The bridge of the TNG Enterprise was not circular, had a row of duty stations in the rear, nothing but storage lockers port and starboard, and a command well with three chairs. The bridge of the Shenzhou, by contrast, has the standard circular configuration with a single Captain’s chair and duty stations ranged around the circumference. Even the subdued lighting, metallic color scheme, and blue control interfaces are much more reminiscent of THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY or the E-B in GENERATIONS than the pastel colors and flat lighting of TNG.

Now, are those reasonable observations, even if you don’t see it that way? Or just stupid?

@Michael Hall,

Granted the bridge on TNG was different from TOS; however the Shenzhou’s bridge looks a lot more like the Enterprise E than TOS.

Enterprise E.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/caps/enterprise-e-bridge-firstcontact.jpg

The Shenzhou.
comment image

As for lighting, from the trailers we have only seen the Shenzhou at red alert status.

Well, okay, I’ll buy that. Wasn’t the E-E “real” Trek, though? It’s design in many ways was a “throwback” to the TOS movie era, which is why I mostly prefer it to the E-D.

Either way, the bridge of the Shenzhou is clearly a Trek bridge, with design elements that go all the way back to Matt Jeffries’ and Pato Guzman’s original. As a lifelong fan I really don’t expect more at this point.

It really doesn’t. You’re confusing lighting with look. If they turned up the lights and added a red circle, you’d be all “wow, just like TOS”.

Its much closer to the design esthetic of “Star Fleet” during this time, especially when we consider the NX Enterprise and Kelvin came before it.

Oh I see, “moronic” is now acceptable. Well for you anyway. Which is more a commentary on your character than mine.

Why is it you can make sweeping negative remarks without having seen an episode but when someone else shares an opinion, you pull the “you havent seen it” card? You’re not even doing it right.

We’ve seen plenty of visuals by which we can judge the look.

I dont know, but I got the point immediately, regardless of whether I agree or not. Perhaps you should spend a bit more time thinking and a bit less time angrily posting and you’d get it too.

Wow. That promo…to be a promo…was…well, kinda bad. Not sure what buttons they were trying to push with that, but nothing hit the target. The acting. My goodness, I know it has to be better than that. The actors are better than that. The effects looks good…but…man…that was really weak.

For me, it’s the writing that makes it so bad. “We need to win.” “That’s the spirit.” Ugh. It’s like bad high-school fanfic writing. Burnham’s dialogue all sounds like she’s giving a dull graduation speech–okay, that’s not just the writing, it’s her performance. But the writing, every single bit of dialogue so far, is pedestrian and dull.

I’m still going to watch the pilot. I’m still hopeful. I waited eagerly for TNG to premiere 30 years ago, and every Trek show since, so I’ll give this one a chance, but…

I’m with you on this, jonboc. This trailer pushed me further from this show. I hope the show is far, far better than the promotional materials have been.

@PaulB — I watched the TNG pilot 30 years ago with eager anticipation, and thought it was the dullest, worst piece of crap I’ve ever seen. The acting was stiff, if not downright awful, bad effects and makeup, the writing was full of tired dramatic tropes, and it looked nothing like the Star Trek I was familiar with. I kept with it, and it some things grew on me, and the acting and writing got better, and ended up delivering some fine Trek episodes. But even today, that pilot is horrific — there’s nothing redeeming about it for me. The fact that they revisited it in the finale did me no favors.

Q was great and the jellyfishes.

@Mel,

Agree, John de Lancie was brilliant as the omnipotent Q.

Great Deforest Kelley cameo as well

@Tom — that was actually a gratuitous low point for me. I felt bad for Kelley.

What bothered me about the Kelley cameo was it was treated so unimportant. They send Data to escort him around. The legendary Dr McCoy should have been received by the Captain in dress uniform.

It was made to sell Data as the new Spock. Data was Spock in reverse: a logical, unemotional being who very much wanted to have human emotions.

FLB,

True, but first he was Roddenberry getting the shot down Questor on the air.

It felt shoe-horned. But still, its better to have had it then not have it.

The only thing that really sticks out for me about the pilot was how obvious the secret of Farpoint Station really was.
But the idea of humanity on trial, I liked that.

It wasnt really a secret, was it? The station commander addressed the alien as soon as Riker left the office.

I watched the DS9 pilot again and it has a lot of similarities to the TNG finale (the prophets deciding that humans were too aggressive and must be destroyed and Sisko having to convince them otherwise). But man, was it strong. It took time to find the voices of the characters and the chemistry but the depth of the characters, depth of the story and talent of the actors was way beyond any of the other Star Trek premieres.

I agree. Of all the spinoff pilots, DS9’s is the only one where you feel like you’ve watched a real, complete story, as opposed to a set-up for a new show.

I remember watching the DS9 pilot thinking ‘man this is so boring’. Now looking at it with more mature eyes, it was a really strong pilot that actually had something to say. A lot of great layers there and really the only show, so far, that has set up a major arc for the Captain and a spiritual one at that.

What I like about Discovery is it looks like they are going to do it again with Burhham, although more personal I guess.

@Gary 8.5 — I agree the “humanity on trial” story is interesting, but truly it made the pilot episode severely dark for the optimistic vision people on these forums claim Trek is all about, and DISC is somehow lacking. I’d say that storyline in TNGs pilot is the perfect parallel to DISC, including the use of the battle bridge. All dark and war-themed trappings which undercut the so-called optimism some say Trek is supposed to exude constantly. Frankly, I don’t think I would have led the launch of my new series with that kind of story. But it’s typical Rodenberry — the cage over WNMHGB, and the other option the Omega Glory. Thank god the NBC execs picked WNMHGB.

But thats always been the odd dichotomy with Star Trek, at its heart, its actually a really dark history. According to Roddenberry humans suffered through two major wars, WW 3 with the use of nuclear weapons and the eugenics war. I don’t think our world ever see anything on the level of these two (yes nuclear war is always possible but I still highly doubt it or anything on that level). I remember the 90s, sure some bad things went down but nothing about super humans trying to take over the world killing millions either. ;) In other words he actually set up a much more darker future first before it became better. And Star Trek has always had war in the back drop. The cold war with the Klingons with in TOS and the Romulan war. Let’s not forget the later Cardassian war/conflict. And then there was the war with the Dominion and various groups including the Cardassians again. Thats the crazy thing the Federation has had been a lot of wars for a so called peaceful society. Just because they decide to show it is not much of a big deal considering we known it happened. Now of course we known, until now, they never went to direct war with the Klingons until the 24th century (oddly when they were at peace with them), just conflicts mostly but since Klingons (at least in this period) was always considered fierce adversaries that would go to war with the Federation… Read more »

You’re so right. It’s like a speech. Like a first rehearsal line-reading. I hope to God this isn’t some new marching orders from the top, that THIS is how starfleet officers act. If it is, it’s going to be a very very long 15 hours.

It’s hard to judge the acting or writing with two lines of dialog.
We don’t know what happened before or after this scene.
I am excited to see this new Star Trek. I don’t expect or want it to look exactly like what we’ve seen before.

I may be in the minority but I liked some of the lines from the trailer. Especially the one we’re Burnham was like “no dream will protect us from you.” That sounds like a more realistic take on what it means not just to live within the Federation but more importantly how do you defend it against those who seek to destroy it? An idea that reminds me of some of my favorite DS9 episodes that explored the idea of how hard it was to protect “paradise” after you have created it. All in all this trailer is one of the best promos I have seen yet because I am starting to see some of the philosophical debates, that Star Trek is known for, start to take shape in Discovery.

I liked it okay myself–though, again, it’s difficult to tell how effective (or even Trek-like) that line will be without context.

@Dennycranium — it’s kind of like the Kirk line from ST09(?) where he screamed “do it, do it” or whatever, in the trailers, and caused such outrage as Kirk would never behave like that — but in context it was fine. Not perfect, but it made sense.

The special effects look pretty cheesy. Are they making this series on the cheap side?

Can’t tell if you’re joking or not lol. I would say the effects aren’t exactly BSG-level good, but BSG had a realism quality to it that informed that style. I’m ok with DSC’s effects from what I’ve seen.

The strange thing with BSG was that the VFX got worse towards the end (at least some shots looked really terrible).
I’m waiting for Discovery to air before I judge its effects. It’s kind of difficult from the web promos which are often highly compressed. I can tolerate not-so-perfect VFX on a show if the stories are engaging.

Ugh I know, BSG is the odd example where the VFX got dramatically worse over time, which followed the decline in quality in the show and therefore probably the budget

Well, I sure didn’t see what the two of you are talking about–I thought the effects work was great right through the finale, though that shot of the Galactica tearing itself apart after its final hyperspace jump was comically overdone.

@ Michael: It wasn’t all bad by any means. Except for the shot you mentioned already, I couldn’t give you an example from memory. It’s been several years since I last say an episode of BSG. I just remember that there were a few shots towards the end that looked far below the usual standard for the show. There were also some really, really bad VFX shots on Caprica (again, not all of them, but some).

Are you kidding? They looked amazing to me.

I didn’t realize before, but I like that the ship phasers are blue

Yeah, it’s a nice connection to TOS

It’s more a connection to the remastered project than TOS itself. TOS tended to be arbitrary with its phaser colors, sometimes red, sometimes blue. But with TOS-R, they decided to pick one and stick with it. So they chose blue.

A good choice, though, as the best of the original phaser shots (i.e. the later ones) were always blue.

Yup. And since the sound effects in the teaser are most likely preliminary, who knows – maybe they’ll have a similar sound to the classic “BRRREEEEP” of TOS phasers.

Since it looks like they’ll be going with the pulse weapon effect style, rather than the beam effect, then I suspect it’ll sound fairly different from TOS.

Yeah I wish they kept the beam effect. maybe we’ll see different ships with different effects (as if they have different types of phasers).

I liked that in the trailers we heard some classic sound effects and I hope they keep elements of that.

One reason I like the beam style is that those phasers can be used for non-combat purposes, like heating rocks and cutting through walls. That seems less likely with pulse weapons.

There actually seems to be a bit of variety. If you look closely, in some shots the Shenzhou appears to be firing pulsed beams and in others they appear steady. Remember that in TOS the Enterprise also fired “proximity blasts” in ‘Balance of Terror’ and ‘Errand of Mercy’ – so we might see the Shenzhou employ different settings…

Yeah, that is awesome!

I HATE that “they” felt that “they” had to put there own spin on the ST universe. The appearance of the Klingons has been set for over 20 years! I will watch it but really, it was not necessary.

Sure, but that wasn’t how the The Klingons looked when Star Trek started was it?
Things change.

The Klingons have changed multiple times.

Once.

Nah, more than once. The had a slightly different appearance in TMP. The TSFS Klingons became the spin-off Klingons, but TUC gave us another spin, sort of a link between TOS and the other outings. Even Worf’s forehead structure was changed several times. And STID already gave us alternate Klingons.

I’m not happy with those changes on DISCO (especially the hairless aspect) but it’s been done several times before.

Worf changed from season to season. Making changes to the make up is not unusual.

Plus, dont forget the JJ films. Sure, thats an alternative universe, but the Klingons existed before Nero’s arrival as seen on Enterprise so its still a change to canon.

Not all humans look the same. Why do all Klingons have to look the same?

@TUP,

Apparently you can’t distinguish between minor changes, as it was the case with Worf, and the drastic changes that we are seeing now in ‘Discovery’!

@Ahmed – you make a post you know the answer to. Definition of trolling. But Ill play since its easy. The one major change in Klingon design was TOS to TMP. From TMP to TOS films to TNG season to season, to JJ films, they were all various level of alterations. But they were more variations on a theme. Dark skin, rigged heads etc.

Discovery maintains that variation on a theme. With the caveat that I would like to see them in action on screen before committing to a position (unlike some of you).

The fact so many assumed they were JJ Klingons tells us the differences arent that stark.

“Not all humans look the same. Why do all Klingons have to look the same?”

Absolutely not. They do NOT have to look the same. But when you alter entire features for the WHOLE RACE, such as not being able to grow hair biologically, having freaky double nostrils, shiny blue eyes, different head shape, and given that ALL Klingons on DISCO share these same basic features, it’s not like there are different types of Klingons on this show. They just replaced the old look by a new one, adding some different skin colors along the way.

But make no mistake. Colonel Worf, any Duras ancestors or Kang, Kor and Koloth – if they appear on this show at some point, which will most likely happen – will have no hair and double supersized nostrils…

It’s a retcon, an abrogation, with the newest version replacing older versions of this species…

Maybe, possibly, probably–we really don’t know.

smike,

Re: Klingon homogeneity

You do realize that at one time our Cro-magnon ancestors did share the planet with living Neanderthals and Homo floresiensis? And lets not forget the wide variety of phenotypes we’ve been able to get expressed in the dog.

There’s no scientific reason Klingons absolutely must have the homogeneity that you inferred. Especially when we consider they didn’t evolve on Earth.

I do NOT ask for Klingon homogenity at all. If they showed traditional Klingons alongside those new “models”, I wouldn’t have the SLIGHTEST problem with that diversity. But it’s not what they are doing. They are replacing the old design by the new one, plain and simple. We will see Grandpa Worf, Mogh, Kang, Kor, Koloth, Duras Senior etc. with these new features! It’s a visual retcon, an abrogation of one of the most pivotal Trek species! You obviously didn’t understand my problem…

smike,

Re:But it’s not what they are doing.

At this point, that’s mere supposition on your part. Although, it may be possible to lay a foundation for it if we see drastic changes to Mudd and Sarek of the type that you fear. So far, nothing has materialized.

“At this point, that’s mere supposition on your part.”

Nope, it isn’t. They have explicitly pointed out that the reason “Klingons” don’t have any hair on that show is because they have some receptors at the back of their head. The very definition of this “updated” Klingon physiology eliminates the option of having traditional long-haired Klingons even in the background! The hairless Klingons were an obligatory mandate given by Bryan Fuller while still in charge. It’s not a supposition, it’s a fact.

Yes, the producers and designers have talked a lot about diversity… different houses, different planets, different (sub)cultures. But the hairless physiology is a common element for all Klingons here and has nothing to do with intended diversity…

Once they actually show ONE freakin’ Klingon with hair, I’ll take everything back. But that will never happen again on any Star Trek show…

Hmmm, Humans: some have hair, some do not. Some have blue eyes, some do not. Some have different shapes to their head, some do not.

Yup, I see what you mean ;-)

Probably not the most relevant thread for this though, but for some reason I feel like the Klingons are being treated as a race that has not had any interaction with the Federation, just based on some of the dialogue that has been released.

It makes me wonder if this version of Klingon is one that is “coming out of the shadows” so to speak, and what we are seeing is somehow different from what we know from previous Trek.

I’m sure I am way off, but i just have a feeling that something like that is happening. Otherwise, there are some major timeline issues, or I am just overthinking.

According to Memory-Alpha, the contact between the Federation and Klingon’s was somewhat limited between the events in ENT, through their first appearance in TOS. There are mentioned two dates, 2223 & 2245, where the Federation came into direct conflict with the Klingons, but otherwise simmering hostilities. It’s entirely possible both kept essentially to themselves during this period, in the same way Romulans were depicted in their initial introduction during TOS.

That would make sense. Enterprise kind of screwed things up a bit, but if Discovery takes the position that they kept to their own…it makes sense that the big bad Klingons would develop a fearsome reputation among humans and their allies.

Lorca’s got a sneaky bad guy face in the top photo. Either that or he’s been in the doctor’s liquor cabinet.

It appears the problem with this show is all in the visuals, the JJ universe look mixed with a TNG looking ship. It’s a shame. It could have been really good if they had adopted a look that fits with when/where the show is supposed to take place. They need to take a close look at the phaser they designed, which is the only thing that visually works, and apply the principles that guided its design to everything else.

It can still be good. Just because it looks different doesn’t mean its bad.

Tiger2…doesn’t help.

Fair enough, but give it a chance at least. I’m NOT in love with it being a prequel or the fact it looks nothing like TOS either, but I want to give it a real chance. I feel the people behind it are passionate and really want to get it right. If its just too different fro you, fine, but lets see if its a good show first and foremost. If its a good show those other things will work itself out in time. And yes I imagine most who don’t like the look of it will just tell themselves its in another universe and all of that. I just care more its a good show that tells unique stories with great characters first and foremost.

Shtrive?

@ Zoe – You’re correct, this new show is shaping up to be a visual hybrid of the J.J. universe with Enterprise/Next Gen looking ship designs.

There is so little that ties in aesthetically with the TOS show era it’s supposedly set close to, that I’m going to just imagine it’s something that’s purely set in an ‘alternate timeline/or universe’ to get past that fact. And if the look of the STAR TREK DISCOVERY ‘main titles’ remain the same as what’s seen at the end of this latest preview, then that helps even more to lump it in somewhere with J.J.’s ‘alternate/timeline’ shenanigans.

Having said that, DISCOVERY seems to have a nicely ‘cinematic’ look to it’s filming in places, and I’m hoping the storyline and characters will engage me, despite the very different look to everything.

*Breaking News by the way* – By Grabthar’s hammer, I’m very happy to see that we may end up getting a GALAXY QUEST spin-off show after all, somewhere down the line! – http://www.darkhorizons.com/amazons-galaxy-quest-tv-series-lives/

That’s the point. The TOS era was made in the 60’s. If the series is really good but the updated visuals make you not want to watch, then dont watch.

@ TUP – The fact that the TOS show was made in the 60’s has nothing to do with the fact that the current designers have taken a very different direction for the look of DISCOVERY’s production designs in general. Fair enough, but it’s difficult to look on any of this as being set just before the visuals of the TOS ‘prime timeline’.

And I didn’t say this current re-design of various elements would stop me from wanting to watch it. I’ve never said that. But it WILL stop me from looking on it as a believable prequel to the TOS ‘prime timeline’ show…which is why I’ll choose to ‘imagine’ it’s an ‘alternate’ setting to that, despite what the makers or anyone else claims.

But regardless of how I personally choose to look on it, I’d prefer this latest incarnation of STAR TREK to be a successful hit, than not.

Sadly I think a lot of people will think this way which is why they should have NEVER gone the prequel route. I’m shocked they didn’t learn their lesson after the Abrams movies, Trek fans are anal. Always have been, always will be.

I personally just want another Star Trek show. I think it was a mistake to put it anywhere near TOS but if its good most will get over it and accept it as its own thing. I grew up with TOS but I don’t have any nostalgia for it. It was a nice show and started the franchise but they should’ve kept moving on as they did with TNG and on instead of trying to go back to the well to please old fans.

I appreciate what you’re saying Tiger, but the prequel idea has so much more going for it then moving beyond Nemesis. And I say that as someone that would have been fine going beyond Nemesis but the tech is such a crutch.

Even with Enterprise, they ended up falling back on tech as a crutch rather then writing good stories.

Enterprise B would have given them everything they have here – a story within the established sand box, an era that is slightly known and interesting without knowing very much (ie. a large sandbox to play in), an opportunity to revamp the visuals AND a built in story involving Klingons (coming shortly after TUC).

E-B would also have given them the hook of using the Enterprise, though its possible they deliberately wanted to avoid that.

In combination with THE ORVILLE, a GALAXY QUEST show could really be helpful in re-establishing traditional space opera as opposed to DISCO, THE EXPANSE or KILLJOYS. Don’t get me wrong. I like The Expanse, and probably will be able to come to terms with DISCO, but it’s not what I really, really want…

I have a lot less interest in any future Galaxy Quest adventures now that Alan Rickman has passed away.
It just won’t be the same.

Gary 8.5,

Re:Rickman

I miss the excellent, Rickman too, but I’ve often pondered if the original Marvin the Paranoid Android, Stephen Moore, might do his character a decent turn?

@Gary 8.5 — Rickman was not likely to ever be involved with a new Galaxy Quest series, any more than Weaver, or Allan. It would have been an all new cast, and probably a much younger one at that.

WOW HUGE SPOILER:COMMANDER BURNHAM IS WEARING SILVER UNIFORM IN LAST SCENE

How is that a spoiler? We’ve known that she goes through different positions in this series (maybe all in the pilot), so there’s nothing spoiled by knowing that she wears a science-division uniform.

Burnham – “we need to win”
Kirk – “I don’t like to lose”
Lorca – “that’s the spirit!”

Sounds like Kirk would have liked Burnham and Lorca

I hope this show doesnt suck considering it’s freaking CBS

Even though the guy playing him has shown himself to be an ass I still think the captain should have been the main character.

Would his, um, er–heritage–have anything to do with that?

JAck D – Why do you think he should be the main character?

Still can’t stand those costumes, or those horrendous monsters they claim are Klingons… love the casting choices though, so I have hope.

LJ (formerly known as LJ)

Still think Lorca should be a Scouser, just like Isaacs. Can you imagine the dialogue?

Lorca: Y’alright, soft lad? Come ‘ed!

T’Kuvma: We have long been looking for a worthy foe.

Lorca: Alright, alriaght! Cahm down, cahm down!

T’Kuvma: You shame your house.

Lorca: You dissin’ me ma?

T’Kuvma: P’tak!

Lorca: Are you a Wool? That’s proper Wool behaviour. Seen this, soft lad? I got this well jarg fuzzy wuzzy from yer man Mudd.

T’Kuvma: Is that a tribble?!

Lorca: Aye. Me bird luvs ’em. It’s well boss! You want a bevvie?

T’Kuvma: A pint of blood wine!

Lorca: Yer, paying yer muppet. I’m brassic, like!

T’Kuvma: I’ll see you by the Dabo table?

Lorca: You kiddin’ lad? It’s well rammed in ‘ere. Bleedin’ baltic ‘n’ all. I’ll see yas out back, like.

LJ (formerly known as LJ)

Nuts! I should’ve written that with a Mancunian T’Kuvma. “Well buzzin!”, “Ah’ll ger are kid fot dust yoh!” You have to be Northern English, I suppose.

LJ (formerly known as LJ)

BTW, for my friends outside the UK, the term ‘Wool’ refers to those from outside of Liverpool (largely the towns in between Liverpool and Manchester) – Leigh and St Helens (traditionally part of the Hundred of West Derby, under the old County system in which all were in Lancashire, thus the outskirts of the city (Leigh now Greater Manchester – shame – and St Helens Merseyside), Wigan (Hundred of Leyland, now Greater Manchester – shame), Warrington and Runcorn (Cheshire). It’s a derivative of the term ‘woolyback’ which refers to what men from those towns used to wear when they went to the Liverpool docks to work as stevedores. A Mancunian (those from the cities of Salford and Manchester (Manchester was formerly part of the Hundred of Salford)) is referred to colloquially as a Manc (with a slightly derogatory bent) by others.

wpDiscuz
Advertisment ad adsense adlogger