Jason Isaacs And ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Producers Talk Prime Lorca, Emperor’s Future And More

Jason Isaacs and the showrunners for Star Trek: Discovery have been talking to the press and answering questions about last night’s episode on After Trek. Some key insights and hints to what is to come have been revealed. TrekMovie has broken down the highlights.

Mirror Lorca is really dead

Jason Isaacs made it clear in a number of interviews on After Trek that Lorca indeed met his end in last night’s episode, such as this comment in Entertainment Weekly.

I would say, yeah [there was a finality to his story], the prognosis is not good for him given he was dissolved into a million pieces on camera. There are not many homeopathic cures that can help that.

But, this tweet may sum it up best.

Dead

Jason Isaacs played as Mirror Lorca from day one

In a number of interviews, actor Jason Isaacs made it clear that he was clued in from the beginning and Lorca being from the Mirror Universe informed his performance throughout the season. On After Trek he said:

Of course I knew [Lorca was from the Mirror Universe]. I couldn’t have done the job….the clues were there from the very first day, from every encounter. Anything of what looked like what Prime Lorca was doing, that Lorca was doing, [Mirror Lorca] was doing to get back to that universe. To secure Michael Burnham, to get the loyalty of the crew and to serve my nefarious ends.

And with IGN he noted:

I had to plant little seeds and secrets. I had to be able to give clues here and there, and more importantly, I had to play him honestly like a guy from the Mirror Universe who was lying and hiding. So if I hadn’t known, I wouldn’t have been able to play it….even when I’m doing things that seem noble or heroic, they’re always only to engender more loyalty in Michael Burnham, or to make sure that I keep the ship so that I can work on the spore drive and get home again.

Isaacs was playing it as Mirror Lorca all the way

The rest of the cast didn’t know

Speaking with TV Line Isaacs also revealed:

I assumed that they did [know Lorca was from the Mirror Universe], but in fact, they didn’t. And I rather blew it for some people many months in, when I mentioned it. There was a horrified shock on some of their faces, and I realized I should’ve shut up. Sonequa knew. I think Michelle knew. But a lot of other people didn’t know, and I wish I hadn’t told them, because it would’ve come as more of a surprise.

The cast didn’t know Lorca was Mirror Lorca

Lorca wasn’t originally going to be Mirror

As discussed in Saturday’s article from comments from co-executive producer Ted Sullivan, the notion of going into the Mirror Universe was something co-creator Bryan Fuller planned from the beginning, and he even wanted to do it earlier in the season. But, apparently this plan did not involve Lorca being revealed to be from the MU, as explained by co-showrunner Aaron Harberts in this excerpt from Buzzfeed :

Harberts explained that the writers knew from the start, when creator Bryan Fuller was first planning out the show’s serialized storyline, that the inaugural season of Discovery would end up in the Mirror Universe. (Fuller eventually left the show due to creative differences with CBS, elevating Harberts and Gretchen J. Berg to showrunner status.) But at first, the writers planned for Lorca to be a hawkish captain given a chance to shine thanks to the Federation’s war with the Klingon Empire. It was only after the writers began discussing why Lorca would be so skilled with warfare that they hit upon the idea that he’d secretly be from the militaristic world of the Mirror Universe.

Plan A for Lorca wasn’t Mirror

Mirror Lorca destroyed the USS Buran

Isaacs discussed in various interviews how he and showrunners created a “blueprint” for Lorca’s story, and speaking to EW he reveals a detail that never made it into the show:

There was a Prime Locra, he was captain of the Buran in the Prime world. He swapped with him and found himself captain of the Buran. This never came out, this backstory detail we never put in the dialogue: Although Lorca spins this story having had to sacrifice the men on Buran and had to blow them up to save them from Klingon torture. Actually, if I remember correctly, there was some kind of DNA identification that would have exposed Lorca as not being Prime Lorca, and so he blew up the ship and killed everyone on it. 

Lorca’s story about the USS Buran was just another lie

Lorca Prime’s status and Isaacs return are TBA

While Isaacs was definitive on Mirror Lorca, he got much more vague when talking about Lorca Prime. Here is what he said to IGN:

“We don’t know anything about the fate of Prime Lorca,” he said. “Is he as interesting as Mirror Lorca? What is his taste in fashion? Does he wear leather coats, does he wear puffy-sleeve shirts, does he have a goatee, does he blow-dry his hair? Who knows? We know nothing. … Or is he that different? Frankly, I mean, how different are any of us from the Mirror version of ourselves? They say we’re all five meals away from being savages. … This particular administration in America has brought some of the ugliest parts of human nature out from in the shadows. And who knows what other exposures the Mirror world might have done. Who knows where he is.”

Could the actor return as Prime Lorca? Here he got even more vague with EW:

Do you know [what happened to Prime Lorca]?
If I did, you’d have to stand behind my wife, friends, and professional collaborators to find out the answer. I’ve kept this one big secret for six months — I am certainly going to keep any others.

Well, are you signed on for season 2?
I’m sorry, is that not a related question?

Lorca Prime swapped with Lorca as he beamed up to the ISS Buran, last seen in battle with the ISS Charon

The Emperor may be redeemable

One of the surprise moments from last night’s episode was Michael Burnham saving Emperor Georgiou, who traveled with the USS Discovery back to the Prime Universe. Actress Michelle Yeoh appeared on After Trek briefly to ask a planted question to Sullivan about if people from the Mirror Universe being inherently evil or “can they be rehabilitated?” Sullivan’s reply may hint at Georgiou’s future on the show:

One of the things I love about Star Trek is that it doesn’t believe in destiny, it believes in the individual person…I don’t think it is a mistake that Burnham grabs Georgiou and brings her back, because what I think will be interesting is how someone from the Mirror Universe reacts to a universe of hope where people can be the best versions of themselves. I think it will be a hard journey, but I think that everyone is redeemable. I think what’s interesting about Georgiou versus Lorca is that she listened to Burnham. Everything was on Lorca’s term. What’s interesting about Georgiou is she says “What’s your plan.” That’s a chance for her to say “I’m willing to listen, I’m willing to evolve.” And that is what the journey is going to be. 

The Emperor arrives in the Prime Universe

That last spore will be addressed in season 2

A fan on After Trek asked Ted about the one last green spore that landed on Cadet Tilly. Ted wouldn’t say, but hinted it is something important.

What is up with that, right? That was something we came – Mary Wiseman came up to me on set and said “What’s up with that spore?” I was like “Wait until season 2.”

One last spore

Lorca’s speech was making a statement about the world today, and Isaacs helped write it

On After Trek actor Jason Isaacs and Ted Sullivan talked about the goal of making a statement with Lorca’s speech in episode 13.

What [Ted] did, which I thought was so brilliant, is make [the Mirror Universe] not that far from us. So, it is a world where people are slightly more Darwinian. That whole “Make the Empire glorious again” and not all races are equal. We worked hard on that speech that Lorca gives to make it not that far from the way many people around us think. If you get out of bed on the wrong side or you are feeling a bit selfish, we can all be the Mirror versions of ourselves. It might be a bit more dog-eat-dog and a bit more violent, but there are a lot of people that think this last couple of hundred years as been a blip in civilization and none of us are dealing with human nature in a sense or in a practical way and we will return to that.

Ted added:

Jason and I spent a lot of time talking about those kinds of speeches. And in the writers room we talked about how to make the Mirror not silly and how do we make Mirror about what is going on right now. Star Trek is supposed to reflect what is going on in the world and we are dealing with a Mirror Universe now, and not just in America but in England and in Europe, and throughout the whole world. I think it feels like a Mirror Universe a lot of the time and so you want to lean into that. One of the things that Jason was so good about on set was to really push us, and push me…We got into [his] trailer and sat down with a computer and worked on that speech a lot. One of the reasons we did that is we felt we had a unique opportunity to talk about what is going on in the world right now. That is what Star Trek is supposed to do.

A lot of people said, when they heard we were going to Mirror, said they didn’t understand why we were going to Mirror in season one. Well, because that is what is going on in the world right now. I think there was an opportunity to address those things. I am very proud that Discovery has been able to take those things, where it is Harry Mudd or the Mirror Universe, and said “How do we do a twist on that and how do we make it work. How do we make something that could potentially be silly, or was silly or fun but silly, and how do we make it cool and interesting.

Watch the exchange below.

Saru’s speech was crafted to exemplify Starfleet (and Star Trek) values

Also on After Trek, Sullivan talked about Saru’s speech to the crew of the USS Discovery, explaining the importance of it in the arc of the show:

It was special. For me, as a life-long Star Trek fan, it was an opportunity to lean into the ideology of Starfleet, the ideology of what I love so much about Star Trek. And to finally after thirteen episodes give the fans the moment that says “We get it. We believe in Star Trek and Starfleet too. We just had to go through this journey of twelve episodes.

The other thing that that scene does is, I put Rhys and Detmer and Airiam and Owosekun in that scene because I wanted to show the team coming together…with everyone becoming part of the solution. So, a lot of people have been complaining: “We don’t see the bridge crew being the bridge crew.” Because, we didn’t start with them as the bridge crew. We are doing a different Star Trek, which is to show how the became a bridge crew.

Watch Ted talk about that scene below.

 


Star Trek: Discovery is available on CBS All Access in the USA. It airs in Canada on the Space Channel and is available on Netflix outside the USA and Canada.

Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news at TrekMovie.

 

newest oldest

Fantastic, we are lucky to have great people behind Star Trek Discovery 🖖 glued to tv on Sundays, will be a pain waiting for season 2

It might just be me, but did anyone catch that moment in ‘After Trek’ after Isaacs signed off from his Skype presence, and then Sullivan said something to the effect of “now that Jason’s off the show” . . . and then immediately clarified himself to say he meant that Jason’s off ‘After Trek’?

Yeah. It could be a hint that he’s going to be back eventually.

Heehee I hope he’s coming back

Glad that there are are going to be mysteries in season 2 as well.

There is something very “meta” about DSC that I truly admire. The writers, the producers, and even many of the fans understand that “Star Trek,” as a franchise, is not just the last 50-some years of TV and cinema… it’s everything that has evolved around it. That means, perforce, the idea of Trek in the world today. Trek is more of a vision than a media franchise. By that I refer to the many thousands of people who espouse what might be called “Trekkianism,” which is a somewhat absurd but ultimately most attractive amalgamation of hippie, hipster, and esoterically scientific threads, and more, that bring together the mainstream media types, the creators, the winners, the losers, the idealists, the militarists, the realists, the lovers and the fighters of the world to coalesce around a certain set of narratives. There is nothing about being a fan of Trek, to me, that is remotely negative. Trek itself is, apart from its origins and its Hollywood foundation, a philosophy of open-mindedness (not to say hope) that is adaptable to virtually all moralistic frameworks of thought. You can be a Vulcan, and believe in pure logic; or you can be Spock, and know that logic is only the beginning of wisdom. You can be Kirk, who is a learned man of action; you can be Picard, a scholarly soul schooled in Starfleet tradition. You can be the Id represented by the Klingons, or the cold calculating Romulan, hopelessly outclassed by the less rigidly hierarchical… Read more »

Hear, hear! And Sunday’s Lorca showed us that selfishness can wreak utter havoc.

Thank you, Marja. And I agree that Lorca’s self-driven mission could actually have resulted in the destruction of all life everywhere in any and all universes via the unaddressed corruption of the mycelial network: While Lorca was doing his thing, the brave crew of Starfleet was devising a solution that literally saved the world. Who knows? They might even have saved the universe in which we, the viewers of Star Trek: Discovery exist, which is why we are here to write about it. (Yes, this is breaking the fourth wall, indeed.)

For now, it’s just a clarification.
And to be fair, if he had not made that clarification, somebody might say
“Ted sure looked happy when he talked about Jason being off the show”

Did anybody else caught Ted Sullivan’s After Trek comment on Isaac’s no longer being “on the show”, and then quickly trying to clarify “I meant on After Trek”…. I get the feeling that Lorca will be back.

I really assumed Isaacs’ is done with Trek but that just seemed like an unnecessary clarification from someone who seems pretty careful with his words.

One of the three characters I liked is gone. Guess I’m out. STD was never GoT,no matter how hard it tried or wanted to be. And no,I don’t watch GoT as it’s kinda boring,from what I’ve seen. Just not my kinda show. I always said that if they did anything stupid with any of the three characters I actually like on STD,I’m out. So,I guess I’m out,lol! MIGHT finish the season though,but Klingon War? Really? Again? yawn.

In other words, you’ll continue watching just like the rest of us, but you want to look like a maverick so you’re proclaiming the melodramatic cliche “I’m out.” Cool. I look forward to your reactions to season 2.

^

THE SHADE!

It’s blatently obvious that 99.9% Of people who claim they never will never again watch a TV show know full well they will! Ha ha!

Exactly. That’s what ALWAYS happens–socially inept fans yell “I’M BOYCOTTING THIS!”… but everyone (and they themselves) know they’ll be watching it along with all the rest of fandom.

We used to call it flouncing out of the room

LOL! You guys are too funny! I’ve dropped tv shows before,mainly because they got boring and repetitive,including Trek shows. So I know full well that I WON’T be watching. Ha ha. lol! Like I said,I might finish this season,and find something else after that. Whenever I decide to drop a show,I usually try and finish the season. Who knows,they could do something totally different at the end,right? LOL! I’m not boycotting anything btw,I’m just watching something else. Loved the series so far of course,and even enjoyed After Trek. People really shouldn’t assume they know what others will do so quickly,lol! My reactiosn to season 2? BRILLIANT! LOL! Actually,those reactions might be a few years in the future,when I binge watch the entire series,LOL!

I do know I am saving my $10 monthly charge to CBS until Trek returns. Nothing there that flips my switch, not enough of the legacy CBS series, no series unique to the service that are appealing. CBS is counting on many people to procrastinate their temporary cancellation of the service and then season 2 just kind of creeps up on them and they’ll say, oh well. No big deal- which it actually is.
Who else is going to suspend their account after episode 15?

Great, they killed off the best character and brought back my least favorite.\

Gregs – I am feeling your pain my friend! I’m going to keep giving Disco a chance but without Lorca I’m worried the show will suffer substantially. I like some of the other characters but somehow he was the central figure for me. Jeez – makes me suddenly wonder if I’m from the MU.

The show isn’t going to be without Lorca. He’ll be playing the Prime version next. That’s obvious. So relax.

If that does happen, it probably won’t happen until season 2.

…which is only three episodes away.

And, like, a whole year
[much weeping and gnashing of teeth]

Nah … you just appreciate good acting.

Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay)

Boy, how hard can we try to alienate conservative fans. I love Trek but some of this attempted comparison is plain BS. Mirror universe characters and Lorca in particular are more like Hitler than anything else. To sit here and literally compare Trump and republicans to people that literally cook and eat other sentient beings is so far out there it hurts.

Get an ounce of common sense Trek creators. It’s fine to have liberal ideas and things that directly speak to people such as the LGBT community, but you don’t have to come off like your intentionally bashing the other side.

I wasn’t around in the 60s, but I’m willing to bet some people back then were saying “how can they compare us decent segregationists with those awful half-white-half-black dudes that are mistreating other people in Let That Be Your Last Battlefield”…

Or ramming that vile interracial kiss down the throats of the poor, put upon KKK! ;)

Being small-c conservative – which I’m not, incidentally – doesn’t automatically mean you support(ed) the KKK or segregation.

That’s true. But the commentary DSC is making is pretty specific. It’s a condemnation of the isolationism, scapegoating, and bigotry that has increased over the past several years in various parts of the world.

And the commentary in TOS, with the interracial kiss and the Cherons were similarly specific in their commentary.

It’s not a condemnation of conservatives, but a condemnation of bigotry, no more, no less.

See? Eric gets it…

Exactly. It’s funny how folks howl when they weren’t the targets… Unless they were, and they just told on themselves.

The Democrats formed the KKK and supported segregation, try again.

@TM11
So you’re saying the Democrats of 1865 are the same as the Democrats of 2018?
That’s really cute and completely historically inaccurate.

Dixiecrats, anyone? Nixons 1972 southern strategy? What was Democrat willingly became Republican.
Abraham Lincoln would not be a Republican in today’s political environs.

Shatner and Nichols should have played the kiss without all the restraint and unwillingness. Nichols was something of a hottie and Shatner should have been reassuring to her, not make such a big deal out of it, 2 beautiful people sharing a kiss in public. Why the tears, Uhura?
No big deal even then.

If you remember the episode, they were being forced to do things because it amused the Platonians to see the officers humiliated. Kirk had no control and neither did Uhura, and I think it would have been nicer if it were as you said above. But the aim was total humiliation. Who can forget Kirk being forced to whinny like a horse, or Spock flamenco dancing, then singing a song about maidens? Ouch.

“Alienate conservative fans”? What are you talking about?

“Trump” is not a “conservative.” He’s a populist autocrat. He’s the polar opposite of “conservative.” He represents anti-faith, anti-God, anti-American, anti-freedom values. He cheats on his wives, screws prostitutes, and hates religion. He’s donated tens of thousands to the DNC throughout his pathetic life. He hates all conservatives and their traditional lifestyles. He hates YOU, Aaron.

You cannot support “Trump” and call yourself a “conservative.” Period.

Star Trek doesn’t alienate conservatives. But it certainly – rightly – alienates “Trump” supporters. You horrible, lost souls need to be exposed, called out, shamed, and relegated to your rightful place: history’s septic tank.

This (albeit being anti-religion shouldn’t be listed among the rest).

Too many partisan sheep call themselves conservative but have no clue what political conservatism is. They are simply part of the American two party partisan game and their “side” could do anything in conflict with political conservatism and they’d lap it up.

Trump and his supporter base is vile, dangerous and regressive. Everything against the values of Star Trek. His ideals and those of his supporters should not be off limits just because his disciples don’t like it.

If I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again – people like this really must’ve had their heads up their backsides for fifty years if they still don’t get what Trek is about. Moving forwards, not backwards.

Everything that Trek is about, is the antithesis of this post. Leftists always hop up on a soapbox to claim how inclusive they are, how they’re the group that embraces science, that conservatives are thick-headed dolts and racists, and yet when faced with dissenting opinions, they gnash their teeth, spew hatred, hop to judgement, and brand all that disagree with them as fascist. They’re inclusive, as long as you’re part of the cult. Trump has done absolutely nothing even remotely like what mirror Lorca supports. In the history of Trumps life, he’s never been a racist. People who support legal immigration, and denounce ILLEGAL immigration, are in fact not racist. If that were true, the proud American citizens that came here from other nations today and became citizens, who ALSO denounce ILLEGAL immigration, must despise themselves. I guess the Federation has open borders as well, eh? Just hop across the neutral zone (which is a racist concept, right? A ‘neutral zone’ that keeps out the riff raff), plop your butt down in San Fransisco, wave the Klingon flag, and demand citizenship. Funny, but I’ve seen a number of episodes where planets were denied membership – guess they didn’t get the memo, eh? But hey, open boarders are working out great for Sweden, Germany., and the rest of Europe (well, except Poland. The racist punks.) I hear they’ve got new woman’s pants with built-in rape whistles – it’s all the rage! Very stylish. This is why Hollywood sucks. They live in… Read more »

Folks, NCC-01 is what completely out of touch looks like…and I do mean completely. This is what a complete disconnect with reality looks like.

NCC-01 In the history of Trumps life, he’s never been a racist. Right, so the millions he inherited from Dad came from a real estate group that forbid people of color moving into its properties.

I brand people who actively espouse views against science as, hmmm, reluctant to accept reality.

I brand people who do not support immigration or “dreamers” and ignore their own familial ancestors [likely also imported from other countries], vote against civil rights, and support the “white” movement, yes, as racists.

I brand people who oppose health care for women as misogynists.

I brand people who oppose helping poor children by providing healthcare as blind to this country’s future.

I brand those who support unlimited police powers and a power structure unacquainted with needs of common people so that financial benefits accrue only to rich and otherwise advantaged as fascists and oligarchs.

Sorry if my “branding” offends you, but I see America today as having frightening parallels to 1930s Germany. I hope I am proven wrong in this.

@Marja Everything you just said is wrong.

TM11
How?
From your point of view?
How is my opinion wrong?

NCC-01 Funny, but I’ve seen a number of episodes where planets were denied membership – guess they didn’t get the memo, eh?

They didn’t get membership in the Federation because
– they didn’t support equality for the races and sexes
– they had or supported slavery
– they had or supported fascism
– they had or supported conquering other worlds [colonialism] instead of inviting them to share resources and trade.

I don’t know what version of Trek you were watching, dude, but I don’t recognize it.

And Trek wasn’t active when Obama was president, but I’d be willing to bet there would’ve been a show commenting on the evil of drone strikes.

@Marja you are so delusional it was the effing Democrats who supported slavery and voted against civil rights you moron. The Republicans were literally founded upon opposing slavery and were the ones who gave us civil rights. You idiotic liberals are the very definition of fascists, you wanna compare Hitler to the right when he was actually far left as his party has the word Socialist in it.

@TM11
Once again, the Democratic Party of the 1860s was not the same party in 1964. Go to the website 270towin. Go to historical elections. Look at the election of 1964. Then look to see what happened in 1968. See what happens in the deep south? See that third party candidate? That was George Wallace. He ran purely on preserving segregation. Then fast forward to 1972. What happens? Those southern states flip to Richard Nixon, the Republican. They almost never switch back. Do you know why all of this happened? Because the Democrats of the 1960s nationally were the party of desegregation. So the traditional segregationists fled and found a home in the Republican party.

Since you mentioned Hitler…yes the Nazi’s put “socialist” in their name. You know what one of the first acts Hitler did after he took power? He abolished all labor unions. Doesn’t sound very socialist, does it? There’s a reason for that— Names of political parties don’t always follow the ideology. For fun, what does North Korea call itself? How many of those names do you think are true?

I teach AP History TM… I offer you my tutoring services since you seem rather confused.

@TM11 is a troll. If you don’t feed the trolls, they go away. They live for getting your ire up. It’s amazing to me how much this site has changed in the 3-4 years I have been mostly away. @TM11 would never have gotten past the moderators back then. I proudly list my real name and a valid Email because I encourage intelligent exchange. I suppose I am what TM11 would refer to as a Libtard; fact is I am a humanist. I subscribe to Gene Roddenberry’s view of what civilization must become in order to survive. All that has to happen for society to become what he envisioned is not alien contact, although that would be helpful. Free unlimited non polluting energy is the magic key. Once free energy is produced, invented, pulled from Dark Matter in such a way that no one can control it, patent it or otherwise control it for profit, everyone becomes equal. Henry Ford and Thomas Edison too soon saw the danger that Nikolai Tesla’s beliefs and theories could cause and the poor man was intellectually bludgeoned by them and others, dying in relative obscurity, broke and broken in a seedy New York flop. Ford, Edison, and others of their ilk were in no way heroes. Most of Edison’s patents are based upon the work of others, many from Tesla’s work. Tesla wanted to work for humanity. Edison, Ford and the others worked for the money. Free unlimited non polluting energy makes a money… Read more »

“@Marja you are so delusional it was the effing Democrats who supported slavery and voted against civil rights you moron”

These would be the boll weevil southern Democrats, who have either completely abandoned those positions (the Clinton-Gore tradition) or become Republicans (the Shelby tradition). LBJ was the Democrat who championed the Civil Rights Act, and who said that it would doom Democrats in the south for a generation (probably a conservative estimate). And whatever the positions of the parties in the Civil War era, they are literally the polar opposite now.

Katra of Surak,

Re: Democratic Party

Save your breath. TM11 knows darn well the Confederate States of America had no Democratic-Republican Party, its original name which TM11 professes is of utmost importance in such discourse, and that it didn’t return to those states until after they were repatriated. And about as long as the War itself lasted before they showed there after that.

TM11

Dude, you need to calm down and read the history of the Republican party and the Democratic party in this country. The Republicans didn’t “give us civil rights”. Quick quiz: Who signed the Civil Rights Act of 1965? Who pushed every member of Congress to support it?

I submit, sir or madam, that you are the one who needs to acquaint hirself with history.

Realize that the National Socialist Party arose in Weimar Germany because the white middle class felt offended by the successes of Jewish businessment and bankers; they were also under a great deal of financial pressure because of the unfair provisions in treaties signed at the end of WWI. Financial pressures lead people to want to find a scapegoat. Then it was Jews, foreigners, Roma [gypsies], homosexuals, Poles, disabled persons, and people of color.

Turn off Alex Jones and FOX and read a history book. Recognize that there are people outside of your little bubble.

And please don’t talk to me about being a clueless Liberal. I have been, at different times in my life, first, a Liberal [thanks to TOS], then (1) a born-again Christian, (2) a Libertarian, (3) a Republican, and, in my late 20s, realized the cruelty and selfishness of the “ideals” I had previously supported. After carefully evaluating, I knowledgably and with full mental clarity adopted a position of Progressive Socialist.

Wow NCC-01 couldn’t sound more deluded or hypocritical, as if conservatives didn’t talk up ‘family values’ to death (which makes you all look ridiculously hypocritical when you elect a guy like Trump lol. He got caught paying who $100 thousand a few months ago again?) or treat religion (or more specifically Christianity) like it was the actual Constitution and uses it as an excuse why its OK to discriminate against others (‘I only believe that all gays should be excised from the planet because I’m pretty sure Jesus didn’t like them but other than that they are cool’). They constantly tell women why its wrong to have abortions (religion again) although plenty of them do it themselves. But then the same women they want to force to keep that child they then turn their noses up when those same women go on welfare to support them. Make up your mind, do you want less people on the government teet or not? Of course abortions shouldn’t be the first option but if you are going to force people from not having one then what programs are you going to give them to be able to take care of them once they do have them? (Silence) As a proud liberal I don’t pretend we have all the answers either or that we are always right. But I do believe in the idea that every person deserves to be treated equally and given a hand up when needed. That’s what America IS right???… Read more »

@Tiger 2 do you support the murder of millions of unborn children? You liberals are literally everything you claim to be against, none of you hold any moral high ground whatsoever.

Abortion is legal in most of the world for a reason. Of course it shouldn’t be the first option but yes it should be an option and thankfully so. If you don’t think it should be, don’t get one but a woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body.

But lets just agree to disagree right now. I’m not trying to convince you, I don’t care enough to and I imagine vice versa.

TM11, Do you support some idea that incested young teenage girls should have the babies forced upon them by rape? Or other products of rape? And who is to care for these children? Will your vaunted “Christian” churches support poverty-stricken women and children? No — because they are overburdened now, supporting poor folk, because of Republican cuts to social programs.

Republicans have also cut access to BIRTH CONTROL, a fantastic tool that prevents abortion because it prevents pregnancy! And the “morning after” pill is meant for women who’ve been raped, to prevent conception. People who don’t know this stuff are in denial that women need “specialized” health care. And we do. Because “specialized” health care includes screenings for cancer of our reproductive organs and more.

Oh that’s right, y’all sneeringly call them e”ntitlements”. I can’t wait till you’re of age for Medicare or Social Security. Don’t cash those checks, they’re “socialist”.

I don’t like to do name-calling, but since you already called me a “moron” I’ll simply say, BACK ATCHA. Get a grip on history, medicine, and other FACTS, then maybe you’ll see more reality.

TM11,

Re: murder of millions of unborn children

If I recall my Bible Studies you can’t be murdered if you aren’t born. Labeling it that is just attempting to persuade by using propaganda hype to persuade by arousing visceral emotions.

Abortions fall under the sin of “wasting seed” which includes self-gratification.

I supposed current technology allows mankind to avoid the severe Biblical penalties for “waste” by recovering seed for sperm and egg banks. It seems only logical that eventually fetus banks will put an end to all the handwringing over abortions. I seem to recall in the news the threshold’s already been crossed with a woman who gave birth to a baby girl who is as technically old as she?

“In the history of Trumps life, he’s never been a racist. ”

This is demonstrably false, from the father’s real estate deals to the “Mexican judge” fiasco” to shithole countries.

“People who support legal immigration, and denounce ILLEGAL immigration, are in fact not racist.”

But Trump wants to get rid of the diversity lottery in favor of people from countries like Norway. So he does not support legal immigration.

So the “Leftists” should include/accept Racists, biggots, capitalists, religious zealots etc etc

^ this ^

^ this ^ comment meant to apply to Tiger2’s post, now pretty far up from where it was when I posted the “I second that”

Last time I’ll make that mistake, heh!

@El Chup Trump supporters aren’t going around attacking people and trying to censor freedom of speech like you liberals are because you’re too triggered to handle an opposing viewpoint. Take a look in the mirror and realize your vile and despicable behavior.

TM11- Actually, that’s exactly what Trump Supporters are doing.
The Anti-Trump protesters trying to Stop Violence & hate Speech is not censorship or weakness

Oh, that must be why Trump doesn’t want the press at his events, right? Because he values freedom of speech so much?

He only values the speech that supports him, no matter who it comes from. I’m not so triggered I can’t handle an opposing viewpoint; in fact I have civilly engaged with Trump supporters to try to understand why they believe as they do. You are a person who’s come here to shout down the “snowflakes” — give it up. Your way of expressing yourself is not reasoned, it’s simply resentful, which does not help you “make your case.”

Boy, do I smell the conceit of the populist autocrat here.

@ TM11. It seems that the existence of large groups of people who don’t share your worldview, and whatever your heightened sense of morality my be, seem to set you off. Or in other words, triggered. People are allowed to have other opinions, so live and let live, buddy.

What’s worst of all is that he’s a false populist, who exploits the genuine economic anguish wrought by giant corporations sending jobs overseas to propose bigotry and scapegoating as a solution. Those jobs being sent overseas are terrible for the people in those countries who end up with poverty wages and regularly kill themselves, as with the Foxcomm suicides, and they’re bad for the people in the US as well. But the solution isn’t the racist dog-whistling that Trump has employed (and just plain old whistling, as with his comments about Mexicans back in 2015).

There was a populist wave in 2016, and sadly, the direct opponents of Trump and Brexit didn’t realize it in time to tailor their policies and campaigns to create populist solutions that didn’t take us backward on civil rights.

Ummm, well, Bernie Sanders ran such a campaign, but the coverage he got on the news was practically zilch before the primaries, and only picked up when the media finally realized the number of his supporters.

But yeah, the Dems missed the boat. They seem pretty tone-deaf sometimes.

@Marja Because they think identity politics and bathroom rights are more important than the survival needs of the underclass. They are victims of their own elitism and wealth. I have zero sympathy with these people (especially since I see zero course correction, but a doubling down on division – see Star Trek Discovery), but I bemoan the sad state they have brought our civilization into.

Oh, I agree. I’m still a massive Sanders fan. But that’s why I referred only to direct opponents.

Since the debacle that was the DNC primary campaign, I’ve been fighting for electoral reform including ranked choice voting, and campaign finance reform.

@Eric Cheung Wrong!

All of you liberals are complete and utter idiots. You Democrats were the ones who started the KKK, supported slavery, and opposed civil rights. The Republican party was founded to oppose slavery and ended it as well as supported civil rights, and the whole notion that they out of nowhere switched parties is a lie. You people like to think you claim the moral high ground but you have none to stand on, you are the most hateful racist people alive today. You support the murder of millions of unborn children and somehow champion yourselves as being moral? Hey guess what, the founder of Planned Parenthood was the wife of a KKK member who founded PP to abort as many blacks as possible. Oh and not to mention you’re buddies with rapists like Harvey Weinstein and Bill CLinton and child molesters in Hollywood. Congratulations liberals you’re literally everything you claim to be against.

@David complete and utter BS. Trump has gotten more conservative things done that Reagan did in his first year. And you sicko liberals who are friends with rapists and pedophiles are the lost souls who need to be exposed.

The only people who would be offended by the notion that Trump and his followers are fascist are people who have fascistic ideals but don’t want others to realize it. Because the bottom line is this: Trump and his followers ARE fascists. And make no mistake about one thing: Trump is NOT a Conservative, and anyone who thinks he is is naive. Trump is a guy who craves power and money, and he’ll say and do anything to gain it. He doesn’t give a crap about conservative values–because he doesn’t have them.

Trump isn’t a fascist in himself; more an anti-intellectual opportunist who will use bad people for his own ends. Fascism is broadly state communism run in collusion with – and for the benefit of – big business. Many of Trumps followers aren’t fascists either, although his brand of populism, again, will attract racist and authoritarian elements. You could actually argue that Obama, with his authoritarian obsession with identity politics and state control and expansion, alongside his indulgence of big business at the expense of SMEs and entrepreneurs made him fascist progressive, much as Tony Blair’s government was fascist progressive – and one of the most authoritarian ever – in the UK.

In the end, many people voted for Trump because Hillary was also a terrible choice and considered him the lesser of two evils, which, sadly, he probably was. What a terrible day it was that one of the last bastions of real freedom in the world was given a choice between two such terrible people.

I disliked Clinton as well. But there is no way we’d be worse off now with her than we are with THAT traitorous piece of shit.

^ this ^

Fascism comes from the left not the right.

@Dana Farricker Trump and his supporters aren’t attacking people and trying to censor free speech, you idiotic liberals are. Take a look in the effing mirror.

Well, Trump has silenced the scientists in his own agencies and shut down entire websites, failed to answer petitions, kept an opaque relationship with the press, installed cabinet members intent on destroying their respective departments, and lies so frequently that he lies about unimportant things like Inauguration crowd sizes and State of the Union ratings.

He’s hardly innocent, no matter what anyone else does.

Dana Farricker
Preach Baby!

The problem with the attacks on Trump is that they’re based in ideology, rather than objective reality. If you operate on an objective reality level, Trump’s anti-intellectualism is very easy to pick apart. Unfortunately the vocal opposition to Trump in the media is almost entirely progressivist, which is broadly a Kantian, neo-Marxist, counter-Enlightenment, emotional view of the world, which, also being relativist, basically denies the very possibility of objectivity existing. It’s really just as bad. So Jason Isaacs is right for the wrong reasons: the current administration has brought out a good deal of ugliness… on both sides of the debate. Frankly, I found the conclusion of the Lorca story disappointing. The ‘parallels’ with Trump were crude and naive – unsurprising, given a British luvvie had a hand in writing them – and, frankly, diminished and betrayed Lorca’s character as, previously, he was much more interesting and nuanced. Lorca’s pronouncements were crude generalisations based on emotion. Star Trek, the show that gave us the warrior, priest and doctor archetypes to analyse and discuss a subject resorted to cheap virtue-signalling last night, letting down fans of all political persuasions by failing to do what 1960s Trek did best: properly discussing and analysing a subject through allegory. Instead of trying to understand Mirror Lorca’s motivations and analyse why they exist, possibly undermining them with logic, Discovery took the easy course and just murdered him. Battlestar Galactica’s handling of Helena Cain was an example of much better writing for so complex a character.… Read more »

THANK YOU!I thought I was the only one who thought like this. I wish Lorca Doc and Ash were still around. Liked them all. The MENTAL diversity of the crew made for some great drama ops but unfortunately the writers for STD can’t leave the 211st century. TOS stories were written by some of the finest of their day. Something this day lacks. When I watch something like star trek I want to LEAVE the modern day think-speak behind not thrown in my face. Great acting nice effects crappy story line. Damn limeys stick to doctor who LOL. fan since 1970.

You mention an important aspect: ironically it the lack of diversity in the Discovery writing room that the is the mother of all problems with this show. I say ironic because they think putting a woman and a gay man in charge and having all sorts of “people of color” is enough diversity to boot! This diversity is truly skin-deep.

Star Trek’s IDIC principle meant something completely different: a diversity of IDEAS. And this show is like the Borg – there is a great diversity of species assimilated into the hive, yet they all think the same and voice the same opinion!

Very well put, Dom. Sadly I think much of it won’t land as well with some. Good work none the less.

I think all of the above in the interviews reveals more about the liberal mindset than that of those who they regard as their enemies (very sad to even think in that way). People who believe in different values than “follow your heart” are truly alien and hostile to them. There is no attempt at inclusion, genuine diversity and (pardon the pun) discovery here, it has to remain (literally) skin-deep for them. The change of plan regarding Lorca shows that: deliberately NOT to show that a diversity of command styles is allowed to exist in this evolved universe where supposedly all opinions are equal (are they here on the university campuses??), but no, an “unorthodox captain” MUST be evil. The only diversity allowed is racial and sexual, but we all MUST think alike! Star Trek Discovery is in that way more black and white than TOS in a time when we desperately need to acknowledge shades of grey, and compromise, to overcome division. Then they talk about order as if that is something inherently dirty. Laws and rules, boundaries and limits, are what has turned a bunch of cave men with clubs into a civilized society. Law was the original human invention. And no, that doesn’t mean fascism. It means justice. Humans are inherently selfish and cruel, and only a public order keeps us from being savages. Last time we tried emotion and “sympathy” to determine justice, this was called “the Middle Ages”. It didn’t fare so well for minorities… Read more »

I think it’s the opposite. The show is expressing the idea that “tough” action sometimes has better results than morality based on kindness, even while kindness based morality is the smarter, more successful path. That’s the theme of many of the episodes (Burnham’s treason, Lorca’s success, Georgiou’s presumed success in the next episode or two). It’s a dialectic, if you will, between kindness and aggression, with the resolution always veering more toward kindness.

I see the dialectic between justice based on sympathy/emotion (what modern liberals believe) and justice based on the Law/Reason (what conservatives typically believe). Illegal immigration is the text book example for this in the real world. There is no evasion of punishment for cheaters, period, as this marks a moral hazard where no one feels they are bound by the law anymore – this is about something bigger.

It is clear that this modern show embraces what you call “kindness” and that no matter what a person has done they may be redeemable as long as they renounce (even Emperor Georgiou?)

I can only repeat myself here from above: modern Western civilization excelled because of universal, objective rule of law and not kindness/sympathy which is a subjective, personal and arbitrary emotion. This is a very dangerous path both the series and the real world is going down to, to renounce reason and rationality in favor or “kindness”, which is always abused and subverted by the real aggressors in time (both inside America and outside – just wait for China!) In the Middle Ages ordinary people were judged and sentenced by whether those few with power liked them or not. I for one will fight to prevent such things from happening again. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few!

Not sure about your Middle Ages historical account though, lol.

Indeed, Jordan.

It would help to read some history books then :)

I agree with you Aaron. But this approach is common in the entertainment world. Lots of entertainers seem to have an attitude of superiority when it comes to social and political issues. Actors, singers and others are nothing more than circus clowns who are paid to entertain. Their opinions are no more informed or important than anyone else. They just have a bigger audience. It’s one thing to make people think and maybe be a little uncomfortable, something else entirely to outright belittle people with certain beliefs.

Might want to pay attention, it’s not that hard to find legitimate conservatives who are sounding the alarm that the current administration is leaning hard authoritarian. Show me someplace in history where that has worked out well, and you’ll have supported your argument. Otherwise, you may need to show a little concern about the direction of your party.

Naysayers are gonna nay – I agree. SJW thought process alert! The Mirror Universe is worse than Nazi land. Roddenberry vision was an inclusive universe of different individuals working together to solve galactic problems. This show is as “exclusive” as it gets. Partiality bleeds throughout. Sad we have creators in Hollywood pushing “exclusivity” throughout the fine arts. Oh well, the re-runs of TOS play forever.

Right on, John! The meaning of “IDIC” has been forgotten. Mr. Spock said about intellectual opponents: “I am delighted to disagree with you”. The snowflake crowd cries: “HATE SPEECH!!11”

They were bashing selfishness that puts “my aims above the needs of others.”
It hurts your feelings? Sorry, not sorry

You can’t be Conservative & a Star Trek Fan.
Sorry, the 2 things were incompatible before discovery.
The Star Trek universe has no racism, sexism, homophobia, materialism & science is free from religion. this is not a world conservitives want. They want the Mirror Universe where white Supremacy controls the Universe. Lets be real.

I thought to myself after that episode. Maybe the Klingons do win the war and thats why everything looks so cheap during TOS. Nothing left but cardboard to build a starship now.

Hahahahahaha… THAT was the reason why (new) Battlestar Galactica used low-tech, after their first war with the Cylons…

Except for sonotubes (which were also used in Kirk’s quarters and elsewhere in TWOK), I don’t think I recall ANY cardboard on TOS. Plywood, yeah, but that is a given for construction of the era (and most eras since.) I still think TOS is a marvel of design, especially the thought that went into the way some things were laid out on the ship. The surfaces for the most part look finished, and to be honest, the black consoles at the helm have more visual appeal than the TMP helm, which seems very schizo between all those little marble-like buttons and the throne-room throttle on Sulu’s side.

EDIT ADDON: Oh, and I DO pay attention to tech details like materials. in the film 2010, they seriously cheaped out on the Discovery flight deck, with monitors stuck behind what certainly looks like foamcore (cardboard with a slick front) … there are even CREASES in the console, I guess from stuff being dropped on the set during filming, that are dead giveaways about the material. You don’t even need the blu-ray to see this flaw. Why is a 25 mil flick (in the 80s when that still meant something) using cardboard — and in CLOSEUPS! — on a spaceship? That’s what people should be making fun of, not whether TOS cut corners because each episode had a set decorating budget of five hundred bucks (which is a number I recall dresser John Dwyer citing.)

@Gregs — and don’t forget they had to make their display monitors out of poster paper, wrinkles and all.

People forget that Star Trek was not an inexpensive show to produce in the 60s. The original pilot had a budget of roughly $500,000 which is close to $4 million today. The per episode budget, in adjusted dollars, was roughly $1.4 million per episode.

Television budgets were significantly lower in the 1960s across the board and Star Trek skewed toward the pricier side.

Yes but that actually IS pretty cheap for today’s standard. Most 1 hour dramas cost between $4-5 million now. And we know shows like Westworld and GOT can get up to $10 million. So no maybe not that cheap but it was certainly a more budgeted show but to be fair maybe most of television was at that time and sci fi is just expensive period. Most movies at the time when adjusted wouldn’t cost anything close to movies today regardless but like TV, the stakes are bigger and they are appealing to more people globally.

prices of tv/film production went up a lot more than just to cover inflation over the years, and not equally in those categories either. Else you wouldn’t have ROCKY coming in at what it did, something just over one mil, a little over 40 years back. Average movie budget in the 60s was 1.5 mil, so 186,000 for a tv show in 67 is like 12% of that figure. Average price of making a movie ten years ago was something like 106 mil according to MPAA, and 12% of that would WAY above what it costs to do even GoT now, so spending on movies would seem to have increased more than TV. David Gerrold remarks about the possibility of a TV series doubling in budget during its run during the 70s, and that is certainly borne out many times over when you jump ahead 15-20 years to the end of CHEERS, when they’re paying the lead more than it used to cost to produce each whole episode. An effects guy on Hyams’ 2010 — who also shot models on BLADE RUNNER and TMP and EVENT HORIZON, he was a real artist who died pretty young, probably from breathing all that bad chemical smoke on the miniature stages — made a conservative estimate about 30 years back, that to make Kubrick’s 2001 in 1984 would have cost something like 96 million, given the man-hours involved. That number, as much as any other one, has made me think that applying straight… Read more »

Would love to see him back!

I’m guessing that we will find out what the ISS Discovery was up to in the Prime Universe next week, judging by the clip they showed on After Trek. At least it seems that way. Disco is boarded by Starfleet with phasers drawn and shut down by the Admiral with a command code.

I still haven’t seen the last two episodes yet….
So, Prime Lorca isn’t an @$$hole?
Somehow, I don’t think the Emperor is going to be all that satisfied taking orders from some suit at Starfleet Command.
Burnham displayed epic bad judgement pulling a phaser on her captain, bedding down a Klingon spy, and now dragging a megalomaniacal despot back to the prime universe. Yeah, solitary confinement isn’t all that bad an idea.
The Klingons won? Breaking the cloak isn’t going to be that big a game changer.
That’s a helluva lot to wrap up in the last two episodes.

If you haven’t seen it, why are you here!? Spoilers! run away! go watch it first!! lol

Yes, Prime Lorca is (or rather was) indeed an @$$hole. He is (was) the show’s main villain.

No, Dana, MIRROR Lorca was the a’hole.
PRIME Lorca has yet to be seen.
Although Jason Isaacs’ performance was prime :^)

I’m really disappointed that they killed off Lorca. He was the best actor of the ensemble by far. And the character i liked most. There are some reviews in the internet saying that STD really made a step forward with a Starfleet captain so grayish and ambiguous like Lorca. But now it seems they made a step back telling: Look, Starfleet has no such characters, he was bad from the beginning. And the rest of the crew can even more shine a light as humanities best.

Well, you can do that. But imo its kinda boring…I think the writers/producers didn’t do themselves a favor with the character’s development. I guess they didn’t expect that a lot of fans would like Lorca a lot and didn’t want him to be a nefarious a**hole and be killed off…

Now i see a ship with not so interesting characters though Saru could shine a little more in the last episode. But i dont think, he is a good fit as captain

…very sad development all in all.

I totally agree with you. Lorca makes DSC GREAT. He could have been a hero. All the decisions he made during the Klingon war were even noble and not the least ‘evil’. (Jason said those were planned to impress Burnham and to gain her loyalty to him) The problem is he is such a great actor and he managed to convince the audience otherwise.
Taking away Lorca leaves a great big void in the series. Nothing else will keep my interest in this show.

With his words that “no, Lorca never did anything honest for the Federation, but only for self-gain”, Isaacs sure managed to twist the knife the writers stuck into the backs of everyone who held out hope that Lorca belongs to the rebellion of the MU or at the very least was “turned” by his time in the Federation. That would have been a classic Star Trek story. It seems white alpha males do not deserve redemption arcs anymore…

Vulcan Soul, everyone who held out hope that Lorca belongs to the rebellion of the MU or at the very least was “turned” by his time in the Federation. That would have been a classic Star Trek story. I

You and I don’t agree on every single thing, but I AGREE WITH YOU 100% ON THIS! I had SO hoped Lorca was a MU rebel, looking to overthrow the rotten core of the Empire and make it a better place. That would have been a GREAT story.

Or, even better — The woman he loved in the MU has a PU counterpart, whose behavior and beliefs in the ideals of Starfleet change his opinion and personal motives.

THEN a breach into the MU and this Lorca would have had real challenges to his new-found ideals.

Hot diggity, what a story that would have made. And Isaacs would have played it PERFECTLY. Shucks.

Not sat at all–logical.

It is truly a mirror of our times and how these two factions are hating and fighting each other to death (I see the next Civil War coming…) There is no attempt at compromise or reconciliation here. You are either with us or against us, good or evil. It is rather clear what faction this show belongs to “thanks” to their producers and writers, apparently hand-picked from their own clans, and there is precicely zero self-awareness on their part how the escalating extremism of their faction has caused Trump as a counter-reaction, and symptom of the decline of Western society.

Discovery had the chance to be a light of inclusiveness and true, intellectual diversity to overcome the division of our times, but by now it has squandered it. You don’t reach understanding with the Other by declaring it evil.

@VS — The producers don’t have to appeal to both sides — there are not good people on both sides.

Also the nature of subscription based streaming services is that companies don’t have to pander to “both” sides (unlike network TV), they just need to maintain a strong and loyal following that will stick with the show and the delivery system with it.

@Holden They sure don’t – but is that a good thing? Is that not exactly the same thing as people creating their own echo chambers and feedback loops in social networks, further and further radicalizing and increasing division and hatred for the other? A little bit more farsightedness, please.

Are we talking about this from a political standpoint? More “farsightedness”? LOL. Many progressive critics have been rallying about this exact issue for literally twenty years–that demonizing your opponent leads to further polorization. Ever read Deborah Tannen?

So, whose the one looking ahead? And, thanks for finally catching up. (sorry if that’s a cheap shot but conservatives lecturing people about the future is always equal parts amusing and annoying).

Or, are we talking about this from a franchise standpoint? The success of streaming is based on subscriptions, and within that model, shows with the most loyal following–not the widest but the most loyal–are King.

It may sound weird because I am neither conservative nor American. You are so caught up in your partisanship you do not seem to notice. Just because someone opposes current-brand liberalism does not mean he is fully in line with Trumpism or American conservatives. Again, this is “Us vs. Them” thinking. Reconciliation is needed to overcome this polarization and “you didn’t do it so we don’t do it either” is a very cheap excuse because YOU ALL will suffer for it.

And the comment below this one was meant to go @CuriousCadet – weird comment system.

Did you just declare 62 million Americans “bad people”? I rest my case here. This modern extremism has nothing to do with traditional liberalism, which was the opposite of black-and-white “good vs. evil” but espoused shades-of-gray relativism and understood reality is more complex than “there is but one truth”. You guys critized Bush for this rhetoric (as did I), but now I see no difference.

exactly! thanks.

I agreed Trump is a counter-reaction to heavy handed liberal elitism. But you make a bad analogy with the Civil War. There was a very good reason for not compromising in 1861 – human servitude. The republic could not continue with the institution of slavery. Slavery was evil.

Arathorn it was over banking systems NOT slavery. But that is not what is TAUGHT in Murican schools

Oh, so compromising with the South would’ve been OK then? Seriously, when the Civil War is brought up, don’t directly or indirectly defend the South’s practice of slavery. . . just don’t.

Abolition of slavery – however much it was right – was an act of opportunism by Lincoln. He wasn’t in favour; it merely gave him the ability to claim an ideological difference from the Confederate States. The US Constitution gave those states the right to secede and they should have been allowed to do so, just as they should be able to do now. The UK, in wanting to secede from the EU is being punished, because Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty (aka the United States of Europe Constitution) has been acknowledged by its writer as something they didn’t want to include but were legally forced to do so.

The American Civil War was a tragedy because the USA ignored its own Constitution in blocking secession. Even more tragic was that slavery itself violated the US Constitution and several of the Founding Fathers were slave owners.

The War happened because things could not been worked out politically. History is a warning – and today the stakes are much, much lower than slavery indeed – it could happen again if we let the current levels of polarization soar further.

(For all those who think the Clown-in-Chief is the embodiment of fascism, I sincerely suggest you visit some actually fascist countries and realize how dangerous and silly this comparison is. Thank you)

“(For all those who think the Clown-in-Chief is the embodiment of fascism, I sincerely suggest you visit some actually fascist countries and realize how dangerous and silly this comparison is. Thank you)”

I have: Putin’s Russia, Erdogan’s Turkey and Kaczynski’s Poland. Trump seems enamored of all three.

“You’re either with us or against us?” I’m trying to remember which President made that line of thinking famous, and what political affliation he had.

Conservatives have been demonizing their perceived enemies domestic and foreign for decades, ever since the rise of Rush and talk radio.

But now that the fight is being taken back to them in the age of Internet and social media, some want to whine about compromise and reconcillation. Sorry, they had their chance. And they’ve had a lot of luck walking all over liberals for decades, so there’s no reason to stop now.

The only problem these days is that politicians on the left and their media outlets are afraid to dish it out as well as they’ve taken it.

As for a civil war, it’s not the left that’s loading up with arms and ranting about the deep state government. Be careful what you wish for .

As for Trek, it’s always been a progressive show. Not a perfect show, but a progressive one. That’s the nature of looking to the future and not to the past. Sorry. It just was. Anyone who denies that is just wallowing in nostalgia for a show they loved when they were younger but never understood.

“I’m trying to remember which President made that line of thinking famous, and what political affliation he had.”

Um, yea. That would be certain Vladimir Lenin. ;)
And that’s the entire problem with the Left: they’re so busy looking for sawdust specks in everybody else’s eyes, that they fail to notice the truckload of timber in their own.

Sorry, I meant US presidents . . . But thinking about Russian ones would be consistent with GOP thinking these days. LOL.

You mean the leftist media that’s lived off smears and ad hominems for decades? The standard of a political campaign historically is for a ‘right winger’ (conservative or libertarian) to be polite, followed by leftists claiming their opponent is Satan’s favourite godson and will torture your granny to death while eating your favourite kitten! The Democratic Party, founded by the war criminal Andrew Jackson is one of the most undemocratic, brutal, dirty-playing organisations in history. And neo-conservatives, a utopian concept created by a section of disaffected Democrats who then moved to the Republican Party, gave the world the moronic George Walker Bush.

Star Trek in the 60s was far better than progressive; it was closer to libertarian – people’s individual actions spoke for who they were, not their designated politically correct identity.

The “leftist media” claims that their opponent is Satan’s godson? Project much?

Yes, Dixiecrats helped the modern GOP come to power. Dixiecrats are also the ones who threw a tantrum with Southern TV censors about a white man kissing his African American colleague on screen. Can’t remember which show that was.

Star Trek was progressive in the 1960s. It *is* progressive now. The difference? The world has changed since the 1960s and progressive values have changed with it. You know why? Because the best of Trek is always looking to the future and not to the past.

And why don’t libertarian or conservative interpretations of Trek stand the test of time? Because they all are stuck in this nostalgia for 60s Trek, which ignores what that Trek symbolized: look forward, not back.

Compare to the more moronic Trump, I actually miss Bush sadly. “Star Trek in the 60s was far better than progressive; it was closer to libertarian – people’s individual actions spoke for who they were, not their designated politically correct identity.” And show me where in Discovery is someone NOT in their position due to what they have done? And I didn’t realize Burnham got into Starfleet for just being black and a woman? I thought she got in because she excelled at the Vulcan Science Academy, graduating at the top of her class, even being the only full human there? Do you think the Vulcans let her in for just being human or because she proved she should be there? According to Sarek it was the latter. So what’s the issue? What I find weird is you guys talk about Star Trek as if its taking place in 2017. Its bizarre. And what’s even MORE ridiculous (and yes racist although I’m not talking to you specifically) is that people oddly assume the fictional characters are still only in their position because of their race and gender. I mean thats what is weird lol. Especially since every show since TOS has showed the exact same thing for all Starfleet officers: People who were in starfleet because they excelled in it and believed in its values. If you are on a starfleet ship its because you worked your butt off to get there. Can you point out a character that was… Read more »

I for one DON’T miss Bush badly. If you did not notice this warmonger and human rights abuser carries a major responsibility for the trouble America is in: the Middle East in flames, rise of Al’Qaida and ISIS, refugee waves rolling over Europe, the loss of American global excellence in many fields due to your crushing debt from trillions of war costs, America’s liberals themselves moving to extremism during the long Bush years and maybe even Trump himself as a result of it!

No, compared to Bush Trump is a harmless clown and paper tiger (so far): he may say alot of outreagous things, but what has he DONE so far that rivals Bush’s illegal wars, thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, torture prisons, mass surveillance etc. etc.??? People are so easily riled up by “unkindness” that they forget that the most kind person can be the bigger asshole. Which is why this whole “kindness succeeds” mantra for Discovery rings so hollow. It is not just shallow, but false.

Ok you convinced me not to miss Bush lol. Thats fine. Sadly though I still think he’s a much better President than Trump is turning out to be.

Thank you Holden. You have expressed the same thoughts I had but I was about to rant. Thanks for saying it reasonably :^)

Always, Marja.

@Holden I mentioned myself it was Bush in another comment and that was my point in saying – the irony of modern liberals now taking the neocon-stance of “One Truth” that needs to be forced upon everyone inside and outside of America, with violence if necessary. And THAT is fascism – the notion that all of parts of society march in lockstep for One Idea, and dissenters are shut up or worse. So it would help to take some emotional distance to what you have written and see where your thinking is heading. So you’re washing your hand in innocence of the War that is to come because “our side didn’t start it”? History has seen this kind of uncompromising thinking all the time, and the worst violence has erupted because of it. It is also decidedly Un-Star Trek to say the time for reconciliation is over. “Progress” is morally agnostic, it just denotes something is evolving, but not necessarily into something better – that’s why it has been used by all sorts of people to justify all sorts of horrible things (“Drone warfare! It’s progress!) I prefer to call the current-brand “liberalism” a corruption, one that is dividing people (quite literal by this awful construct of “identity politics”) and putting the needs of the few ahead of the needs of the many, one that is short-sighted and tone-deaf and destroying three hundred years of Enlightened Western civilization for utterly silly things like “bathroom rights”. Classic liberalism itself was and… Read more »

That was just fantastic.
I am amazed at how good this Season has been.
Would be great if Jason Issacs remains a big part of the show.
Must take issue with Ted Sullivan’s comment about England (UK) on After Trek.
The EU is no Federation of Planets. At it’s worse its Commission is closer to the faceless mirror empire.
But his writing is so good I can forgive him.

GREAT ARTICLE!!

It says USS (not ISS) Buran on that image of the Buran (which I assume is from when it was running from the ISS Charon).

Oops, no I was wrong. It says ISS (hard to read).

Why would I believe anything Jason Isaacs says; he’s lied to us all along! :)

Seriously though, I do home Prime Lorca is still around and ends up being just as ornery as his mirror counterpart. It was his rough around the edges and no nonsense attitude that made him so interesting. His absence would be a major void to fill.

@TonyD — he does protest too much, me thinks. Being destroyed by network, seems to be a sure fire way to become part of it … I mean if Culber can end up in it by only being on a ship run by spores, being atomized by it seems a good way to become enmeshed in it …

Indeed, it would be great to see a “challenging” captain who is not always perfect. Lorca is the guy to fit the bill!

Is that a pipe organ behind them in the 2nd photo from the top? Mirror universe based on that image reminds me of a scaled-down ‘Pizza & Pipes’, circa 1978.

In one of the flashcards they show on After Trek it said that the set designer was influenced by a building in Asia … either China or South Korea …?

I had thought it was organ pipes myself until I saw the photo of the building.

Welcome to Discovery, where captains are the new red shirts!

(This does not bode well for Saru…)

The real danger of taking the Empress to the Prime Universe is that she eats Saru.

True, but if the Klingons won the war they may be looking to restock their buffet, too. The enemy of my entrée is my friend….

Oh my god- I roared at that! Lmao!

LOL Phil!!

I fully agree that we live in the mirror universe at the moment, or at least lots of people want us to. Those people who deem globalization, racial equality, genderism etc “a social experiment doomed to fail”, an “ideology set against human nature”… The mirror arc adressed these issues directly and I’m glad they did. “Making the Empire glorious again”… all too true.

That said, they have to be careful to uphold the original vision of Trek in the PU now more than ever and with their newfound bloodlust and eagerness to show gloomy grim scenarios, it is going to be a tough ride to get there… which basically is TOS… the late sixties, the era of hope, daring imagination, civil rights and COLOR! We need a new 1969, a new dawn of resistance against the rising darkness. Star Trek must go full circle and so must society.

Much of what you mention are Marxist, post-modernist constructs, disproven by science. I see the original Star Trek through the lens of being about the boundless possibilities of the individual, no longer fettered by such constructs as class, race and gender. It was like Martin Luther King’s best declarations about a man bring measured by his ability, not his skin colour, minus his communist sympathies. Modern Star Trek, intentionally or not, embraces identity politics where the original, from my point of view, was profoundly individualistic in its viewpoint.

Identity politics is the opposite of being race-/gender/sex-agnostic of course. To judge people not by their individual merits, but to divide them into “privileged” and “marginalized victims” based merely on their skin color, gender and sexual-orientation is the text book definition of racism and sexism.

People keep raving about Star Trek always having been liberal, but traditional Star Trek liberalism has very little to do with this modern extremism we witness in the 2010s, and in some ways it is clearly contrary to it (“Prime Directive”, anyone?).

Traditional Star Trek unified the audience across the political spectrum. Even a staunch Republican like William Shatner could get behind it.
Star Trek Discovery vilifies parts of its audience and sows further division, and the clique behind it is even proud of it!

And now, the President wants a parade with tanks rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue chewing up the pavement; it would not shock me if he presided over the proceedings in one of those faux military uniforms that leaders of Banana Republics wear, complete with a chest full of phony medals.

Then I will know with absolute certainty WE are the Mirror Universe.

So if Donald Trump is The President for the next seven years will the writers and actors continue to make him the centerpiece of evil? I pay to watch a show in which the majority involved in making it would say that I was some sort of misguided ‘phobe’ of some kind. It’s kinda a weird situation to be in, honestly. Thats how much I love Star Trek though and I keep coming back every Sunday.

The answer to your question is “very possible.”

We live in politically polarising times and just a as right wing media demonized Obama for 8 solid years, the left is going to do the same for Trump and his supporters.

That Trump has openly espoused pro fascist policies, often laced with racist overtones, and his supporters tend to be extreme far right, that the Brexit movement has been poisoned by bigotry and xenophobia, well it becomes easy fodder for social messaging in a Hollywood that has always leaned heavily liberal.

Enterprises 3rd season was dominated by terrorism allegories and messages of “don’t judge an entire culture by its extremists” and left wing, progressive allegories were all over previous seasons.

Right wingers got the President they wanted, so I find it funny when they rip Hollywood for satirizing and criticizing him.

It’s not Hollywood’s job to be unbiased. Hollywood rioters and producers are free to, have always, and will continue to push their personal beliefs in their work, just as Gene Roddenberry did.

I’m sure some will say “oh well it didn’t used to be this bad.” Well, even if I conceded that, all I would respond with is– “so what?”

If you don’t like it (and this isn’t necessarily addressed to you personally)– don’t watch it. Don’t support it.

‘That Trump has openly espoused pro fascist policies, often laced with racist overtones, and his supporters tend to be extreme far right,’ Describe how Trump’s policies are ‘fascist’ with direct reference to the actual meaning of the word and its Roman Empire – even Roman Republic – origins (hint: the ceremonial axe Roman judges carried was called a ‘fasces’) as opposed to that of Indiana Jones’s moustache-twirling villains. Claiming someone is a ‘fascist’ without backup is lazy. Also, if Trump’s supporters ‘tend’ to be ‘extreme far right’ are you saying 50 per cent of Americans are not just ‘far right,’ but ‘extreme’ far right?! Furthermore, the republic established by the Founding Fathers (emphasis on ‘republic;’ the USA was founded as a republic, not a democracy, because they recognised that democracies collapse) was founded with the intention of there being checks and balances, preventing any individual or group getting too powerful. President Trump’s most controversial policies have generally been stymied. ‘the Brexit movement has been poisoned by bigotry and xenophobia,’ There was some xenophobia, but far less than is claimed. After the vote in favour of leaving, there was an upsurge in reports of xenophobic abuse, although there was actually a reduction in actual confirmed cases. Many people voted purely for home rule. As a libertarian, I disliked the diminution of the UK’s Common Law system in favour of Europe’s heavily statist, highly regulated Roman Law-based systems. The Charter of Fundamental Rights, for example, is pretty much unworkable in a Common… Read more »

“Claiming someone is a ‘fascist’ without backup is lazy.”

Everything this man does backs it up. To claim otherwise is to either knowingly fake ignorance or to be delusional.

Americans must be the only people in the world who actually dislike the idea of their country being great.

Well, if you don’t want it, I’m sure someone else will gladly jump at the opportunity. ;)

what makes a country great?

VorlonKosh

The American Constitution makes America great; it’s one of the greatest legal documents in history. Jealous Europeans hate it and hate America’s success. Left wing Americans hate that it made their country so successful. I’ve long suggested that Euro-centric, left wing Americans – broadly what call themselves ‘liberals’ (as a classical liberal, I take exception to neo-Marxists’ theft of the name of my kind of politics) – should organise a citizenship exchange with Europeans who believe in the US Constitution. Seriously, as Whig Englishman, I’d head to the US like a shot!

Leftists hate the constitution? Get the hell out of here with that nonsense.

I’m very liberal, and not only is the constitution the embodiment of brilliance, but what makes it brilliant is that it is designed to be able to be changed and updated to suit the times.

That’s what made the founding fathers so different from previous government founders: they knew that in order for a country to survive it must adapt and change to the needs of the time. They had the foresight to design the constitution to make it a living document, not a set of commandments carved in stone.

They knew societies must evolve, that America would evolve, the people would change, their beliefs would change, and with progress comes complexities that necessitate changes to the government.

I as a lefty think it’s generally fine as is but when progressives want changes to it, it does not mean they hate it, but they favor making the kinds of updates that the founding fathers always envisioned being necessary to ensure a thriving and prosperous country.

“Left wing Americans hate that it made their country so successful.”

I believe the phrase is, “speak for yourself, white man.”

I am on the center-left. I also believe the constitution may well have been divinely inspired.

Dyonesse

The UK police ‘service’ was actually arresting people for flying the Union Jack outside their homes in the Tony Blair era.

They sure will! It would be really entertaining to see all this American in-fighting lacking any sort of self-awareness and farsightedness (from a safe distance as I do) if they didn’t simultaneously drag down the entire Western civilization. But this is kind of the point of this self-destructive modern “liberalism” isn’t it? That the majority is evil, that what they have historically done is evil, and that by mere virtue of their skin color/gender/sexual preferences now “the others” deserve a shot.

And a shot they will get – just not the people they hope for and the ideologies they root for, but the opposite.

In the real world, the New Chinese Empire will rule the world soon enough with hard and soft power, and that will happen more quickly then anyone imagined thanks to the great weakness of the West. And then all these snowflakes will learn what *real* fascism looks like. Trump’s like a birthday party clown in comparison. And then this series will look even more silly and outdated then it already does to the informed thinker.

There they go taking themselves too seriously already. I’ve watched Star Trek since TOS went into syndication and I’ve always loved it and always will. However in the end it’s still just a TV show.

While the political metaphors are maybe one percent too heavy, let’s congradulate the writers for trying to do something and letting the actors be free enough to be clear that’s what they are doing. As the State of the Union makes it abundantly clear, the United States’ President is a White Supremacist, committed to his anti-science”clean coal” industry, and he’s not even capable enough to give the appearance that he’s out for anyone other than himself. Our President is UnAmerican, very MU.

Anti-science is the theme of the times. One side denies climate change, the other denies the existence of a biological sexual dichotomy. Generally emotion trumps reason (no pun intended), and we are all off worse for it.

I don’t know one single person that denies there are two biological sexes. Not a single one. But, you see, BIOLOGICALLY, sex is not just about the package you carry. Just ask lions, and chimps. And biological gender should not define your identity as a human being, unless you intend to CONTRADICT biology.

You are aware that several countries have removed or plan to remove the sex (M/F checkbox) from identity cards and other authentication, or replace it with a free-form field (as it’s already happened online on Facebook etc.)? So it IS a contested notion, certainly not a figment of my mind. Because of the 0.3% of genetic mutations somehow the majority need to feel unsure about this? It’s a classic case of “the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many” politics. God forbid we offend anyone with micro aggressions, but never mind the hungry kids in our own country or the slave workers we employ in others! Now Facebook carries more restrictions on names with its real-name policy, which is actually hurting prosecuted people etc., than the gender field – crazy world?

The science I am talking about, which is being eviscerated by political firings and removals is, for starters, at NASA and at the EPA. It is not “just” about climate change. It will impact the air you breathe and water you drink. These rule changes make it easier for corporations to pollute and hide it. I think they are meant to be throwdowns to distract all normal Americans who care about their life and want their government to protect them. Normal Americans of any and no party will see this and oppose it.

Science is also in fight for the future demographics of this country, (born out of a slow Genocide of it’s native inhabitants, slavery of Africans, and indentured servitude of all races). Trump’s people want changes to the way the census is going to be conducted.

I could go on and on.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-pruitt-exclusive/exclusive-trumps-epa-aims-to-replace-obama-era-climate-water-regulations-in-2018-idUSKBN1EZ079

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/04/trumps-threat-to-the-2020-census-000404

Gender is different than sex. The terms get muddled, and they used to mean the same thing, but the latter is biological, the former is psychological.

There are some that confuse them on both sides of the issue, there are some on the left that deny the science of biological sex, but they are the most extreme and very small in number.

I’ve never seen the left majority deny the science of biological male and female sexes.

The one thing the left has over the right is an openness to change and adapt our knowledge, as is inherent to the concept of the sciences. We are discovering new things about ourselves and our world every day, and the left seems to embrace these new ideas, while the right not only refuses to accept them, but wants to strip away long accepted scientific views because it might cost them money, or challenge their religious beliefs or, worse yet, make them go “ew that’s weird.”

Give one example of where he has ever made clear that he’s a white supremacist? Cause he’s literally denounced them for decades. Take a look in the mirror and see which party invented white supremacy.

Here’s a well-sourced article about Kris Kobach the architect of many of Trump’s new policies which by their nature are racist and by their goal are intended to be White Supremacist policies:

“For years, Republicans have used racially coded appeals to white voters as a means to win elections. Kobach has inverted the priorities, using elections, and advocating voting restrictions that make it easier for Republicans to win them, as the vehicle for implementing policies that protect the interests and aims of a shrinking white majority.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/magazine/the-man-behind-trumps-voter-fraud-obsession.html

He condones the beliefs and violent actions of neo Nazis and white supremacists. End of story.

Who “invented” white supremacy is immaterial. Today the right supports it, the left fights against it.

Trump denounced things only when it will hurt him not to. He’s proven that time and time again. He has NO sincerely held beliefs other than “aren’t I awesome?”

He is basically Gul Dukat when you get right down to it.

4 potential ways of Lorca coming back…

1) Mirror Lorca didn’t die but rather entered the mycelial network and is somehow healed by its mushroomness
2) Prime Lorca didn’t die (we’ve had no on screen confirmation either way)
3) They go back in time and prevent the war from happening and so Prime Lorca is kicking about
4) They go back in time and mirror Lorca transfers across as before but into a totally new situation

I’m so Glad Lorca is Dead. I really hope we never see Iascs again.
I’m curious, how do all these, um “People” who said Lorca was the best captain of any Star Trek show will rationalise the fact he was an evil Mirror Universe killer.

Well exactly. Dare to utter for a second that maybe having somebody who was a bit nasty as one of the main crew might not be the best way to go in terms of creating a relatable character who you could feel for, and the sneering legions would descend on you to tell you how its 2017/18 and this was just totally the right thing to do. And to have anything else and the show would be completely lame and everybody would be holding hands and singing Kumbaya on the bridge. Talk about a false dichotomy!

What’s wrong with having characters you like? Not every show can be a hate filled bloodbath like ‘Game of Thrones’.

I can only hope Sullivan is being honest when he said about getting what Starfleet and Star Trek meant at the end of the article. The first year has mostly been spunked away on cheap gimmicks, largely predictable “twists” and mind rot action sequences at key moments. If season 2 is now being set up as how to undo the Klingon’s victory though, I am not optimistic there will be the time or effort there to craft any of the classy, touching or intelligent stories that Star Trek at its best (and almost uniquely in TV sci-fi) tried to do previously.

Jason Isaacs is one of those actors who can’t seem to last with a series. No reflection upon him or his acting chops, he’s among the best there is. Maybe it’s by his own design. I recall Awake, which went 13 [red/green universes] thought it was great and mourned its passage. Cliff Curtis, late of Fear the Walking Dead is another of these actors. The moment he was cast, I knew he’d end up as chum for the walkers.

Well Awake was cancelled, he didn’t leave the show. And he signed on for Discovery knowing he was only going to be in the first season. It would be a different thing if he just quit these shows his role in them just end for other reasons.