Variety Reveals ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Bridge And Why Bryan Fuller Was “Pushed Out”

(Variety)

This morning Variety Magazine released a cover story on Star Trek: Discovery containing new information along with some photos which give us a good look at the bridge of the U.S.S. Discovery. The article includes comments from some of the cast and behind the scenes people as well.

Martin-Green understands the stakes – Isaacs wants to send a message

Variety talked to show stars Sonequa Martin Green (First Officer Michael Burnham) and Jason Isaacs (Captain Gabriel Lorca). For her part, Martin-Green made it clear she understands the stakes involved in bringing Trek back to TV:

“Anyone doing a new iteration of ‘Star Trek,’ you have to understand how deep it is; you have to understand how important it is,” she tells Variety. “You have to understand how much of a pillar it is to our culture. I think you need that in order to really give it the weight it deserves, and I think that — I hope that more than anything — people get the sense of how serious we take this.”

As for Isaacs, anyone who follows him on Twitter knows he is outspoken with his political views, and apparently this is one of the reasons he signed on:

“The world is complicated and horrible, and I don’t know how to explain to my children the insanity of the people who are in charge of it at the moment,” he says. “I thought it was a good story to tell — and something I would be happy to watch — about presenting a vision of the world that’s full of drama but also full of resolution and unity.”

Jason Isaacs photographed for Variety by Caitlin Cronenberg at Pinewood Studios in Toronto, Canada on August 16th, 2017.

More details on Fuller departure

Much of the piece is dedicated to the history of the production, including the multiple delays. As noted by Variety, co-creator Bryan Fuller was brought on board by CBS at least partly because they wanted someone who had “cred” with Star Trek fans, due to his history as a writer on Deep Space Nine and Voyager and love of the show. CBS Studios President David Stapf is quoted by Variety saying:

“We felt like it would be smart business to give the fans what they wanted. There’s not a whole lot of people who have the visionary capability along with the ‘Star Trek’ credibility and experience. So Bryan became a good and obvious choice to do that.”

The official line regarding Fuller’s departure describes it as a “mutual and amicable decision” due to to conflicts with his other show, American Gods. However, Variety sources confirm other reports that Fuller was “pushed out.” One reason given was that Fuller “is not known as someone who prioritizes deadlines and budgets above all else. In short: He is not a typical CBS showrunner.”

Apparently Fuller “failed to deliver scripts months after they were due.” Last fall, a month after informing CBS CEO Les Moonves the show would not meet its expected release date, Fuller was gone.  Fuller declined Variety’s request to comment for the article. 

An expensive show

The article also highlights the costs of Star Trek: Discovery, noting that an average episode costs between $8 million-$8.5 million. The high cost  is at least partly due to a show like Discovery needing to create virtually everything from scratch and requiring multiple soundstages at Toronto-based Pinewood Studios. According to the report, the Klingon ship set alone cost $3 million.  However, Variety also reports that “CBS considers the series paid for” due to expected new subscriptions to All Access and of course the Netflix deal.

Seasons 2 and 3 being mapped out plus more classic characters?

Another interesting tidbit from the Variety article is regarding how showrunners Gretchen J. Berg and Aaron Harberts “have a road map for season two and the beginnings of one for season three.” No more details were provided, but executive producer Alex Kurtzman has recently said that the second season will not continue the Klingon war arc from season one, but it will deal with the aftermath of that war.

Variety also notes that Discovery “reintroduces multiple classic characters” from Star Trek. It is already known that Spock’s parents Sarek and Amanda will be characters, but this suggests there may be more.

There is much more in the Variety cover story, so check it out.

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

I am excited!

I’m excited to see the show but I am sick and tired of politics creeping into EVERYTHING. For the love of all that is holy, I get it, a lot of hollywood hates Trump, can we move on please.

Trek has always been extremely political. Ever see it?

Allegorical… not political.

What’s an example of something that Discovery is doing that you consider to be political-not-allegorical?

Nothing. He’s just whining over a show he hasn’t seen yet and just assume the worst. IE, the internet.

Actually he was not “whining” over the show, he was commenting on Isaacs’ political comment. And he was correct, Hollywood needs to find the next thing to protest. The Trump hate is getting very old.

No he was whining. Issac doesn’t write for the show. He was simply talking about it from a personal POV and he didn’t even mention Trump specifically. Its funny though how no one seems to be upset he could be inferring to other leaders. It just has to be Trump and only Trump lol. You people need thicker skin.

And the ‘Trump hate’ is only getting ‘old’ if you support him. For everyone else, they hate him because he’s a complete embarrassment, unprepared and creates controversy on his own KNOWING its going to make news. And we are stuck with him for literally years. If he at least came off more presidential it would be an improvement but thats not even happening.

I’ve seen this elseplace on the ‘Net at places like YouTube; anytime a star of Star Trek (recent show or older ones) talks about Trump in a negative way, these people leap to his defense in a way they would NEVER have tolerated anybody for doing for Obama. And when you criticize them for doing so, they call you a troll (as has happened to me) and also accuse you of of being mentally ill or being autistic

That’s because Trump isn’t Obama. It is that simple.

“The Trump hate is getting very old.”

I don’t think that sentence means what you think it means. That said, I agree.

Trump hate never gets old. In fact I’d go so far to say Trump is the complete opposite of everything Trek stands for

Being concerned about Trump’s destructive, hateful views and policies that are hurting everyday, non-wealthy folks is not “old” in the slightest. How do you feel about the unbridled hate Trump spews out everytime he speaks in public or takes to Twitter? How did tou feel about the behavior in Charlottesville that he refused to condemn, and only did so in a begrudging, scripted way only after the criticism started rolling in (Which he then backtracked on, the next day when he wasn’t scripted)? The best art, and best science fiction, has ALWAYS commented on the state of the world. That’s certainly true of Star Trek. If you’re a Trek fan, do I really need to spell out for you how the previous series, from the original series on, have been allegories, and often flat-out commentaries, on the politics of the real world? Have Trek’s philosophies of inclusion and diversity (You do know what IDIC means, right? ), as well favoring nonviolent solutions, and giving voice to the voiceless and powerless gone completely over your head? I’m happy to entertain opposing views, but to complain about “hate” towrds Trump — when he seems to nothing but hate — is really misguided. Let’s put this in Trek terms: Trump seems like a combination of the worst, most greedy and mysogynistic Ferengi, and Commissioner Bele from “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.” There is nothing wrong with Trek helping to show people that the current state of the nation can be changed, and… Read more »

That’s the point of an allegory – to make a real world political or moral point through a fictional device.I guarantee that Trump will not be a villain in this show, if they want to deal with him they’ll do it allegorically.

Most modern writers aren’t mature enough to create allegories.

Allegorical, for the current state of the world and its politics. Truly. From TOS dealing with racial strife and Vietnam, in the guise of science fiction, to DS9 addressing race, religion vs. science, and the use of fear as a tool to curtail a society’s civil liberties in the name of “patriotism,” Trek has always been political.

Allegory is the means used for Trek to be political.

The actors may have a political stance but we don’t know yet if it’s in the writing

Wow, common sense reasoning. Yeah I guess someone had to just say it.

If you’re complaining about having to see or hear about politics, you’re probably privileged in that you don’t have to experience being on the receiving end of things like sexism, racism, or police brutality…or having your medical benefits taken away, or being denied services because of who you are. It doesn’t affect your daily life. But for others, it is quite literally a matter of life and death. Pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away.

Yes. Think of the poor Venezuelans having everything nationalized, all the corruption, infrastructure/health/education now falling apart, no one able to pay for anything. And no open border to the US just because they have a corrupt government as opposed to abandoning a semi-free Mexico.

So you’re suggesting there’s no alternative to Trump but Maduro? One or the other, that’s our choice? I tend to doubt it.

I am Venezuelan. And as bad as things are there, using Venezuela’s government as a synonym for anything proposed by any party in the US is completely absurd.

That being said, a big reason for the current situation is that the people of Venezuela fell for the nonsense of electing “an outsider”, “someone who has no ties to politics”, “someone who will tell things like they are”, “a disruptor”, etc. In the end, that outsider systematically destroyed all government institutions, and used a violent discourse of “us vs. them” to divide the people and eventually control every aspect of the country.

Sounds familiar?

yes, but we in the US had an election in 2016 and we replaced him.

Exactly

Said ‘outsider’ accomplished a lot: Nearly 500 Accomplishments by President Obama, With Citations President Obama was voted most admired man of the year for 2016. It was, of course, the ninth time in a row he’d been elected that. http://ti.me/2jDauHt Despite the characterizations of some, Obama’s success rate in winning congressional votes on issues was an unprecedented 96.7% for his first year in office. Though he is often cited as superior to Obama, President Lyndon Johnson’s success rate in 1965 was only 93%. http://n.pr/i3d7cY Despite the odds, Barack Obama was elected the first black president and then, was reelected by a wide margin. President Obama acted with grace and dignity for eight solid years and restored a proper level of dignity to the office of the president, which we now appreciate more than ever. Also, President Obama left office with an approval rating above 60%, more than double Bush’s last approval rating at the end and 20 points higher than his “replacement” had going into the office. http://cnn.it/2tObjz There are also these: President Obama loosened the rules to allow the 14 states that have legalized marijuana to some extent to regulate themselves without federal interference. http://huff.to/eQfa7j (Compare that with the Lord Donny regime, which has already announced plans to “crack down” on these states and banish the “evil weed” from all of society. As if we don’t have more important things to worry about.) President Obama expanded national service offerings and increasing funding for groups, including tripling the size of… Read more »

Yup. We did that in 2008. And again in 2016. The suckers fall for it every time.

With all due respect, you do not think anyone voted for ensuring everyone gets/pays their “fair share”? You trying to keep a job at PDVSA – wink, wink, nudge, nudge?

With all due respect, people voted for a “populist” who assured them that their economic troubles are the fault of those who are, as a rule, far worse-off than they are, along with so-called “elites” (who are principally college professors or folks who put specialty mustard or other non-standard condiments on their sandwiches). That’s the way right-wing populism works.

Michael , I’m sorry for antagonising the right wing , by having my triple smoked ham with dijon mustard on multigrained bread , for lunch everyday !

You are engaging in whataboutism in an attempt to distract from the point. Fail.

I am making no controversial claims, certainly none that would be disputed by anyone who has actually experienced racism, sexism, or brutality (or all three, as they tend to come bundled together.)

I also don’t have time to teach you history. I’m not going to argue with anyone on what reality is or isn’t.

In the USA alone, within living memory (not the distant past) people of different skin colors were treated legally differently. And for a few hundred years before that they were treated as less than human. The legacy of centuries of slavery wasn’t neatly wrapped up upon the signing of the Civil Rights Act; Americans are still dealing with it every day.

And that’s just one example of many. Protests and politics is how change happens. It is inconvenient and messy and confusing. If you don’t understand the issues, it’s easy to get hoodwinked into us-and-them thinking instead of listening and being empathetic.

Instead of saying ‘Why does everything have to be political…’ say ‘Let me help.’

Great statement.

Brilliant statement

He or she wants to watch a goddamn TV show. Who the hell should they be forced to experience “sexism, racism, or police brutality…or having your medical benefits taken away, or being denied services because of who you are”. Sorry your comment is just stupid.

Those all are of the topics that will probably be discussed on the show in its scripts, regressive neocon boy.

Star Trek is not simply escapist space adventure pew pew zap – the reason it has lasted is because it posits a future where humans have (mostly) worked out their differences. It is important to note that in the canon of the show, this only happened after a brutal Third World War that killed billions. The show takes great pains to point out “We were once like that, but we now work to better ourselves.” The very premise of Starfleet and a United Earth is rooted in progressive politics and a post-scarcity, post-capitalist society. Sure, we all want a bit of escapism now and then. But we also need a message of hope. That’s why Martin Luther King Jr asked Nichelle Nichols to stay on the show when she was thinking of leaving, because, in the middle of the US civil rights uprisings of the 1960s, showing a professional, competent black woman on the bridge of a starship meant there was a message of hope that the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, separate-but-(un)equal segregation, lynchings, etc might someday be transcended by true equality. If you are white in North America, you enjoy privileges that are invisible to you. Sure, you might not feel privileged; you might feel you are struggling or lacking opportunities. But you’re probably not going to be stopped by the police for driving while white, or have store owners follow you around, or suggest you can’t afford something in a nice boutique (this happened to Oprah, of… Read more »
Sybock\'s Other Brother

Amen.

Most of the world hates Trump, as do two-thirds of Americans. If you don’t want to hear about it, stay off the Internet.

Agreed!

It’s awesome that you are personally in touch with two-thirds of Americans, as well as most of the world! Of course, it’s also possible that you never get your head out of the self-confirming leftist media echo chamber.

This isn’t exactly hard to decipher. He’s even losing support in states he won.

Why don’t you get your head out of the neocon echo chamber that you’re stuck in, regressive neocon boy?

Every intelligent moral human being hates Trump

Yeah, I’ve met you Trekboi. Your interpretations of “intelligent” and “moral” are highly suspect.

A lot of EVERYONE hates Trump. ;)

But I don’t think the show has anything to do with Trump or ‘political’. It sounds like it will be what Star Trek always does best, tell interesting and allegorical stories of the day. They wrote half the show before Trump was even elected, so relax. That will be in season 2. ;)

Absolutely. I despise the man myself, but don’t see any need for Lorca or Burnham to pull up some kind of historical record just to talk about the sheer awfulness of 45. Keep it allegorical, and promote asking questions instead of assuring viewers that there are pat and easy answers to every problem. I love Trek, but it’s time for it to do some growing up.

Eed plebnista!

I refuse to talk about Trump anywhere online. Especially here.

But Michael, Issac never said the name Trump. In fact he said ‘people in charge’ which implies he’s talking about more than just one guy and current leaders as a whole even if he was throwing Trump in there, which we don’t even know if he was. I think Trump is awful but clearly he’s not the worst leader out there since we do have actual dictators and despot running a few places.

And Issac was speaking for himself as a person, he wasn’t talking about his character. But some poor Trump supporter think any time someone mentions bad leaders they are automatically referring to Trump. I can definitely understand that lol because he’s a joke but we are ONLY talking about Trump because someone mentioned him in the comments section, not the article itself.

And I mean if you are THIS thin skinned over such a really tame comment like that, then you really shouldn’t be on the internet. Forget about the show itself.

@Tiger2,

“but we are ONLY talking about Trump because someone mentioned him in the comments section, not the article itself. ”

The article actually mentioned Dear Leader (TM) in passing.

=======================
From Variety:

“Isaacs signed on because of the message the show sends in the Trump-Brexit era.”

Ok, well I just been proven completely wrong lol. OK, Trump was mentioned. But to be fair, only because he’s an unqualified narcissist who lies like a four year old. But yeah I was incorrect.

@Tiger2,

“But to be fair, only because he’s an unqualified narcissist who lies like a four year old.”

Indeed.

“People in charge” could also be Hillary. Before the Election I used to compare her to Kai Wenn while a friend compared The President to Dukat. Wenn and Clinton do have Very similar personalities and hunger for power, jealousy, skirt the law, etc. if DS9 were done now one could say she was the inspiration.

Considering he made these comments several weeks ago, probably not. I’m pretty certain he’s talking about people who is literally in office right now.

Hillary Clinton hasn’t been in an official office since 2012 and that wasn’t an executive role, hence she wasn’t in charge.

That may actually be a fair comparison, Anthony. That said, I think that for all her flaws, any Bajoran would have to be insane to vote for Gul Dukat over Kai Wynn. :-)

Tiger, these people are thin-skinned about any negative mention of Trump-intentional or not, and they’re also sore winners to boot-that’s why they react like this. Many of them are closet bigots too, I’ll bet, as well as closet sexists and other negative qualities that came out when Trump got elected.

I know. I wasn’t criticizing Isaac (whose Twitter feed is awesome, btw), just stating my preference that Discovery not go there, at least not directly. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

We’ll move on when he’s gone. Same as the neocons and tea partiers never once shut up about Obama. In fact they still complain about him any time anyone says anything bad about the Orangutan in Chief. “But what about…” Trump is a threat to the Constitution and the planet.

You seem perturbed.

If you’re not perturbed, you’re pnot paying pattention.

Sure… Once Trump moves on and resigns, or is (hopefully) jailed.

Meanwhile, if you can’t see the damage Trump, and the power brokers of the GOP that continue to stand by his divisive, hateful policies, is doing to our nation, then I suggest you play closer attention,

I also suggest that you pay closer attention to the philosophies of Star Trek, the allegories/commentaries it’s made about the real world, and the lessons it’s always taught. Basically, Trump is pretty much the opposite of everything Trek has ever stood for. If you can’t see that, you need to watch a bit closer and think a bit more.

Now, more than ever, we NEED Trek. At its best, it’s a shining example of what society can be if we work together to rise above the greed and hatred that’s so prevalent. No one said it’ll be easy. But seems harder than ever, right now.

The writer should adapt an “Avengers” take on the Trek franchise and introduce TOS bridge crew members one-by-one until all elements are assembled – and then a major movie!

DON’T LITTER!

You mean like ST09?

I remember thinking that the 2009 film would be a bit more like a biopic of events in Kirk & Co.’s lives leading up to the five-year mission, rather than a prologue and one big mission for most of the second and third acts.

That would probably be interesting for fans but boring for newbies. They needed a story that got them all together ASAP and go into their first adventure together. I think it was good how it was done, minus making a cadet the freaking Captain at the end, but I understand why it was done.

I think it was good how it was done, minus making a cadet the freaking Captain at the end”

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the show?

LOL!

How did you italicise that? Simply via HTML? testing testing
Or is it BBCode… [i]testing[/i]
Sorry for “littering” this with test crap. Won’t happen again.

@JAGT,

Use the following brackets

Given it another shot.

A shame about Fuller. If I remember it correctly he wanted the show about space exploration and that’s why he chose the name Discovery for it. Now all they talk is their klingon war story and its aftermath.

Shame he couldnt live up to his responsibilities. Scripts being months late? wow. Show is very expensive and CBS wasnt going to screw around.

The people paying for American Gods don’t seem to have any problems with his work ethics.

Because he prioritized that show over Star Trek, which is why you never heard stories about delays or production issues with “American Gods.” Part of the reason was that he was working on it first and it was further along in the process. But he definitely seemed more committed to that than Trek

Yep. It’s a real shame, because I think a show needs its creator and Fuller has apparently become a real talent since his early days working on Berman-era Trek. But CBS didn’t have much choice. Hopefully the showrunners will deliver on his vision.

There were immense production problems with AMERICAN GODS up front, with the director of photography being fired very early on — not for anything he did wrong so far as I am aware — and apparently some inconsistencies with the early direction as well.

That’s also a Starz show. It’s a different beast on a network like Starz that is starving for attention than it is for CBS which has been around a long time and doesn’t want to F around with late scripts.

I think there’s a middle ground between being on time and bland and being late but great. I think a month late is a LONG-ASS time to be late with a script. If I were an exec I’d be furious, especially since this show is theoretically launching our network.

@Marcelo Teson — which is exactly why WESTWORLD was pushed so far back … but they couldn’t do much because Bad Robot was producing and Nolan was the draw, and they had so much money invested in it. On the other hand, they also weren’t counting on it to launch anything either.

I agree with everything you said Marcelo, but I also think the problem was CBS stupidly announcing a premiere date for the show before they even hired a single person to write a pilot for it. I know in TV world, a year sounded like a long time to them but this has become the problem with Hollywood in general, they work backwards announcing when stuff is going to come out and then pull out all the stops to make it happen like writing the script instead of at least developing the film first. And then once the delays start as they ALWAYS do, then stuff either gets short changed or people start getting fired. In this case it was the latter. Of course Fuller said he could deliver in that time and didn’t but maybe they should’ve hired someone first, came up with the concept with the show, hired the cast, made the pilot etc BEFORE they announced any hard dates. Or the very least just said it would premiere sometime in 2017. My guess is they were going to be behind no matter what. Maybe not 8 months behind, but behind given this is clearly just not another show and its a huge undertaking. Notice how Netflix does it. They announce a show, give us the dates when they plan to shoot it and all of that but never actually announce when the show will be on until AFTER they start shooting the thing. Or even sometimes waiting… Read more »

A. Part of the reason why there was so many delayed on Discovery is because there was a lot of delays on American Gods itself.

B. American Gods isn’t launching an entire new media platform.

C. Its not a known worldwide brand.

D. The show turned out to be a hit for Starz in the end, so any issues they had went out the window once they realized they were going to make money off of it.

I really wanted Fuller to stay as well but I understand CBS thinking on this. I mean the show was suppose to premiere 8 months ago. Thats a LONG delay. Now thats not all Fuller’s fault of course but from reading everything he was very behind and everyone here knew it. There wasn’t even a full cast yet for a show that was suppose to premiere in 3 months at the time. And most pilots shoot 4-5 months ahead of broadcasts. He just had too much on his plate trying to launch two new shows. I can’t blame him for trying, being in charge of Star Trek much have been a dream for him since his career actually started with Trek. But end of the day like all employees he has to get things done in a timely matter, especially with the budgets as big as these. Once you can’t, you’re replaced.

American Gods season 1, while visually stunning and extremely cinematic didn’t go very far in it’s real goal as a show. Critics have picked up on this as well. The show is beautiful, you find yourself waiting for the next Sunday night episode but once it’s over you’re left wondering what exactly happened. How did the story REALLY advance. It was the strangest experience I had watching a show. I loved every second of it but I felt very unfulfilled by the episodes at the same time.

The delays were due to casting more than writing & isn’t CBS promoting that they were doing Trek on AA so they could take time to do it right without all the usual network (time) restraints

That’s probably why Fuller was allowed to miss two deadlines before finally being let go.

@Michael Hall,

That’s not accurate. In September 2016 Fuller asked Les Moonves for a delay from January to May, he was granted that. A month later he was fired.

The second delay from May to an undetermined date was announced on January 18, 2017 and Fuller wasn’t even involved with the show at that time.

Fuller’s story was also supposed to be more “complex” and “allegorical”, which would’ve been much welcome, considering that’s what I like about GOT. But it also sounds like Fuller is the reason for all the delays. I haven’t seen American Gods, so I dunno how effective he is at creating a vision like that, but regardless I’m sure I’ll appreciate DSC on its own terms.

“I haven’t seen American Gods, so I dunno how effective he is at creating a vision like that…”

I have seen Season 1 and I have to admit I really hated it. And this was NOT for being too violent or showing too much nudity as I had expected before watching it.
The violence was rather tame and stylized and the nudity / crazy Bilquis stuff didn’t bother me that much. But the show itself is just an odd mixed bag, meandering from being a boring snoozefest to outrageously ridiculous moments…
Talking to Lucy or Marilyn Monroe was bad enough, but the moment they gave us dozens of Jesuses with kitschy halos was the moment they lost me. The show felt odd and so many things feel overdone and out of place. Yeah, it has its moments, and some important issues are tangled, but it doesn’t work for me…
It’s not another GOT, it’s not even another TWD or The Expanse. It’s just an oddball waste of time…

Plus, not being American, I am not easily offended by f-bombs and other language issues.
But the use of the f-bomb as a stylistic device felt so out of place. They tried to squeeze in three of them in single sentences at times. This is not nasty, it’s just plain stupid.

Fine. But if you’re not a fan of Neil Gaiman’s original novel, it may be the subject matter itself which doesn’t appeal to you, as opposed to Fuller’s adaptation of it.

Smike,

Its funny how you keep assuming Americans are prude and yet you sound like one of the biggest prudes here lol. Most Americans are NOT offended by nudity and cursing. You know how I know? Because the most popular TV shows are the ones built around nudity and cursing lol. Whats odd is there has been this crazy shift between movies and TV where it use to be R rated movies that were most popular for these things and TV kept it a bit more tame.

But then movie studios got wise and realize if they make more PG 13 fare they can get more kids in their movie theaters and hence why there are now 20 PG 13 franchises for every R rated one.

But TV a different shift is happening and that the medium is being rewarded for riskier shows that wouldn’t have flew several decades ago thanks to a shift in the medium. So while networks have to conform to outdated FCC rules, cable and streaming shows do not and HENCE why those are just more popular today. And also why Discovery is going down that road because studios are realizing nudity and cursing doesn’t seem to hurt ratings one bit. In fact, the complete opposite.

And yes American Gods is a big hit for Starz. It will easily go multiple seasons.

The klingon war story was there from the beginning. Don’t you remember Fuller referencing Balance of Terror and The Undiscovered Country as touchstones for Discovery? I don’t remember much exploring in both of those entries.

Fuller wrote the first 2 episodes and created the entire road map of the first season which they have said numerous times stayed in place after he left. They may have made some changes but nothing that big given the schedule they had. It was ALWAYS going to be about the Klingon war, at least the first season.

And this is going to be better than what Alec Peters was planning for Axanar, as the review for this script shows: http://axamonitor.com/doku.php?id=locked_script

I’d still love to read the AXANAR script for myself. (Given how much I donated, I think it’s the least they can do.)

He’s been a show runner for ABC, FOX, NBC, Starz and is now working on “Amazing Stories” so not sure about the whole ‘not a CBS kind of showrunner’ thing.

Didn’t NBC/Universal pull the plug on the Amazing Stories reboot a few months ago?

It isn’t entirely dead but it ultimately has nothing to do with Fuller.

To be fair, the Klingon bit is what Fuller decided to do.

That seems like a needlessly large bridge lol but it will be interesting to see how they film it.

I know there was discussion when a photo showed the turbolift directly behind the Captain’s chair, meaning he cant see who’s entering, which is weird. But whatever.

It looks suitably stark for the era with the appropriate screens/tech for a series evolving from Enterprise. I like it.

If I recall correctly, DSC is being shot and presented in a cinematic 2:1 aspect ratio. Given that, the nice, wide bridge makes photographic sense, if nothing else.

Actually, I suspect the space is needed to make it easier to move the camera, lights, mikes, etc. to gain various and assorted camera angle and closeup options. I think it bodes well that they are not designing with an eye towards a predominantly 1 or 2 fixed camera shoot.

I remember feeling that way about the Enterprise D bridge and then I walked on to a recreation and was surprised by how much smaller it was in reality.

Wow, it looks like there’s a lot of room on that bridge. I hope there are lots of people doing things in that space when they’re actually filming.

Yeah, it looks like they could fit at least 50 people on that bridge. It’s huge.

Yeah ts freaking big lol. I have gotten use to the more intimate space bridges like all the Enterprises had and Voyager. I use to think the KT Enterprise had a larger than average bridge but I got use to it and it was a cool looking bridge. This one seem like the biggest so far but who knows how it will look when they actually shoot it. I like the look though. It doesn’t remotely belong in the 23rd century but I think at this point everyone has accepted that. I certainly have.

@Corylea — there was probably more room on TNG bridge, and VOY bridge. Both of those bridges broke tradition established in TOS. They were ridiculously huge, and laid out poorly to address functionality. It seems they were more concerned about setting up a stage, which put their leads front and center, and so they could move their cameras easily around than about what made the most sense functionally. I’m happy to see a return to this style, though I would bet it looks much smaller on camera, and the apparent vastness in this photo is the result of things moved around, lighting, and wide angle lenses for the photo spread.

Curious Cadet,

I agree on the camera workspace. I think it bodes well they have more options than say, THE ORVILLE bridge which seems setup for a 1 or 2 fixed camera shoot.

@Disinvited — I don’t know about that. LED lighting, and cameras are smaller and steady cams get most of the burden these days, so they don’t need as much room to move around and light as they did in the 90s. But the Oville looks as big and stupid as any TNG set to me. That bridge is especially silly. So much wasted space.

@Curious Cadet,

“That bridge is especially silly. So much wasted space.”

Yeah, there is so much wasted space on the Discovery bridge.

Curious Cadet,

I have no explanation why I thought this, but somehow I got the impresssion CBS was forward thinking it and blowing out the stops with being accomodating for even the possibility of IMAX film cameras being used by some directors?

Didn’t much care for what I saw of the Oriville‘s bridge myself, which struck me as a pretty unimaginative TNG knockoff. But I did like some of the other stuff, and look forward to checking the show out.

Did the designers of this show ever watch any previous incarnations of Star Trek? For some other science fiction franchise, maybe one that takes place far far away, this design aesthetic might be acceptable but it looks nothing like Star Trek and does not look like it would be 10 years before Kirk. I don’t care how good their “stories of color” are, the production design takes the viewer right out of it. Very poorly done.

I see elements of the TOS movie bridges as well as the Kelvin era bridges. It looks sufficiently Star Trekky to me. You have the circular design; you have the captain’s chair in the center; you have the consoles all around; the chairs appear to be a riff on the TMP design. I also think the empty space is there for the benefit of cameras being used to take the pictures (which can make sets look larger and more sparse than they really are) and I’m sure there will be additional consoles in the finished show.

In terms of the look, yes it does look like it takes place after TOS instead of before it. That’s a problem you’ll run into when you have a prequel show being made 50 years after the original. Advances in technology would make trying to stick to the TOS aesthetic too closely feel quaint. I love the TOS sets but they are very much of their time; audiences today expect a greater degree of detail and complexity and things like mechanical switches, buttons and CRT displays would just feel dated.

Despite what the filmmakers say, I view this more as a reboot or re-imagining rather than a direct prequel; it helps to mitigate all the clashing styles.

Yup. Big stretch to say the bridge doesnt look right. It looks big. lol But it fits.

Lets not get hung up on the 60’s visuals. They are passe. Look at Franklin, Enterprise NX and Kelvin…now this. Fits.

Those are all excellent points.

It looks to me as if this bridge takes crucial design elements from the past while updating the overall look to a modern era. Keeping the MEANING of the past design while updating the LOOK to a modern era is exactly what I think the designers of Discovery should have done, so I continue to be thrilled and excited about the new show.

People can rightfully quibble on the details–looks pretty strange for the Captain’s chair to be perched all the way at the aft end of the bridge, rather than in the central well. But for all that, it’s clearly a Trek bridge, with references to that design lineage going all the way back to what Pato Guzman and Matt Jeffries created in 1964. To assert that it “looks nothing like Star Trek” is simply nuts. (I ended up hating the Abrams iBridge, with its glaring lighting, overcluttered displays, and obvious bar code scanners, but in terms of layout it’s also obviously a Trek bridge.) I’ll take it, and hope it serves as a platform for great drama, it’s only real purpose.

Not to mention that there were never any CRT displays in TOS at all! If they needed someone to pop up on a screen, it was a special effect. Otherwise the computer displays were blinking lights.

I’ve given up trying to reconcile this series with the original series timeline. I just can’t do it…so, for me, it’s an alternate universe Trek. So, in that regard, I have no serious problems with the set…other than someone, somewhere in this production, is trying to be clever, turning everything on Discovery “starfleet blue”. Obsessively so… While other ships and alien worlds will have their own unique color scheme. I don’t like it, but I “get it”.

It’s the exact graphic color combo used in the latter TOS-era movies–Starfleet blue, Klingon red. You didn’t like that?

…Didn’t love them, but at least their uniforms were maroon. And the hard metallic greys weren’t tinted gun barrel blue. and Trek 5’s bridge was even softer with beiges and tans. Discovery is blue metal floors and walls with blue metal consoles with blue displays with blue uniforms and blue accent lights…all the way down to the LEDs inside the communicator and other props…blue. Some goofy psychological reasoning behind it, I’m sure, and how we react as opposed to how we react to the oranges and reds surrounding the bad guys. Too clever for their own goods, or just bad set design? Or both? Who knows. Visually, and yes, totally subjective, as it is, it holds no aesthetic appeal to me.

The metal color looks pretty neutral to my eyes (which aren’t that good, truth be told). I think it’s just picking up the blue graphics on the consoles–which, again, are very similar to what was seen in Trek VI and GENERATIONS. And who would have suspected that TNG’s harshest critic would approve of its color scheme on the Trek 5 bridge?

I do agree with you about the uniforms, though. Aesthetically they just don’t appeal to me on any level, and I’ll miss the different department colors we got with most of the other TV series.

TonyD–

I think the idea is that it’s canon story-wise, not visually. If Pike’s Enterprise eventually makes an appearance, expect an updated look that ties-in with the rest of Discovery, as opposed to how it appeared in TOS.

Michael Hall-
Yup, pretty much what I’m getting at. The events may end up being the same but the aesthetic is retconned into something more contemporary.

@Jack D — this bridge looks more like TOS than the TNG Bridge did. At least they kept the concept of the captain in the center and work stations encircling the captain so by merely glancing to his left or right, he could instantly be updated as to the status of anything. Picard had to stand up and turn around facing away from the viewscreen in order to even have a conversation with his tactical officer, much less anybody else set in the deep recesses of that ship. For my money, they have done an excellent job staying true to the original design aesthetic of the Enterprise, particularly the bridge seen in THE CAGE; and although updated to appear more modern, as to what we might expect to actually see 300 years from now, they’ve done a fine job tying it into the world of Trek I’m accustomed to seeing. I also clearly see direct influences of the ENT bridge which is a direct reference to Berman era Trek.

Agreed, at least it is a functional circle as opposed to the TNG oval.. makes me feel a little better about the bridge.

Yeah, the TNG bridge had so much wasted space on the sides. It would have been cool if it had always looked like how it did in Generations.

@MattR — on the sides, in the front, in the back — everywhere. They basically created little stages between the captain and helm, the monitors and tactical, the helm and the viewscreen. And there were doors everywhere. I can only assume that they designed it that way so they never had to remove a wall, which is an expensive consideration for getting shots. But it ruined it as an identifiable Starfleet bridge design that connected with TOS.

It was 80 years in the future. It didn’t HAVE to connect with TOS. Things simply change. Its sad Star Trek fans rarely do.

God I wish people stop saying ‘Berman era Trek’. Its just Star Trek. And that ‘era’ started under Roddenberry who made the decisions for the TNG bridge, not Berman. And I know you get that but making the distinction between show runners is silly. Its more about the time the shows were made, not to mention the big differences in the time lines of the shows themselves.

Design-wise this bridge looks an excellent update of classic Trek designs, not down to 60s lack of realism, but the overall feel is there. And it doesn’t look too big. I think it’s the POV that makes it look bigger than it actually is.

I was thinking the same thing. You really can’t judge from one shot. (Plus, we’re extrapolating the TOS concept to the whole thing; we really have no idea what the front section of the Discovery bridge looks like. Or that of the Shenzhou, for that matter.)

Sorry, looks like it belongs on a death star. Heavy Star Wars influence in these designs. Especially that shot of the captain laying across it…all that’s missing are stormtroopers guarding the door.

SW, really? I don’t see that at all.

Jack, it’s a big bridge but it looks like Star Trek. It looks like a bridge we’ve never seen before but it does look like Trek. The chrome elements remind me of something really retro to be honest. The chairs remind me of TOS movie era as well.

Seriously, can’t they save the sets and build a theme park/ traveling exhibition?

I’d pay to go to that theme park

Remember Star Trek: The Experience in Vegas? Easier said than done.

while it worked for people on the other side of the country, I really wished it had been closer to the eastern side of the US. I wanted to go but it was just tough during that time. I wish there was a way to get a Trek themed area added on to Universal Studios parks …ya know, since Star Wars gets a Disney park…

Well in the 80s Universal Studios did have a Star Trek show where people could dress up and ‘film’ an episode with the original crew and be on the bridge of the Enterprise. I can’t remember the name but there are youtube videos of it of people who did it. Sadly that will probably be the closest we will see Star Trek in Universal or Disney. Paramount has been toying with the idea for years of building their own theme park and I remember they announced one somewhere abroad. To lazy to look it up but I think one was or is going somewhere to Asia with a Star Trek themed ride. We also know there was a Trek ride being planned for a UK park but it was cancelled for some reason. But obviously I know you are looking for one states side. And I think at the time putting it in Vegas was a great idea. This was the 90s when Vegas was becoming more family friendly and they were adding a lot of smaller theme parks. Sadly I think they are all gone now. The issue with The Experience was it was so far off from the main strip area. It really was a hike to get to it. Now they have the monorail there but when Trek was around it was very limited. In other words unless you were just staying around there it was a hike to get to. You could easily miss it. And… Read more »

Tiger2,

Re: …can’t remember the name…

STAR TREK ADVENTURE:

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek_Adventure

I was lucky enough to see The Experience right before it closed. I would have gone back every year just for it. It was tremendous. Really really good.

Doesnt CBS or Viacom have a relationship with a theme park? If not, they should make one. Assuming tech has advanced beyond The Experience, I’d be incredibly interested in going. The Experience was really great so a BETTER version could be phenomenal.

And if they could have the full spectrum license, you have all the meterial from the TV and films to display, base exbibits, rides etc off. One cool thing about The Experience was Quark’s bar. So you had the sense that once you stepped inside the exhibit hall, you were IN the Star Trek universe. Do up an entire area with things like that, so you feel you’re on a ship or station.

Yeah, it was really cool. Living in California I should have made the effort to get out there more, but I honestly don’t care for Vegas much. At least I got to see it the one time.

You know whats crazy, I THINK CBS is the only corporation that ISN’T tied to a major theme park affiliate. NBC for example owns Universal which of course is Universal Studios and their shows and films are being used in the parks (which is why you now have a Jimmy Fallon ride in Orlando lol). ABC is owned by Disney, enough said. Fox actually doesn’t have any in America but they did have one in Australia. I actually been there when I use to live there but I don’t know if its still open. They had plans to build one in Asia. I think it was Malaysia but I haven’t heard anything about it in years.

As far as CBS though, I don’t think they have any connection to any theme parks or even a deal with any of them. I would love to do a CSI ride lol. But who knows, as said Star Trek rides have been planned and a roller coaster opened up in Germany which this site covered. I would love to see a Trek ride on the level of what Disney is doing with Star Wars or Harry Potter but thats probably a pipe dream.

I’m not a TOS purist by any means. I’m just wondering what the in-universe explanation might be for why starship bridges went from spacious caverns to smaller and more cramped. I would think it would be the other way around.

@Rich — I kind of think the time for “in-universe” explanations has passed. The Berman era pushed the limits of that with fan-pandering episodes which attempted to explain the Klingon ridges. We’re 50 years after TOS, and the realities of producing a sci-fi series in the 1960s are very different than the resources available today. Trying to impose a reason for every visual change from decade to another is pointless.

That said, one easy explanation is that the Discovery was meant to be a vessel of science exploration — perhaps it was a prototype similar to the Excelsior in TSFS. It had a broad expansive bridge to express the confidence the Federation had in an era of peace and scientific exploration, and the bridge was to be a hub for diplomats, researchers, media, and visitors. It’s the same sort of ideals that put rarely seen children on board the Enterprise during TNG, and expanded their bridge into the vast hotel lobby it resembled.

I think people have to just realize this is simply a visual reboot like the KT films were and leave it at that. I know that will anger a lot of purists, but there it is. Some things might be explained as the show goes on but as for the ships they look different and more advanced because its 2017 and not 1966. Anyone who thought we were getting some kind of retro looking show were kidding themselves. You don’t spend this kind of money just to feel like you gone back to the 60s.

There is no coherent reason in-universe. In the real world, the reason is that talentless prima donna children without any mature artistic sensibilities think that bigger is better and darker is cooler.

Actually, it’s the other way around; silly Trekfans believe themselves to be the owners and keepers of the franchise (as if it’s a religion), so they post bullcaca objections online to said sets as if they’re cathedrals being violated by apostates. That’s you and people like you in a nutshell.

Pretty harsh take on the motives of people you don’t even know.

Im not sure what you mean. Enterprise NX – Kelvin – Shenzhou – Enterprise TOS – Discovery – Enterprise TMP – Enterprise TNG – Defiant – Voyager

Im not seeing a trend of going from larger to smaller. They seem to vary. And when you factor in other ships of different classes in the same periods, it seems different classes of ships have different bridge designs.

Im no military expert but I bet different class of ships in today’s military have different bridge sizes & designs too.

Not everything needs an in-universe explanation. TOS was designed for 4:3 standard definition televisions and STD is designed for 16:9-ish HD and UHD viewing.

I’d rather just accept that TOS would have been designed differently, had it been shot for a different aspect ratio and move on.

If there *has* to be an in-universe explanation, maybe the designer had a different budget to work from or maybe more ship’s operations were automated, requiring less space. The reasons are often mundane and don’t require a 40-minute episode to explain things.

@Dom — I’m not sure TOS would have been designed that differently. They had the opportunity to redesign the bridge when they did TMP, and certainly after TSFS when the Enterprise had been destroyed. But they didn’t. I suppose one thing they did was widen the stage … they viewscreen matched the cinematic ratio, and a weapons station was put off to the side, facing the screen so as to be part of the composition. They also closed off the front rail so that it could be a “stage”. But the effective design was the same. ENT certainly had an opportunity to redesign the bridge for 16:9, and for all practical purposes, other than turning the surrounding workstaions around to face the center, it was the same concept. However once again, they widened the viewscreen to match the 16:9 ratio, which is more or less what TOS had after the pilots despite the 4:3 framing. But I agree, there’s no need for an in-universe explanation.

While I understand that Paramount controls the movie rights to Star Trek while CBS controls the television rights, in my opinion, here’s where things went awry… For decades, fans have been used to Star Trek always starting on the small screen and eventually moving to the big screen. This process allowed for substantial character development during the show’s television run which simultaneously allowed fans to connect, relate and engage (no pun intended) with the onscreen characters and build a loyalty to the franchise. This precedent ended with the release of 2009’s Star Trek reboot when we were expected to accept the recast characters despite not having a previous relationship with them via a television version of said characters. To add insult to injury, fans were not only expected to embrace the new cast, but also accept that 40 years of canon no longer existed. To fans, that was the equivalent of being 6 years old and having JJ, your teenage brother, knock over the sand castle you had spent all day building. I believe one thing the reboot got right was casting the original Spock to help sell the reboot. However, eradicating 40 years of canon takes more than one original cast member… Had they started the movie with the original cast, at least those still living at the time (Kirk, Spock, Sulu, Uhura, Chekov), and then migrated to a flashback of their early years (aka the new cast), while it may have been a hard pill to swallow, I… Read more »
But they didn’t eradicate 40 years of canon. It was still there, just in another universe. No offense but your entire post is the reason why I don’t understand why anyone even bothers trying to make new Star Trek. Fans are just to anal. For the record, I don’t like its a prequel either, but MOSTLY because of all the complaints I said for months I knew were coming and yes here they all are. I think at the very least they should’ve just said it was a reboot and be done with it and then they could do whatever they wanted. But then it would go back to ‘eradicating’ all the canon before it so you can’t win. End of the day, we have a new Star Trek show. Its not going to live or die by the timeline it is or how different it looks, its going to live or die by its stories and how likable the characters are. Maybe I’m making it too black and white, but if you like the stories, all of that other stuff will go away in time. And yes like a lot of things, you will simply adapt if you like the show. Now if you don’t like the show, then its going to be Enterprise and the KT films ALL over again but I’m keeping an open mind and so far I like more than I don’t like. It sounds like you don’t and thats valid but you’re at least… Read more »

They raped my Star Trek, that’s what you’re saying. You’re like the Star Wars retards who are locked in their ‘who shot first’ anally retarded alternate dimension. Bitch, moan, bitch, moan. You’re part of the crowd that relishes these dumb fan projects, just to wank and waddle in glorious pastel tints. You think that these series and movies are made just for you and ‘fans’. They are not. They cost more money to make than you will ever see in your bank account in a million lifetimes. If it were given to you to make a series or movie, that would indeed be the last time we ever saw Star Trek. Instead of this asinine bitching, either rejoice that new Trek is on the way or retreat to your man-cave and watch hundreds of episodes of Star Trek that you DO like.

Star Trek represents peace and hope for the future. Take your uneducated troll comments elsewhere, Bert. I think Ernie, Big Bird and Cookie Monster are looking for you.

Well, based on your trolling remark, look in the mirror first. Or are you also proudly wearing your ‘canon’ button and bitching and moaning with your so-called Star Trek fans in your safe spaces? Or do you sit around a campfire each weekend reminiscing ‘the good old days’ when Star Trek was still ‘your’ Star Trek? You asinine vinegar pissers don’t represent hope or progression, you represent ultra conservatism.

It would seem to me the only one bitching and moaning and pissing vinegar is you. It’s tools like you with your nonsensical, hateful comments that need to change. We can’t tell if you have mommy/daddy issues or if you’re just hangry and need a Snickers but you need to either chill dude or move on and go back to watching your CNN.

I will live with the new bridge since the concept is so exciting but I do not understand why producers/directors want these giant bridges full of empty space. TOS and Nicholas Meyer had it right in Star Trek II and VI that you want space on these ships to look like it was at a premium filled with officers, security, computer monitors, etc. It makes it seem that exploring the universe is hard and exciting work. Why would you not want your ship to look like an action packed aircraft carrier or submarine? The TOS bridge was awesome since it appeared that the Captain really would have to swivel his chair around to see the computer look outs and talk to his senior staff – here what can he really read so far away? Why all the blank space? Is morale increased by blank panels? Big empty spaces make you think that just anyone can throw a starship out there and there isn’t that much work required to operate. Same with behind the Captain’s chair. In TOS and Star Trek II the major shots of the Captain looked back on these cool blinking displays with Lieutenant Uhura (TOS)/ non commissioned officers (ST:II) monitoring the state of the ship. Here we get to see a door. And how does that make any sense now that the Captain can get shot in the back without seeing who entered the bridge? Please tell me they at least put some security guards standing in… Read more »

Good points from designing a TV show POV —- if this was a real starship/Star Trek bridge I’d rather work in a larger space (especially since it gives more room to dodge exploding computer consoles :) )

Am I the only one that thought ST:II and VI with the crew rushing down crowded corridors pulling out phaser torchs and manning battlestations made the show that much more epic and exciting? Or liked always seeing those control stations behind the Captain sometimes complete with a Non-Com or security officer making sure all was well? I remember reading some “making of” novel where Meyer was calling for the corridors to be smaller, more buttons, etc. The more of that the better. Yes.. big would be nice but $$$$$. And would you not rather spend that $$$$ on performance or a nice gym for the crew? Sucks that compromises have to be made when you don’t have free money, free energy with your replicator. If I were on a rocket I’d never want to be in a big shuttle with crew and cargo on one stack – that’s why the space launch system was a disaster. I’d want a nice small rocket to get me to orbit nice, safe and cheap that the nation can afford it. If I was on a combat submarine or bomber going to work I’d never want a super big CIC/bridge/cockpit that would make the ship any less maneuverable or stealthy. And even on a carrier, if I could fit an extra F-35 or an extra CIWS vs. a blank wall with no screens, I’ll take the F-35 or CIWS.

Cmd. Bremmon I been telling you for awhile now if you think you are going to get some kind of rustic Star Trek where everyone was living in a more primitive state prepared to be disappointed….again.

The Kelvin Timeline films showed audiences want bigger stuff and everything super cool. Its not going to look like Interstellar. The stuff in TWOK and TUC was fine but that was another time. They are selling a TV show, you want to make it sleek and inviting as possible.

Now all that said, I thought the NX-01 did all that stuff you are saying well, especially how cramped and rugged everything felt but it did feel more realistic, especially in Starfleets early days. But I think for this show its going back to sleeker and cool again like the KT films did. TOS is over and why I regret they ever went back to this period. But its done now and people just have to accept they are going to take some influences from that era but its mostly its own thing with its own aesthetics. This looks cool and I think most people will like it. At least not the purists.

“The Kelvin Timeline films showed audiences want bigger stuff and everything super cool.”

Not exactly. Audiences didn’t want it. It is what was presented to them. Those mass audiences (not the trekkie die-hards) had no preconceived notions as to how the sets would be built. They don’t really care. They just wanted to see a good movie. They would’ve went, regardless. Same with Discovery.

Ok fine, the filmmakers wanted it. Either way, its there because they think the audiences would like it and since no one has complained about anything visually from the KT films except some of the hardcore bunch then they are following the same play book because they know the hardcore bunch is going to watch it no matter what. They are trying to hook in new viewers, so you give them something sleek and cool. Thats how we perceive technology in 2017, I imagine for most thats how they would envision it 300 years from now.

@Cmd. Bremmon — the Capt. was always meant to have his back to the door. The ONLY reason it looks the way it does in TOS is because they wanted the camera angle to reveal entrances and exits without the captain blocking the shot. Besides, why would anyone be on the ship that would want to shoot the captain in the back and also have access to the bridge? Presumably, that access would be restricted, though that didn’t seem to be the case in TOS. Again, doesn’t make ANY sense in the world in which we live today. Add to that, there are security stationed at the door in most episodes of TOS, and definitely in The Cage. Add to that, anyone could enter the bridge on ENT without Archer being able to see them. So there’s precedent for that as well. And it’s not like Kirk couldn’t be “shot in the back” on TMP bridge where the shafts were on either side of the captains chair, requiring him to make an almost full turn to see who was entering, assuming he was even concerned enough to act quickly enough for an assassination attempt. And while not directly behind the captain on the Defiant bridge, the Captain would not be able to simply glance to the side to see who was entering, much less in his periphery, nor is there much between him and the door as there was in TNG. And there’s some logic to having his back to… Read more »

I find it weird for that reason you mention – shooting the scene. As for someone entering behind the Captain, the concern should never be someone shooting him for the reasons you mention. But surely he’d be curious from time to time about who’s entering.

Does his chair swivel all the way around? In other series, when someone entered, the Captain could essentially look over his shoulder or shift to his left to see and communicate with that person. Now he has to turn all the way around or wait for the person to come around to his field of view.

For the record, this does not negatively impact my potential enjoyment of the series, just merely a point of discussion about the design lol

Don’t forget the multiple tactical displays on the captain’s chair armrests as seen in those pics several weeks back. Lorca can basically pilot the ship and fight a battle all by himself sitting in that chair all by touching the displays on those armrests.

@Shilliam — I’m not sure how much I like those. I think it makes some practical sense, but it makes the captain’s chair a little too throne-like for me. Also, remember how Kirk would leap to the Helm console to check something for himself, or take over during a jolt … not much of that happening in these bridges, with these kinds of captain’s chairs. I really hated the swivel consoles in Picard’s bridge “living room” for the “guest” seating, of which even Riker was one …

“I do not understand why producers/directors want these giant bridges full of empty space.”

It’s not that big at all. I think it’s the position the camera is placed at that makes this look so big. It’s not as cozy as on the Defiant or NX-01, but it’s not bigger than NextGen or Voyager. And most interesting enough, the TOS bridge set was the same size as the Next Gen set. They just made it look bigger by the whole set-up.

I am excited about Discovery, but if you really wanted to give fans what they wanted – they should have been looking at recruiting ISB, RDM, and the DS9 producers to do a series.

Ron Moore has said that he’s not sure he can bring anything new to a Trek series, and he has a current series of his own anyway. But he knows the current Discovery showrunners and thinks they’re capable of doing a good job.

“CBS considers the series paid for” due to expected new subscriptions to All Access.” That reminds me (here in the U.S.) of when the makers of EZ-Pass said they expected to pay the system off with the money generated by people paying tickets for violating it. Hubris. It hasn’t happened yet. I think it far more likely the Netflix deal ‘paid’ for it.

Love Issac’s comment.

Here’s to hoping this is one heck of a great show – or not. As much as I love Trek, there’s an overabundance of new content, excellent television to watch these days, across existing platforms I already pay for. Very easy to move on to something else. I’ll do a CBS free-trial to check it out, but if I don’t find the show or the service to be up to par, bye-bye Discovery.

I will give Discovery its fifteen episodes to win me over.
I wish them luck.

I think checking it out is at least fair. Whether that’s the 30 day free trial period or one whole season. It’s a lot to ask some people to pay for and if you don’t like the show why keep paying for it. Also we can be shown all the pictures and read all the stories about Discovery but ultimately it’s the content in the show that’s going to matter the most because it’s what’s going to get people to pay for it.

Gary 8.5, that is all that anyone at CBS could possibly ask for. The fact you’re willing to give them the entire season even more so. I certainly won’t re-up for season 2 if the premiere season is a dud (think “Enterprise” season 2, “TNG” season 1 or 7, etc.). My love for “Star Trek” isn’t unconditional, but I’ll definitely be giving the show a fair shake.

I too plan on evaluating whether or not I keep paying for CBS AA at the end of every season. For me though, I expect their will be “dud” seasons. I just hope there is enough I like in them to keep me going to the next one. TNG was that way for me. First few seasons actually. The more I watched the more I liked. Ultimately to me it’s a cost benefit analysis. Is what I am paying worth it? If it’s not I am gone.

Well, the article does say both the subscriptions and the Netflix deal. It could be like 90% from the Netflix licensing fee and 10% from subscriptions, but it still makes a difference. And the more subs the better. :)

Can I just say how much I adore that cover photo of the three stars? And how much I am tickled by that shot of Jason Issacs, barefoot and without a care in the world, in Discovery’s big chair?

And omigosh–$8.5 million per episode?! Holy cow… they’re basically shooting three feature films spread out over 15 episodes. I can’t wait to see how all of those Federation credits have been spent!

Yeah that budget is insane lol. ALTHOUGH I do wonder is that American dollars or Canadian? I ask that because when the budget was first revealed it was at $9 million but it was revealed to be in Canadian. In U.S. that is around $6-7 million, which is still a lot considering the average TV drama is around $4-5 million. But if that IS American dollars thats astonishing. AFAIK, only a handful of shows cost more than $8 million and yes kids they are all behind pay walls. Network shows have tons of money but few networks are shelling out that kind of money for a show unless its been on a long tine and a huge hit. And also let this sink in, even shows like GOT which everyone now quotes costing $10 million an episode DIDN’T start out that way. Its first season the episodes were around $5-6 million. It just got bigger once the show became a bigger hit and HBO increased the budgets to give a bigger scope now that the show was their biggest hit. I think West World however did start at around $10 million an episode and yes it does feel like watching a film when you watch it. That said though, Discovery probably has to be a big hit and get a lot of subscribers to AA for what they are paying. I don’t see the show ending the first two seasons no matter what considering the hype and all the money… Read more »

While these pictures are fine I would prefer more up close shots of the bridge and other sets. I like seeing the details on the screens like the Okudagrams. Maybe they will release them as the show date gets closer.

It’s a shame about Fuller’s departure. His original position is what got me most excited about this. When he left my excitement took a hit, but not a substantial one. When I learned this would be the first rated R Trek, however, my excitement took a significant hit. Not sure why they’re trying to soften it by saying, “it’s only a hard PG-13.” Well, first, TV ratings HAVE one for PG-13 equivalent, even raising it an age, called TV-14. So obviously it crossed the threshold into the TV-MA area. Besides, what about the words “hard PG-13” is supposed to comfort the parent of kids 9 and younger? I’ll still watch this, but my children will not until after I’ve seen it, and most likely not even then. Such a shame that they decided to break the family friendly mold by producing the most inappropriate (for children) content ever in mainstream Trek. Sure, there have been some mature moments in the past, but they have been just that, moments, not pervasive and consistent enough to have the entire series classified as restricted for youth (the exploding head in “Conspiracy” jumps foremost to mind). Here’s hoping the rating is a fluke. I’m still hopeful, but much more cautiously now.

Yeah, I’m hoping the TV-MA is not the regular rating. One of the things I dislike with premium channels is they add in sex and cursing just because they can. It definitely works and is needed in some situations, but it is sometimes unnecessary.

@jij93byu — do we know for certain that the series will be rated TV-MA for every episode? Certainly, they have the option of rating episode differently depending on what content they want to address. Also, that trailer may have been TV-MA, and targeted at certain sites where kids wouldn’t be typically online. s I pointed out previously, there was some pretty disturbing episodes of TNG, the exploding alien from an officer’s chest for one, as well as various victims of weapons fire which gruesomely stripped the flesh from bone … heck there’s some side-boob shots in some episodes of TOS & TNG that could be inappropriate for some younger viewers …

@CuriousCadet – I am hoping it’s a per episode basis. On another thread I pointed out that it usually works that way, but recently I’ve been reading in articles that the series is rated TV-MA. I still think they may be wrong, as that doesn’t make sense to rate a series instead of rating each episode individually. As for the more mature moments in previous episodes, you pointed out the first one that comes to my mind as well, the “Conspiracy” carnage! Man, that was pretty intense.

I saw that episode Conspiracy when I was 13 years old. It was actually pretty graphic at the time but once the episode ended, I went out and played. Most kids get over this stuff faster than we tell ourselves once we become adults and parents ourselves. And consider the ridiculous amount of violence that is on most shows today I can’t imagine Discovery doing anything that most haven’t been conditioned to watching at this point.

@Curious Cadet,

None of the previous Star Trek shows warranted a TV-14 rating, let alone a TV-MA rating.

Well your post is a bit conflicting because you say you miss Fuller but then say you’re upset that its an ‘R rated’ Trek. Well I hate to burst your bubble but its only R rated because that’s what Fuller himself wanted. He stated a year ago he wanted a more mature Trek and any one who has seen the guys latest work, Hannibal and American Gods, can tell you he has pushed for more adult material in his work. Now granted those were both based on source material BUT its probably what attracted him to those projects in the first place.

But Fuller was clearly trying to shake Trek up in a very big way. He DIDN’T want what came before, including its more family friendly outlook. I don’t think he wants everyone naked and cussing all the time either but its clear he wanted Trek to feel more grown up. No offense to kids, but they have enough out there to watch. And being frank here, I’m almost certain whatever makes Discovery ‘mature’ will still be nothing the average 12 year old hasn’t already watched and seen countless times at this point.

Except that it’s the kids who broaden the base for a show such as this. Also, fuller ultimately has nothing to do with the show once they starting shooting it so the show runners were free to take the show in any direction that they wanted to.

I don’t really buy that. Most people who watch Trek has always been older. All you have to do is go to a convention to see that. Sure kids watches it as I did, but I never got the idea kids was a big part of the fan base. I imagine the average age of most who watches it young are around teenage level. And if you are a teenager NOTHING on this show will be said or shown they haven’t seen over and over again.

I have a niece, she’s 14. Her favorite show is GOT. I just find it odd how cursing and a little nudity is going to keep anyone over the age of 10 from watching it.

And the show runners are the exact same people who helped develop the original ideas with Fuller in the first place. They have worked on practically every show he has run. He hired them. And they said from the beginning Fuller’s vision would stay in tact. And it has, because if you go back to every interview Fuller has given about this show and what he had planned to do with it, literally every part of his vision has come true. I can’t think of a single thing that was changed that he stated publicly would be there. They even kept the ugly ship, just modified it a bit. And yes, that would obviously include being a more adult Star Trek.

“Most people who watch Trek has always been older. All you have to do is go to a convention to see that.”

No, I disagree. TOS became the massive phenomenon in reruns in the early-mid 1970s because it was aired in the late-afternoon after-school time slots. That’s kids, by and large. I know I and all of my friends were among them.

And I was also one of those kids. But I don’t think Star Trek as a WHOLE is propped up by 8-12 year olds either. If that was the case Star Trek would be Star Wars. And what I mean by that is we would see a MASSIVE marketing drive to kids like Star Wars always was. It would be marketed VERY differently. There would actually be kid driven shows like Star Wars actually has on the air right now. Yes they had toys but most of the merchandise was aimed at adults. What 10 year old is buying a Star Trek technical manual? Star Wars was and is aimed at kids. They even have kids fan clubs. Star Trek has a lot of fan clubs, are any of them specifically aimed at kids? Again, you could see it in the conventions themselves. They are adult driven. How many 12 year olds use to wait in line to get Leonard Nimoy’s autograph? Now check out what a Harry Potter convention looks like. I will guarantee you the average age will easily drop by 20 years. Again, I’m not saying kids don’t watch Star Trek, obviously they do. But no, they are NOT the driving demographic. Not by a freaking mile. In fact when I saw Beyond last summer, majority of that audience was easily over 30. You can count number of kids under 13 in that theater. In fact every Star Trek film I have seen in the theater you… Read more »

In fact, I would love to know the median age for people who are on this site? Because I swear, and I’m in my 40s so I’m not a spring chicken myself, but when I come to this site it feels like I’m talking to senior citizens a lot of the times. It feels much older here than when I go to places like Reddit where you do interact with at least college age people all the way through people in their 70s. The mind set here just feels SO much older than Reddit for some reason. A lot of the posts makes that obvious.

I just have a feeling most people here are easily over 30. And thats fine obviously, I’m just making the point I don’t think its a lot of 14 year olds are here gabbing about Discovery lol. Maybe I’m wrong but if I’m not it kind of proves the point again. Is there at least a place where younger Star Trek fans go to talk about Star Trek because AFAIK most of the Star Trek websites seem to be heavily populated by 30-50+ year olds.

But I would love to see a link where all these teenagers is gabbing on about it. Of course I won’t stay long and freak them out lol.

God forbid we have sophisticated and mature content instead of Jar Jar Binks kiddie fare

Not exactly. There’s plenty of TV14 adult fare on basic cable and broadcast. “Better Call Saul”, “This is Us” and the list goes on. It will be interesting to see if it will actually air as a TVMA when the pilot premieres on CBS.

And so would Discovery. I don’t see any issue with that. You guys act like Star Trek was for 12 year olds or something. You can’t stand a bit more language and sex?

Your comment is dripping with irony but I can’t explain why. It’s not about the content so much as knowing who your audience is. A TVMA rating doesn’t draw viewers but good writing always will.

What’s ironic about it? These are adult driven shows. Last time I check most adults cuss and have sex. At least the fun ones lol.

And every Trek fan I know have no issue with this stuff. Most of us watch a lot of MA shows now, so I don’t see the issue? Trek in the 60s and 80s was only more tame because of the mediums they were on. But then look at Enterprise? Thats because TV in general was getting more riske and that was 12 years ago. And if you notice in the films themselves they felt a bit more adult, at least the language. And at the end of the day, thats all we might be talking about.

Look don’t get me wrong. If they went back to the same family lite tone I would be fine with that too. I don’t remotely care they may show some skin and people drop the F bomb. Thats just typical life for most people today.

I suspect that the rating is likely a reflection of violent content than for language (the last three movies could air uncut on basic cable and still receive a TV14 rating). It’s also very likely incidental and not something they were actively working toward.

Viewers ultimately have expectations related to specific genres and shows. You know what you’re walking into if you watch “The Walking Dead”, “Game of Thrones” or “American Horror Story” and they were marketed as such before they launched. Star Trek, however, has a long history so even a casual Star Trek viewer won’t go in thinking of Star Trek as a program with f bombs, full frontal nudity or disembowelments so it will be interesting to see exactly what that TVMA is a reflection of, just how TVMA it really is and how viewers will respond to it. We’ll probably have a pretty good idea when the first reviews start to trickle in.

You seem to forget the whole point of this experiment is to capture a new audience and a new generation of fans. Sure they clearly expect old fans to watch obviously but there is also a reason it looks absolutely nothing like previous Trek shows and doing so in a completely different style and tone. Its trying to do something different than what came before.

And I highly doubt its going to be The Walking Dead or Game of Thrones. But its more likely just going to be a bit mature than the others. No one is even suggesting it will be F bombs or full frontal nudity. But if so, I’m buying the blu rays lol. But relax, my guess it won’t go that extreme. Most people will adapt to whatever they do, just as long as its good like those other shows are considered.

The aesthetics are very similar to the last three movies so the overall look will be familiar to even casual fans. If someone watching Discovery is only familiar with JJ’s reboot this won’t feel like too much of a departure.

As I said earlier, I suspect the rating reflects violent content but I could be wrong since “The Good Fight” caught people off guard with f bombs and nudity. Ya’ never know.

Didn’t The Good Fight also get a quick renewal too? It sounded like plenty watched it.

As for Discovery I’m talking about the past shows. Its just so different on so many levels. Its serialized from the start, its not about the Captain but the First Officer, a gay character, etc. Not to mention it just looks different from the others. Yeah the KT films looked different but they were also in another universe. And they at least had the right uniforms. This is basically just a reboot of Trek without saying the word.

So I suspect its just going to be a different thing. How much more ‘adult’ it will be, we’ll see but I have a feeling even if there is more language and sex most people will just shrug.

The Good Fight isn’t Star Trek so it isn’t a straight comparison. What they do have in common is that both are fully owned by CBS. A renewal for The Good Fight was pretty much a given. Had the show been produced by Lionsgate, FOX or some other entity, renewal chances would have been 50/50 at best since CBS wouldn’t have seen a dime from blu-ray sales or syndication and international distribution deals. All networks want to produce and control their own content and CBS All Access gives CBS such an opportunity on another platform which needs to pull in more subscriptions. I’m not really sure just how different this Star Trek will be and, even if you throw in language and nudity into the mix, it will be Star Trek with language and nudity but with a sensibility that’s evolved to reflect the times as Star Trek has in the past. Where this show differs in some respects is that the inclusivity it embraces has already been embraced by much of the world today whereas in the past the rest of the world still hadn’t caught up with Star Trek. I’m just looking forward to a good show. Sure, a new look and shift in dynamic (though I feel the look of it actually fits nicely between Enterprise and Star Trek: TMP) but in the end it will still be Star Trek and will likely be very successful for CBS All Access. Expanding the base of existing fans to… Read more »

With that per episode budget, that’s close to $130 million for the first season. GOT sixth season was around $100 million, but with fewer episodes (so a higher per episode budget). That’s a pretty impressive amount.

Do humans in the future prefer to work in badly lit working places? So much black in all set pictures. This is just so stupid.

@Mel — yes it’s better for the eyes. So much eye strain in brightly lit work environments that don’t necessitate it. Why would people looking at displays all day, need to have a lot of bright light on around them? It’s bad enough to have to readjust their vision from one dimly lit display to another, but to have to look up into a brightly lit room would be ridiculous and make refocusing on the local displays even harder.

The reason it’s a problem *today* is that the brightness of video displays and the environment are mismatched. (Doesn’t feel like it, but your eyes know it.) Since it’s SF, we can easily posit that future displays don’t have that problem, regardless of what real-world tech the set designer has substituted. Maybe instead of being emissive (CRTs, LEDs, backlit LCDs) they’re reflective (like a piece of paper or video-speed e-ink).

@Phillip Thorne — but that doesn’t mean working in a brightly lit environment is acceptable. There’s still glare, no matter how indirect the lighting, with reflections off surfaces. I suppose we can also posit that somehow, the lighting is evenly distributed throughout the room, with no shadows or hotspots, and all materials are anti reflective, and all illuminated switches are perfectly matched to the brightess of the room, such that the eyes never have to adjust to contrast or brightness across the entire bridge. But then there’s that view screen … That big glorious view screen which may or may not be a real window. How does one offset the fact that in a brightly lit room shifting focus back and forth from a mostly dark image would be a strain, not to mention the difficulty in being able to perceive detail within the darkness, or keep rental after images from transferring to the black screen. That extends to the monitors at the workstations as well. They’re not working on spreadsheets and word docs after all. And it’s all the more problematic when going into battle situations, where a power failure could plunge a crew used to working in a brightly lit room into blindness.

To be honest… it’s realistic. I worked in a tv control room and editing rooms for many years. The rooms had low lighting so we can see the lit buttons on the switcher, camera control units, monitors and computer screens better.

I got to tour Blur Studios in Santa Monica some years ago, as I know people in the CGI industry. Interesting place, but it’s kept dark all the time, to allow the artists to focus on the images they’re creating.

The TOS bridge set never looked better–that is, cinematic–than during the first season where the lighting was kept fairly low.

I’m tired of these people lying & condescending to us for press talking about how important Star Trek is as they disrespect it’s core values & fan base.

Not excited for this phenomenal waste of money.
It’s painful to think what a Star Trek show with this kind of budget could have been like.

How is the show disrespecting Trek’s core values? By showing war or having flawed characters and interpersonal conflict like DS9? By being space battle heavy like DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise?

Awwwwwe, I hope your pain is not too intense while the rest of us are enjoying the show.

As Shatner once said, get a life.

They haven’t ‘disrepected’ anything. Because they changed some of the make up and made the sets look modern? You don’t have to like it but stop it with the hyperbole.

Why are you even commenting anymore?

So there. Fuller was let go because he couldn’t deliver anything on time. Plus it was his idea to make the Klingons look the way they do. Still think he was the saviour of the show ?

Well we won’t know until we see the show lol. And yes its still hard to judge because while most of the ideas will be his, he wasn’t around for any of the actual filming.

But yes Fuller really wanted all the changes. I think its fine, but I think it was a bad idea to do it for a prequel show for all the moaning over it.

Its weird because it was also said that he wanted uniforms that looked like TOS. So its possible he was pushing for more continuity. Then again, he was also pushing for different Klingons. So you really never know.

But we cant blame CBS. Fuller was obligated to deliver on time, on budget and couldn’t.

Yeah, a certain amount of delays can be understood. But at a certain point, you can’t just give them free rein. For example, even NBC eventually had to fire Aaron Sorkin from The West Wing because of his constant delays (since he wrote or cowrote almost every episode of the first four seasons)

@MattR — that’s why they call it the Entertainment BUSINESS.

Yeah but Aaron Sorkin was delivering 20+ episodes every season and The West Wing is a very heavy research type of show just to sound accurate. I’m still amazed of the writing on the show and the amount of story telling that was delivered. TV writers don’t get enough credit. Actually Sorkin did lol.

But to be honest while I’m sure the show being delayed was a big issue, I also think it was his behind the scenes life in general too. He was drawing a lot of the wrong kind of news at the time and while West Wing was a critical and ratings hit that really has to be credited for him, being arrested for drugs probably soured the network. Actors and rock stars can get away with it. Producers, directors and writers do it just looks bad. But seriously how else can these people write the way they do lol.

And don’t forget they worked with the guy again when he made Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip so I don’t think it was time delays alone. I do think it was what was going on with his personal life. But once people forget as they always do they had no problems working with him again.

The bridge seems like a natural progression of the Enterprise and Kelvin bridges, but having said that I find it a be generic and boring.

The bridge seems like a natural progression of the NX-01 and Kelvin bridges, but having said that it looks a bit generic and boring if I’m honest. I must confess that the designs of the show so far haven’t really left out at me as being anything more than generic sci-fi stuff. That said, the stories are what matters to me most. If they’re good I can get past the visual aesthetic.

Agreed on the boring. IMHO, the glowing ribs and circumferential panels seem oversized (they’re certainly not positioned to be task lighting), the deck seems boring without a texture (it’s easier to mop, I guess?), and I’d’ve liked an accent color *somewhere* as a subtle nod to TOS’s red bridge railing.

Yeah, it looks a bit stark. But we’ll have to see how it looks with all the stations active, people milling about and the sound effects and of course, how they shoot it. Might look more active and interesting.

The turbo lift directly behind the Captain’s chair is odd though. I always thought the design of the lift to one side was because if you framed the Captain in a dramatic moment, you could still someone entering over his shoulder.

Isn’t there another door to the right of the one behind him? Maybe that’s the turbolift, who knows?

I’m still amazed at the fact they got Lucious Malfroy and Sasha Williams to play the Captain and First officer of this show. I don’t think they have ever gotten such high profile actors that most people at least heard of to play the two big leads. Of course they are really known for their roles in Harry Potter and The Walking Dead but the fact is most people at least know them through these franchises even if they aren’t big fans of it. Thinking back to all the other Captains and First officers from TNG through Enterprise, most of the Captains had a resume out there but I don’t think any of them were ‘knowns’ outside of Scott Bakula. He was probably the most famous actor to be a Captain and even then I wouldn’t say he was a huge star but a very popular one thanks to his previous work in sci fi. Personally as for the first officers they were all brand new actors to me. I did know some of the Captains like Brooks and Mulgrew, but only a little. Here I been watching Issacs through the Harry Potter franchise and all the work he’s done since. Martin-Green has just been through TWD but I have looked at her other stuff since I heard she would be on the show and really like her. Its going to be fun to watch them at least. And yes, I didn’t forget Michelle Yeoh obviously but I have a… Read more »

@Tiger2,

There is no question that Jason Isaacs is a good actor. Watch him in the short-lived NBC show ‘Awake’, the new age show ‘The OA’ on Netflix or the BBC miniseries ‘The State Within’ and you will see an actor capable of playing a wide range of characters. I was actually excited when I heard that he was hired.

As for Sonequa Martin Green I’ve only seen her on The Walking Dead & wasn’t impressed by her character at all. So far her delivery in the new promos seems wooden & uninspiring.

I LOVED Awake! In fact I didn’t even realize it was the same actor in Harry Potter until after I watched it lol. I watched the HP films but was never a fanatic (certainly no where close to Trekkie level) so until that show I only knew him as the guy from Harry Potter. But after that, and yes watched him on The OA as well. And also watched him in the show Dig which I didn’t love in the end but loved him on it. I have never heard of The State Within though but will go looking for that now.

As far as Martin Green I will actually agree with you and that her delivery in the promos do come off wooden. Every time I hear her speak it literally sounds like she is reading a script somewhere. However the few clips I seen her character I really like so far. I think she’s going to be a lot of fun to watch but yes I really like her on TWD as well.

Also Doug Jones is kind of famous for playing all kinds of creatures.

Yes you’re right. I personally didn’t know who Doug Jones was but after seeing his resume he clearly has a big following too and a loooooong resume. Its pretty stunning just how much stuff he’s been in.

And I guess thats what happens when some of your biggest acting jobs are being caked in heavy make up. I didn’t know who he was and yet realized after the fact I seen him in three movies lol.

The bridge looks good but it’s so huge with plenty of empty space!

Give the production costs of $8-$8.5 million per episode ‘Discovery’ is easily the most expensive Trek series ever made.

That’s one HUGE bridge. Looks bigger than the Enterprise-D bridge, doesn’t it?

@JAGT — Not to me.

Is the cover shot in engineering? It doesn’t look like the bridge.

It has a chair in the middle and side consoles. How does it not look like the bridge?

I’m talking about the cover shot, which has a different grilled deck plating, at least two elevated stations, and angled panels with red lighting.

Yeah, it looks like engineering section but no idea on which ship.

https://scifanatic-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/dsc-varietycoverstory-02.jpg

Yeah, it has railings that are reminiscent of the NX-01 engine room.

Okay, gotcha!

Oh look, a gray-and-black bridge. How Star Trek-y. One thing everyone really admired on TOS was how everyone wore dark ugly outfits and how the bridge was an empty sterile all-metal dungeon. They’re really nailing that 23rd century vibe!

Its better than cardboard sets and a lot of big buttons.

TOS had bright colorful uniforms and weirdly color-lighted sets because GE was trying to sell their new color TV sets to the masses. Its a mid-1960s vibe (see also “Batman”) not a 23rd Century vibe.

@0dkinWood — perhaps you’d better rewatch The Cage

All the TOS movie bridges were gray and black

Actually TFF wasn’t. It had more warm tones like TNG did. I think because the same set designer from TNG (forgot his name but designed most of the shows and some of the films) did that film as well. I actually like it but I was fine when they went back to the steely black and grey look in TUC.

Just Another Salt Vampire

Why is there a dance floor in front of the captain’s chair?

That’s for the crew performance reports.

@just Another Salt Vampire — the same reason there was one in front of the captains chair on the bridge of the 1701-D

Newsflash, Jason: “people who are in charge” are always insane. Their insanity is what makes them want to be in charge. There is likely not a single leader in the world who isn’t insane in one way or other. Psychopaths, sociopaths, deprivants, all of them. That’s how they got to seize power in the first place: by being more ambitious, ruthless and unscrupulous than any mentally healthy person could ever hope to be.

And that’s the major problem with representative democracy, right here: we are ALWAYS choosing our leaders from the pool of mentally unstable power-hungry people, because mentally unstable power-hungry people are the only ones predacious enough to get into the narrow selection of candidates.

The point is: anyone who has ambitions to rule should be never allowed to.

I wouldn’t necessarily agree that all of them are insane but I do agree that you don’t get to the top by being nice.

In Arthur Clarke’s novel IMPERIAL EARTH, on its quincentennial America drafts its President by computer for exactly that rationale: those who actually want the job should be the last people to have it.

Wasn’t Tony Todd supposed to be in this…?

He has experience playing Klingons. Maybe he was considered for the role of T’Kuvma (spelling?) that went to Chris Obi. Then again, it’s also possible that they considered him for a Federation senior officer or any other role for that matter.

I have not heard that.
But I would love it if he was,

I’ve seen Star Trek, I know Star Trek. This is not Star Trek.

You may have, you don’t, it is.

You’re right: what you’ve seen so far has not been Star Trek. It’s been a few promos and some stills. We won’t actually see anything new that calls itself Star Trek until 09/24/17.

Then you HAVEN’T seen Star Trek… because it looks like Trek to me.

Exactly.

I can’t figure out who Isaacs is referring to. Running the world…Merkel? Trudeau? Macron? Kim? The ChiComs? Can’t put my finger on it…

Maybe just speaking in general. Will you guys stop sounding so hurt over a very general comment, geesh.

While there’s nobody in particular “running the world,” we seem to be seeing a lot more polarizing figures prominent in it. And if you’re a fan or not of the current President of the USA, you have to admit he is polarizing. Having said that and getting back to the topic at hand, all Jason Isaacs said is that the world is a crazy place and seems to be getting crazier, and more polarized, and thus he wanted to make a show for his kid that shows the products of unity. By the way, “unity” doesn’t not mean “homogenization” – making everyone the same, which is the religious/ethnic cleansing approach. Unity is more like IDIC, where we’re supposed to learn to accept and maybe even appreciate our differences and find ways to work together even though we have differences. As opposed to making denigrating comments about those who are different, to belittle or discount them and marginalize/dis-include them as a factor in the world, which I’ve seen here from both sides. Maybe we should try listening and considering each other’s points of view, try to see things from their point of view, at least so we can understand them even if we don’t agree with them. That’s what Star Trek taught me.

I think Roddenberry would say you got it, GT.

…SAD that this is what you people think star trek is =(
i’ll bet fuller is REALLY glad to be gone from this =P
thank god for the Orville, so i can ignore this crap… ;-)
as you were…

Folks!! Ok….let’s take a breath. Can we get back to just talking about Trek…please?

Ignore Orville? Yup, planning to. Family Guy in space doesn’t appeal to me.

I suspect that the Orville promos aren’t an accurate representation of what the show actually is and I suspect the same could be said for Discovery.

…yeah!, THAT’S what it’ll be [eyesroll emoji] [twit emoji]
now back to ignoring @Trek fan 67…

Oh yeah Herbert. ..it will be very original. Pffft.

The AXANAR grapes are sour with this one. . .

My friends…any kind of hate gets very old. Regardless of which direction it comes from (right or left). This is Trek not 21st Century American politics. Can’t wait to see the show.

My friends…any kind of hate gets old. Regardless of which direction it comes from (right or left). This is Trek, not 21st Century American politics. Can’t wait to see the show!

With Fans Like These...

I read through this thread…

I don’t know which is more despicable… this awful looking show,

Or what passes for Star Trek “fandom” nowadays.

At least Star Wars doesn’t suck… oh, wait.

wpDiscuz
Advertisment ad adsense adlogger