7 Things We Learned About ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Season 2 At WonderCon ‘Visionaries’ Panel

(Photo: Aaron Harvey)

The big event for Star Trek: Discovery at WonderCon 2018 was the “Visionaries” panel, populated with many of the behind-the-scenes department heads that make the show happen. On hand were Gretchen J. Berg & Aaron Harberts (Executive Producers & Showrunners); Tamara Deverell (Production Designer); Gersha Phillips (Costume Designer); Mario Moreira (Props Master); Glenn Hetrick & James MacKinnon (Prosthetics & Special FX Makeup); Jeff Russo (Composer); and Jason Zimmerman (VFX Supervisor).

Star Trek: Discovery “Visionaries” panel at WonderCon 2018 (Photo: Aaron Harvey)

While much of the panel focused on the process and approach to how the show is made, there was also a good amount of discussion about what to expect in the second season of Star Trek: Discovery, in addition to the “bonus clip.” TrekMovie was there, and we have gathered together the highlights.

Mary Chieffo (L’Rell) moderated the WonderCon 2018 Star Trek: Discovery “Visionaries” panel (Photo: Aaron Harvey)

Season two will show how Discovery fits into Prime Timeline

An audience question asked if Star Trek: Discovery really takes place in the Prime Timeline, as has been often asserted by the show producers. The fan suggested the show could take place in a parallel timeline, like one of those very similar universes seen in the TNG episode “Parallels.” Co-showrunner Aaron Harberts confirmed again that the show is set in Star Trek’s Prime Timeline, and also noted that the second season will make this even clearer:

Aaron Harberts: The idea was to always be in the Prime Timeline. Obviously, there are questions and concerns and things that are different. Our technology is a little different. We have a ship that runs very differently. We are our own show in a lot of ways. Season two is really exciting for us. This is our opportunity to really show how Discovery fits into this Prime Timeline. We are firmly committed to that.

Michael Burnham and Sarek

Season two will have more ‘Trekian’ tone

When asked about the darker tone of the series, Discovery co-showrunners Aaron Harberts and Gretchen J. Berg noted it wasn’t done for shock value, but also pointed to a change for the second season:

Gretchen J. Berg: We are aware it is a different era and a different format for the show. I don’t think we are gunning for shock value. Everything always comes out of character and story. If it feels like something that would happen in that world and in that context, we go in that direction. It is not a group that leads with wanting to shock people or horrify people.

Aaron Harberts: [Season one] was an interesting season because it was set against the backdrop of war. One of things we are looking forward to in season two is a tone that we can now be in a more exploratory phase and a more diplomatic phase – maybe a bit more of a Trekian chapter…but everything for us is really driven by character.

Episode 8 of Discovery visited Pahvo, a strange new world

USS Enterprise design evolved and grew to match Discovery universe

Production designer Tamara Deverell and VFX supervisor Jason Zimmerman offered some insights into the approach for developing the look of the USS Enterprise seen at the end of the season one finale:

Tamara Deverell: For the Enterprise, we based it initially off of The Original Series. We were really drawing a lot of our materials from that. And then we particularly went to more of the Star Trek movies, which is a little bit fatter, a little bit bigger. Overall, I think we expanded the length of it to be within the world of our Discovery, which is bigger, so we did cheat it as a larger ship.

Jason Zimmerman: It starts with them giving us designs to work with and then there is a lot of back and forth between VFX and [Tamra’s] department to make sure that we get everything right. There were a lot of conversations and more emails than I could remember about how the design would evolve and sort of match our universe, and that is how we sort of arrived where we are now.

The USS Enterprise meets the USS Discovery in the season one finale

New uniforms hinted at (possibly for the USS Enterprise crew)

A fan asked if the Starfleet uniforms may “evolve and turn a bit more familiar,” which prompted some tantalizing hints from the co-showrunners:

Gretchen J. Berg: Well, we are in the same timeline. This is the prime universe and we are pretty close to when TOS happens.

Aaron Harberts: Well, we bump up against the Enterprise at the end of our [season one] finale, and we know what kind of uniforms they wear. So, we will leave it at that.

USS Discovery crew show off their unforms

More about Saru in season two

Aaron Harberts imparted that there is more to be revealed about Doug Jones’ Saru, saying:

Aaron Harberts: You will learn more about Saru this season. We had to lay some pipe early in episode 2 [of season one]. What are those threat ganglia. What do they do? What do they represent in the Terran Empire and a lot of that stuff will fold back in when we are back on the air.

Saru (Doug Jones) in episode 14 of Discovery

There is still much to be seen with the Klingons

When asked about the impetus for the different look of the Klingons on Discovery, Make-up FX designer Glenn Hetrick got really into the details, and hinted about more to see for the Empire in season two:

Glenn Hetrick: The impetus lies in the earliest conversations with writers and producers and [Bryan] Fuller. We were talking about what would the difference be, if you are going to take another step. I am as much of a fan as you guys and when Neville [Page] and I stepped into that world, we knew that it cannot be something completely different. You need to honor and maintain as much of the integrity of the concept of the Klingons.

So, what we did is started dissecting through the lens of canon. What is their species? What is their DNA? It is sort of this cross between reptilian and avian. And once we struck upon that concept, as with all of our aliens, the evolutionary imperative drives our decision. Every single thing has to be for a reason. It can’t just be because it looks cool. It needs to have function and form follows that.

So, that is how it started. I am also not going to lie to you. Both Neville and I are huge [HR] Giger fans. So, that is the seasoning. So, if you look at it that way, you can see a lot of Giger-y type designs, that are sort of tertiary details on top of all the form and sub-form. There is still much to be seen and it is still an ongoing conversation. The Klingon Empire is vast and there are so many things I want to tell you, but I can’t.

Klingons in the season one finale of Discovery

A female same-sex couple may be hiding in plain sight

During the Q&A, a fan had a touching moment talking about how Discovery gave her purpose, and she expressed her appreciation for the relationship with Culber and Stamets and asked if “we will get any queer women on the show.”  In reply, Aaron Harberts implied that they have already laid the foundation to do just that:

Aaron Harbers: In terms of your question on same-sex couples on the female side, you may well be already watching one and just don’t know. As a gay man, what is really important to me about presenting gay characters is that they always lead with their competence and their character first, and not with their sexuality. So, that is true of all of our characters on our bridge. All of our characters who are so different, they lead with their professionalism and their strong character first. So, you may already have a window into a relationship and you just don’t know it.

Hugh Culber (Wilson Cruz) and Paul Stamets (Anthony Rapp) in Discovery

More WonderCon 2018

Earlier coverage:

WATCH: ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Bonus Scene Reveals A Familiar Storyline For Season Two

WonderCon18: IDW Announces ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation: Terra Incognita’ + Talk ‘Discovery’ Comics

There is more to come, so stay tuned.

Star Trek: Discovery is available exclusively in the USA on CBS All Access. It airs in Canada on the Space Channel and streams on CraveTV. It is available on Netflix everywhere else.

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

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Ok. Look. They say it’s the Prime Universe. Then they talk about how they changed the Enterprise design to bring the ship into “our universe.” (“Ours” as in Discovery’s universe.)

My head hurts.

But I’m still on board.

My head hurts and I struggle to be on board. They say ‘we’re not out to shock people. We realise our technology is different, etc but it’s not about horrifying people or gunning for change… every decision we make is character and story driven’ – So why are the Klingons a different alien species? Why if it’s a visual reboot are Vulcans not purple and have no ears? The fact is, they have created change for changes sake and instead of working hard and making a mark with good story telling, they have tried their best to be controversial. It’s insulting, not to the fans of the 5 previous series, who always get the bum deal… but insulting to their fellow writers and artists who worked so hard to create a cohesive and consistent universe for 50 years…


Well said. A whole season has passed and I’m still trying to like it. And of course, have to deal with the realization that a knock-off show with dick jokes is more trekish and compelling to watch.

Speaking of dick jokes, I love how Harberts said they had to “lay some pipe.” Honest to Gawd!

My feelings exactly.

Yeah, they’re clearly trying to have their cake and eat it too. Leveraging fan loyalty to, and familiarity with, Trek’s established fictional reality, yet feeling free to make changes to it however they like.

I’m on board as well, but the Klingon thing really bothers me still. Why reimagining the Klingons as an entirely new avian-vs-reptile-ish species?
They are the most iconic race on Trek, even more so than the Elvish Vulcans. I don’t mind some better make up, additional nostrils or an HR Giger-shaped head. But Klingons have HAIR, long warrior-like hair and facial hair. This had defined who they are for decades.

Worf’s entire outward appearance reflected his character development… his hair becoming longer and more prominent the more he was accepted as a valued member of the crew who didn’t have to hide his long Klingon hair anymore. His beard and his hair defined him as an iconic character.

Fuller should be ashamed of himself for having tampered with that piece of Trek lore. The rest… uniforms, technology, minor canon quibbles, little tweaks to Andorians or Tellarites… I’m fine with any of that but the Klingon issue is a true turn-off…

@Garth Lorca — Nah. This is the most interested in Klingons I’ve been since TOS. I love that they look truly alien, and not like some 1970s Metal Band.

I was so sick of the “Kiss Army Klingons”. We finally have real Klingons on Star Trek.

You are aware that even though the ancient Egyptians were born with hair that they went through a phase where said hair became extremely unpopular to the point of desiring a body in a state of complete depilatory which was usually accomplished via shaving. Most of the hair depicted on them were pieces.

And yet, their descendants have hair as luscious as that depicted on Worf?

The new Klingons have extra-sensory receptors, running from the top of their heads to their backs. So it would be pretty silly to have hair.


You are aware that even on Earth there is nothing inherent in hair that in and of itself impedes sensory perception or precludes it as a part of sensors or an enhancement of them? Ever hear of whiskers or speaking of hearing the hairs in the cochlea of your own auditory sensors?

Perhaps, the reason these Klingons shave their hair is indeed because they believe it enhances their sensors too well and overwhelms them with more information than their warrior philosophies can handle. Getting rid of the hair makes it all the more manageable?

Oh please Benjamin. It is the freaking Prime Timeline. Who freaking cares if they had to tweak the Enterprise a bit. It STILL looks like the Enterprise ffs. Get over yourselves with the dam nitpicking.

Excuse me? Don’t see how you pulled nitpicking out of my post. I think you have me confused with actual nitpickers. *sips tea*

If the shoe fits…

I’m a size 12. Do you have Converse?

Well Ben, you have to admit, we Star Trek fans have 49 years and 8 months over the series Discovery. So, in a nutshell Star Trek fans CAN nitpick. When Discovery reaches 50 years of popularity then you can complain

True, why should they tie their hands because of some old show from the 60’s? If Discovery looked like TOS I would never watch it.

Small loss.

Big loss, because the show wouldn’t last a season. No one wants that TOS 60’s junk.

That’s why what you call junk is on blu-ray and streaming, plus they even did that looney cartoon version of the VFX a decade back as a sop to folks who can’t deal with film grain, all because nobody wants it. Demonstrating your smarts and trek knowledge all at once, HN4, or just the limitations of same?

All the MTV Jackass movies are on blu-ray and streaming also. What’s your point again?

That’s good to know, I want to see that opening on one of those, the one with the EXCALIBUR music again, thanks.

Obviously you realize that TOS actually had substantial blu-ray sales, indicating it is still quite relevant, and that there are still some people with taste out there who are also buyers. There was a big deal when it looked like trek was going to be dropped from netflix, too. And if you don’t realize any of this, and are just being obstinante about TOS because you’re that arbitrary (AND wrongheaded), then there’s no point in engaging with you.

The bluray sales are down. The TNG box set was a failure also. I thought you would know that. Why else would you name yourself after a failing retail store.

Well they are all down because bluray in general is down across the board. The reality is most people today are just streaming stuff more. Why spend hundreds of dollars on disk that will collect dust on a shelf somewhere when you can pay $10 a month and watch the entire franchise anytime and anywhere?

That said, I don’t really disagree with you about TOS. Majority of people under 30 would never watch it. Here, we are all old lol so most have grown up with it and very biased. TM is a great site, but no its not representative of the casual audience out there. I have cousins and nephews, mostly teenagers. They watch and love the Kelvin films. For THEM, that’s Star Trek. All the other stuff looks and feels too old for them. The TOS stuff just looks like a joke to them even though thats where the Kelvin films come from.

But its enough of people over 30 and 40 to like the older stuff for sure but yes if you want to capture a new audience obviously you have to go a different way from TOS.

I don’t think it is just age. I rewatched SHE WORE A YELLOW RIBBON last year, which is from a dozen years before I was born, and while I could see how hokey parts of it seemed, it didn’t really impact how well made it was or how much I enjoyed it, except for a couple of moments. I’d liken it to how it takes the engine-being-eaten-by-a-matte-line in TOMORROW IS YESTERDAY as an equivalent ‘gee-zus’ moment, which also didn’t ruin my enjoyment. If modern audiences cannot suspend their disbelief over the look of a console, then I suppose it means they won’t get upset over a stupid characterization either, which means diminished expectation guarantees inferior delivery — if the audience doesn’t care, why should the creators?

No its not JUST age, but I mean let’s not kid ourselves, 17 year olds are not clamoring to watch shows from the 60s or the 80s. I work on a college campus, majority of kids I see are freshman, hardly any of them has ever watched much Trek to begin with but majority have at least seen some of the Kelvin films. Of course you will probably find someone who will watch anything regardless of how old it is but they aren’t the consensus.

Now that said, I’m guessing most people who starts watching Trek in ANY version on a serious level (ie, the whole series) and likes it does seem to try to give it all a chance meaning if someone starts watching TNG (which seems to be the most common on reddit) then they start sampling the other shows and films. I do think a lot of people who don’t intend to watch TOS ends up watching it that way after seeing one of the newer versions and gives it a chance. But I’m guessing if the 90 shows feels too old for you, there is less luck getting into TOS.

I’m surprised that kids don’t like 80s-era stuff … there’s a lot of lightweight stuff that should probably entertain regardless of lack of cellphones in storyline. Plus there are things like ROBOCOP and TERMINATOR that just plain work right and should be entertaining for just about anybody.

Then again, I could understand rejecting most of the 80s for all the visual horrors of the ‘shot in smoke’ ritual that hangs over most films of that time, just like most people somehow finding black&white objectionable (dif being that I love rich B&W films, but hate what I find to be visually corrupt imaging — last couple decades of crazed digital intermediates with arbitrary color changes in post being a prime example of messing with what looks good for sake of just messing with things.)

@kmart – The 80’s sucked. People just like to think it was cool.

I’m sure everyone who turns out to watch Ready Player One or likes Stranger Things disagrees with you.

@Tiger2 – I’m 39 and I have always thought that TOS and TNG was crap. You couldn’t pay me to rewatch TNG. I recently watched the whole of TOS for the first time and the majority of the episodes were pretty forgettable. No surprise the show got canceled.

DS9 was the best, and I stop watching Voy after DS9 ended. Love Kelvin and Discovery. It’s great to hear they they are bringing in new fans.


Thats fine, but everyone here has their preferences. Thats the thing, there is NO consensus on what a Trek fan likes vs hate. Yeah we hear TOS and TNG are the most popular and usually Voyager and Enterprise are the least (with DS9 kind of falling in the middle) but try putting that to the test on a board and you will get every different opinions and formulas. Kelvin films seem very mixed among the fanbase.

If you don’t like TNG or TOS, thats fine. No one is going to take you to nerd jail over it. But you should act your age a bit and just respect others feel differently than you do. Something you find boring others may really enjoy. I know, shocking but that’s why art is subjective.

But this is the REAL problem to me, I can care less what people like or don’t like, I still get to watch what I want, no one controls what I watch, so it doesn’t matter what complete strangers on a computer think about it. If you think Discovery is a complete POS, fine, I don’t care. If you think Enterprise is better than TNG, good for you. If you feel TOS is the only real Star Trek, hey no one is mad at you for it. But stop acting like your taste are superior to everyone else’s. Got news for you, they aren’t.

That said your tastes are yours. DS9 is my favorite Trek show by far as well, so we agree on that. We disagree on the others although I generally like ALL of it, including the Kelvin films (lucky me I guess ;)). Life goes on and they are all available to watch either way. Enjoy whatever you watch and leave it at that. Its not a contest. I wish people stopped making it one.

@Tiger2 – I never act my age :P

Not to bring up old battles but…

“Why spend hundreds of dollars on disk that will collect dust on a shelf somewhere when you can pay $10 a month and watch the entire franchise anytime and anywhere?”

Because after 8 months you are now just throwing money away. And when you own it you can watch it at your leisure whenever and wherever you want. And you are not subject to streaming or wi-fi issues or even more importantly the whims of licensing issues. It’s yours forever. Not to mention the higher quality currently.

And the fact that somebody can’t re-edit your disk to suit THEIR tastes.


Re: TNG box set was a failure

Non sequitur. Introducing the failure of the newer designed, and by your logic better, TNG fails to make your point that newer art is the more desired over the older art of TOS. You haven’t helped your reasoning, but undermined it.

TNG was boring.

When it comes to the art, to each his own.

Why does everyone always go to the 1960’s? Seem’s like Discovery fans forget that Star Trek was in the 80’s, and the 90’s, but they always say look, we don’t want no 60’s crap. Discovery simply doesn’t seem to fit any Star Trek, only by putting the title “Star Trek” seems to be it’s only thing.


The odd thing is, they tried that [taking STAR TREK out of the title] with ENTERPRISE and then thought better of it, later.

It’s their show, you don’t like it don’t watch it. They have tons of new fans to replace you.

Those new fans can only succeed him, not replace him. And when the originals have gone, you won’t see their ilk or caliber again.

I can live with that. Star Trek needs new fans to continue existing. Catering to old fans won’t help.

Not asking that YOU live with it. Your views are easily dismissed as inconsequential.

Whatever helps you sleep at night Mack. I’ll be in the real world enjoying modern Star Trek.

While it lasts, in whatever form that takes. Good going, hope you don’t march off a cliff following the other lemmings.

Star Trek is a cash cow. It’s never going to die.

yes our universe as in 2018 reality where SFX is a lot different than it was in the 60’s.

Put your remark in context – 2001 came out in 68, and nothing in DISCOVERY can touch that. If you say SFX in TV, then yeah, you’re right (though THE TIME TUNNEL pilot has some really good stuff in it, and that saucer crash in LiS shot outdoors is terrific as well.)

2001 was a bore. You could sum up that whole movie in a 5 minute youtube video.

Stay away from STALKER, the intelligence oozing out of that would mess with your dull lil mind.

They quickest fix they could do would be to make it an ensemble show. A bit of a misfire when the first Trek series to have a protagonist gives us one who is more boring than a bowl of cold porridge…

The second quickest change, show me some variety of Klingons who aren’t eggheads. Goatees, beards, long hair and human looking. Honor what came before and stop pushing the core fans away, because they are the ones who will be hanging around when everyone else has left for a better series to watch.

It is really weird how it would make people less upset about the Klingon changes if they simply showed a few different ones from previous shows and yet don’t do it.

That said maybe that will happen in season 2 now since so many complained about it. We have to remember when the first episode aired, the season was basically wrapped. Now they have time to make changes like a lot of shows do.

Funny how some are REALLY put off by the appearance of the STD Klingons. I don’t like it either but even if they used the TOS or TNG look and changed nothing else the show would still have been not good at all.

Agreed. Show some goatees, long hair and bushy eyebrows alongside the bald looking Klingons and I’m reconciled. They could even explain it again with some genetic experiments in the vein of ENT’s augment virus.

You guys have a really weird fetish about hair. Bald is beautiful.

As usual, HN4 doesn’t get it.

I get it. You guys have weird fantasies about Klingon hair. I don’t even want to know about what you think about Worf’s penises.

@HN4 — I don’t think hair would really work the new look. I love the hairless look — it’s so alien. I think this is a fantastic makeover.

@Curious Cadet – I really love the new look. I never liked the Kiss Army look they had in the 90’s. Aliens should like like aliens and not humans in makeup and wigs.

On Yul Brynner, maybe. On Jason Alexander, not so much. Sean Connery without his toup in 62 would not have clicked the way he did, despite his magnetism and talent. Probably true for Shat as well.

Or, different Houses of Klingon culture could be like different ethnicities/races in our human world.

“pushing the core fans away”

I don’t think they’re hanging around even now, they got so peeved over the stylistic changes in DISCO.

And as long is the show is successful and above average, I don’t really care. I guess I’m not a “core fan” because I’m not “hard-core,” I enjoy Trek in its different iterations and don’t cry too much if it changes.

Actually the core fans are still there, we just went silent, many such as myself being a 40 year fan of the series stopped talking about Discovery simply because when Trek fans try to have discussions or debates on Discovery they get kicked, banned or worse, so many simply just keep to themselves and those that are still fans of the old series

I don’t really know how true that is though? I been pretty critical of Discovery and never afraid to say what I think about it. Other than a few idiots telling me to stop talking about it here (and we see how well that went lol) I have not had any real issues with anyone over my views on it. Now I’m not a ‘hater’ I like the show and defend it about as much as I criticize it but I DO criticize it and I have never felt anyone trying to shut my opinion down or get me banned. Most just disagree and tell me why, which is why I’m here in the first place.

Rewatching DS9 really points up the strength of using an ensemble, especially when telling a story that has a lot of breadth (and in the case of DSC, is SUPPOSED to have a lot of depth.) Just last night we rewatched AR-558 and PAPER MOON from S7, and with the latter in particular, we marveled over how they basically gave the entire episode over to folks with Guest Star status, the hologram Vic and the Ferengi cadet.

I remember TNG doing this once, with Majel Barrett and David Ogden Stiers on HALF-LIFE, where they had one entire ACT of the ep to debate, but here, pretty much the whole show focused on these two characters.

And yet when DS9 had to deal with the large cast together, that usually worked terrifically as well (second ep of s2 has a fantastic comedy scene where nearly the whole group of regulars winds up in Kira’s quarters to say goodbye that had me — at first viewing — thinking, ‘in its own way this is BETTER than TOS,’ which is quite a re-eval from where I stood initially.

By way of comparison, the woman who sits up front on the bridge of both the ships in DSC s1 has less presence than Colm Meaney in FARPOINT — which is saying a lot (all of it bad), since the as-yet-unnamed O’Brien registers very wrong initially, like he only has lines to make the regulars seem smart by comparison.

Not sure what show you’re watching. I think Burnham is well written and well acted. She is a Starfleet idealist; if you find that boring …. [shrug]

Burnham is the best thing to happen to Trek.

I find Burnham as boring a character as Picard. But for vastly different reasons.

But hey… Different strokes…

**** BARF****

I really like Burnham but I can see how she is a divisive character for some.

The character Michael has me so scratching my head, here she is suppose to be Starfleet, yet she mutinied, then started a war with the Klingon’s, a war that killed hundreds of thousands, loss of worlds and ships and yet, at the end of the season she gets promoted to Commander, her record expunged and she tries another mutiny but all is forgiven. Then a Empress of the Terran Empire commands Discovery and the ship returns, still she is in command, a Terran from the Mirror Universe, in Command of *supposed special ship Discovery* and no one bats a eye? Then we have the Spore drive… where we torment a creature to use this drive, but hey that’s ok, we are cool in this. Sheesh, this is Discovery? If anything, they need to waaayyy improve their writers

Can’t wait to see the updated ‘Cage’ style uniforms Pike and crew will wear. I’m exited.

I will hang around and watch what they do to our beloved Enterprise, then I might exited too.

Can we just get on with the story telling a leave the sexuality out of it- unless it’s integral to the story it’s just mindless fluff, and NOT Star Trek of any incarnation.

Of course, James Kirk *never* displayed his sexuality. And there was never any gratuitous sexual content or titillation in the original Star Trek.

(That was sarcasm, for the tonally impaired.)

Yes hetero is the normalized orientation in TV, but in case you haven’t noticed representation is a very big and important cultural conversation happening right now, and having diversity in representation is essential whether it’s required for the story or not.

Actually it’s not essential. It’s pandering.

If seeing yourself, your race, your sexuality, your gender represented in film and television is pandering then it’s what’s been going on since the beginning of film and tv. Look at how many white males lost their mind over the Force Awakens. “Oh no, a female lead and two male minorities are making you feel like you’re not represented anymore in a 40 year old franchise where everyone was either a white dude, an alien dude, less than a handful of women and like one or two black guys! Run for the hills!” Film and TV are supposed to allow you to see yourself in these fantastic situations. Sadly, for MANY years that’s just been for one portion of the population.

” Look at how many white males lost their mind over the Force Awakens. “Oh no, a female lead and two male minorities are making you feel like you’re not represented anymore”

Ok… Looking around…. Looks like… No one.

Riiiiight, Jack D.
And American movies and TV have NEVER pandered to middle-aged white males.EXCEPT FOR THE LAST 100 YEARS

You kidding? Star Trek has always been full of sexuality. After all, it is a ‘human adventure’, and humans are typically sexual creatures.

I have NO idea what you been watching but every Star Trek show has had full on sexuality, every single one. Why would Discovery be any different.

Yes, Jolene Blalock being slathered with decon gel. Was bold television. And Trip had sex with an alien by sticking his hand into a bowl of marbles or something. Was steamy.

Every ST series had sexuality. But this one takes pushing a (not-show related) agenda to new heights. P.C. B.S!

Dude. If you don’t see how appreciating diversity has always been baked into Star Trek’s agenda, and you think treating same-sex couples with the same respect shown to straight couples is just “P.C. B.S.,” the problem isn’t with the show, it’s with you.

You mean depicting gays as normal human beings (because they are)?

You must have been really pissed when TOS depicted blacks and asians on the same professional level as whites then.

Genderism, sexual equality, diversity and freedom of choice are INTEGRAL parts of a progressive vision such as Trek. None of it is “mindless fluff”, it is the very fabric of what Star Trek was all about… progress and tolerance overcoming prejudice and biogtry…

So you’ve never watched Star Trek? Okay. Well, you’ve expressed gross views and I hope you’re summarily deleted from here.

Callisto by your argument alone, characters in shows shouldn’t mostly be straight either because it’s a conscious decision to make them straight and “unless it’s integral to the story” they should have no backstory, never be seen showing an attraction to anyone, having romantic relationships or anything. I always hated that ‘unless its integral to the story’ argument. As if we gay folks don’t show up unless we’re integral to what’s going on. We exist, just like straight people we exist. It may be that because some people don’t see openly gay people around them in their every day lives they may think it’s all some political agenda but I can assure you, we don’t just materialize out of nothing when it’s convenient for what’s going on.

Wait…so they significantly change the Enterprise, make it bigger, and expect us to accept this as prime timeline?

They can’t even show us fans respect and give us the original ship for what will surely be a two to three episode appearence?

I love Discovery but this show makes some dumb choices. Your arw either with continuity or an alternate reality where that doesn’t matter, you can’t have it both ways.

I think the changes to the Enterprise are fine but yeah it doesn’t really help their argument this is the prime universe if they are saying they had to change the ship that started the franchise to fit in with their universe. And it also ends that ridiculous argument the Enterprise looked so different from Discovery because it was ‘older’. No it was just out of date lol.

We all get what they are trying to say but it sounds the complete opposite and thats part of the problem. And probably why a lot of fans will never accept the show fully.

Their change to the Enterprise and their explanation just confirms for me that this is a visual reboot.

Of course it is. It is a reimaged trek to fit the times. They have never denied that

If they didn’t want to keep continuity with the 60s Trek then they should’ve set it after Nemesis.

Visual canon is an essential, unique aspect of Trek that sets it apart from other franchises.

Set it after a movie that failed at the box office? Not a bright idea.

Nemesis was 14 years ago. Majority of people won’t remember or care. And yeah, movies bomb, you don’t just wipe the slate clean. Thats like suggesting they shouldn’t set the next Kelvin film after Beyond since it bombed. Although maybe the next one won’t be set after that one.

The movie bombed because the TNG timeline is boring. DS9 was the only good thing to come out of it. No surprise that Discovery is the spiritual successor of DS9.

No it bombed because it was a bad film. TNG is probably the most watched Star Trek to this day still. In fact there are constant reruns of all the old shows. Where I live TNG is run multiple times a day on several channels. Every Star Trek show is on every major streaming site now: Netflix, Hulu and Amazon. They all pay through the nose to keep those shows around for a reason. In fact Discovery ONLY exists because Les Moonves said how popular those shows are on those platforms and decided a new Trek show would give their new streaming site a boost.

And even now I doubt if there is more than a few million people who is watching Discovery. I don’t know a single person who has seen it yet. At TNG’s height 20 million people watched it a week. I don’t see Discovery going seven seasons and then a set of films. I could be wrong though.

Don’t get me wrong, I think it was fine in the direction they took it, but don’t negate the old shows. Discovery only exists because how popular they still are today.

At TNG’s height there were nowhere NEAR the number of “channels” [including streaming sites] that there are today.

If we don’t have DISCO I will be very sad, because I like DISCO even with all its problems … such as the last S1 episode, [in my mind titled] “THIS is who we are!” or “Fail!”.

I love the crew, I love the actors, I love the presentation. And all these things I wasn’t so sure about beforehand.

But it seems some people made up their minds before the first episode, then confirmed their biases as they watched, and some never went back.

When I keep an open mind, I really enjoy life more.


I was only making the point Star Trek in general is still very popular but clearly TNG was the most at the time spinning off so many shows and its own films. I’m not saying anything negative about Discovery other than it wouldn’t exist today IF the other shows TODAY weren’t still as popular. Les Moonves said that himself multiple times. Even in reruns, constant reruns at that, Trek still has a sizable and active audience.

I like Discovery but at this point, sink or swim, I know there is always something else coming down the line for Trek, so I’m not that bothered. Why I don’t really care if the Kelvin films never come back because I know at some point there will be another movie again, its just a question of when or what it will be? And I like the Kelvin films. But for *me* I have never been tied to one particular product in the franchise. For me STAR TREK, is the product, period. In other words I’m not loyal to one particular show or films. Sure I have my favorites, but when they end I look for the next thing and try to enjoy it as much as the others. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. And even when I don’t I STILL watch it because I want to be persuaded to like it. And if it fails, I shrug and wait for what comes next…because something ALWAYS comes next lol.

But yes if Discovery is prematurely cancelled like Enterprise who knows how long it would be until we got another show (although I’m guessing not as long as Enterprise). So that reason alone I hope its very successful because I want a show on over no show, even if its a bit flawed.


Re: Majority of people won’t remember or care.

I’m confused. If it isn’t significant, why do you keep citing it as if it is, or should be? Just place it far enough in the future to be free of any previous production’s art.

I just don’t see how, once you put Trek in the era of superscience, which makes it indistinguishable from magic for contemporary audiences, you make the stories for such beings as relatable and/or interesting?

Disinvited, I have no idea what you’re saying in your first paragragh?

And I’m not suggesting of putting Trek in an era of ‘superscience’ simply one where canon isn’t contradicted or ignored as many feel Discovery is doing in its current time period. I think even just putting it post-TUC would be soooo much better than where it is now. That would’ve been fine IMO.

And honestly if they told us this show took place post-Voyager I don’t think many would blink since so much of the technology feels more advanced anyway, but thats part of the problem I guess. Outside of no holodecks it doesn’t feel all that different.


You advocated that DISCOVERY and all Trek productions after 2002’s NEMESIS should have been placed shortly after it, but then you said:

“Nemesis was 14 years ago. Majority of people won’t remember or care.” — Tiger2

You confuse me with your constant calls for it to be near NEMESIS’ production art sensibilities. What’s the point if none remember or care? Besides, it should be as far apart from it as any other previous Trek production to eliminate your diligent concern for whining. Unfortunately, since you only advocate moving away from past Treks forward in time, that moves it into the era of superscience.

I never advocated that. I never said ‘all’, I only said I would like to see one show or film series go back to it since we now had three pre-24th century in the last 15 years. I literally gave an example that I would be fine if the show was post TUC. Did you miss that line?

And I’m only saying where it doesn’t clash with canon as many feel Discovery does, not sure what is do difficult to get? You keep saying ‘superscience’ and yet you’re watching a show that use mushroom spores that can transport a ship to any part of the galaxy and even multiple universes in seconds lol. How is that NOT ‘superscience’? Please explain the difference? You seem bored again since you are looking to pick yet another useless fight.


Re: Did you miss that line?

No. And you don’t need me to point out that putting it after TUC carries all the same whining burden that Discovery now bears.

You have constantly advocated that the elimination of you having to witness whining is paramount which is why in the past you claimed after NEMESIS is the only possible solution. And yes, you have noted several times that the elimination of whining runs counter to some of your personal preferences, and then advocated that you’d rather the after NEMESIS option be executed over having your fancies tickled.

Yeah, people whine about it because it looks out of place to the era it suppose to fit in. And I have never said its the ONLY possible solution man lol. My god, this is why I wish there was an ignore button because either you are just really really bored and want to start a silly fight OR you seem to miss all the posts of mine that has suggested MULTIPLE options of how else Discovery could fit for months. In fact just a few days ago in THIS very thread that I wrote it would’ve been fine if they simply called it a reboot. Or say it takes place in another universe. In other words if they don’t want to set in another time period fine, then just call it a reboot or put it in a different universe and I think people would be happier. I have said those things too, which oddly you seem to avoid lol. Go find those posts, seriously. Its dated literally days before your first idiotic post to me here. And AFTER you find it, realize I never advocated only ONE solution, then I will wait for your apology. :)

Yes, I like a post-24th century show, but no that’s NOT my problem with this show specifically. And if it was, then I wouldn’t like the show at all, right? And yet I do. The fact that you seem to ignore everything else I have been saying but seem to think I’m focusing solely on only one solution shows you can’t read worth anything or very old. Maybe both, but I will say it one more time, I have suggested other ways for the show to exists IN its time period that will simply make more sense. Its just the fact they keep telling us its suppose to be around the time the Cage existed and nothing about it feels familiar to its period. Nothing. The show could be in ANY time period, that’s the problem IMO.

And you haven’t yet explained how the mushroom spore technology that can magically send them to any part of the galaxy isn’t ‘superscience’? Still waiting for an answer chief. ;)

Tiger, I’ve dealt with someone who consistently ignores what was written and constantly misinterprets posts. The best thing to do is ignore that poster. Yes, it would be easier with an ignore function here. So I see the name and skip it. I find life is just nicer that way.

Yeah you’re right Kirok, I always take the bait sadly. What gets frustrating is this guy seems to follow me around like a little puppy dog waiting to jump on anything I say. Its bizarre, especially when half the things he jumps on me for he completely misinterprets like this ridiculous discussion we’re having now. I don’t think I’ve ever responded to him first about anything. I just don’t care enough to. I wish he felt the same about mine.

Understood. There is a poster here who still chases me around even though I publicly said I’m through responding or even reading their posts. I find that odd but I’m a happier person not dealing with internet folks like that. The thing is I’m happy to converse with anyone. Until the obsession line is crossed. Then I’m done. No more feeding.

Yeah I think I know who you are referring to. ;)

I know this happens on the internet a lot and people start getting to these battles with one person all the time because someone just can’t seem to agree to disagree and move on. Yeah it gets annoying.

But you were right to go this route. I’ll try it for Disinvited from this point on as well. And I don’t respond to everything, but mostly the stuff he just clearly misinterprets even if he still disagrees with it. I defend myself for others who may be reading it mostly. And of course I never got that apology from him either now that he realized he was wrong lol. Yeah, typical sadly.


I agree that you have numerous times said that you personally can take or leave prequels per se. But you have also vociferously protested against them because you’ve claimed other fans whining about them is something that can not be avoided and besides,

“Thats just the reality because prequels will never be as exciting as sequels.” — Tiger2

Wow so you admitted you wrong. That must have taken a lot for you to say lol.

Yeah I’m not a big fan on prequels, I’m allowed to say that right? But I still watch them and give them a chance like any show. That’s why I like Enterprise now, more than I do other Trek shows (Voyager and currently Discovery). I LIKE Discovery, but it has serious canon issues with TOS and why these discussions get so heated. If the show found better ways to connect with the era it supposedly took place in, there would be a lot less of that and I would be fine it took place in this era.

But please stop making this about ME man. You can disagree but stop acting like I have some kind of agenda over it and want to see it fail or something. I like and support the show, paid my money to watch it, will be watching it next season and pretty excited about it now that Section 31 is back. But yes I have my issues with it like others. I still think its generally a decent show even with my gripes and not just for being a prequel. If you are that bothered, PLEASE ignore my posts like I do yours.


But this is why I sincerely struggle to comprehend you, which is actually all I am trying to do.

You loudly proclaim in all caps, dashes and exclamation points that you HATE prequels. You just about bring it up every time you find some fault with DISCOVERY. And yet, I am to somehow discern that in spite of a hatred so deep that it inspires you to proclaim it so passionately at nearly every opportunity, that you are honestly and fairly giving DISCOVERY a fair shake in spite of it, and enjoying it despite the fact that it should have taken place after NEMESIS?

You are a mass of conflicting impulses.

Would it be fair for me to conclude that you regard DISCOVERY as some sort of guilty pleasure infected with prequelitis that you feel you should avoid but just can’t?

OMG, get over it and move on man.


Re: And AFTER you find it, realize I never advocated only ONE solution,

So it’s your contention you did not make numerous contributions to TrekMovie’s comment chains advocating such things as the following about DISCOVERY?

“Why I HATE prequels and they were silly to think they can reboot it in prequel form. Fans are just too fickle. NOW I’m not saying people can’t complain about it, I’m just saying many were going to complain no matter what for it being so different. ” — Tiger2

“I knew this would happen. They made a ‘prequel’ but it looks nothing like TOS era. Hell it looks nothing like TNG/Voyager era. It looks really advance. More sleek but it was always going to be this way. Thats why I wanted the show post Voyager. Honestly if they said the show took place 50 years after Picard and Sisko instead of ten years before Kirk and Spock I doubt any of us would’ve blinked.” — Tiger2

“I agree Spud69 it should’ve been post TNG, but it isn’t. ” — Tiger2


Re: Visual canon is an essential, unique aspect of Trek.

Maintained by what entity and beginning when? Even in the first series, we had Warp front dome monopole antennae that appeared and disappeared with no in-narrative rhyme or reason. Ship phaser beams which didn’t consistently emanate from the exact same dome loci. Production line vacu-form home hobby models with none of the Beauty Ship’s detailing standing for supposedly identical class ships.

Then Paramount rejiggered all the filmed FX elements for “HD” long before DISCOVERY came along.

A visual reboot is just fine by me. But I don’t watch Star Trek just for the tech and starships.

Saru and tiger…. really? You think the changes made to the Enterprise were THAT significant that it doesn’t make it the Prime Timeline now? I really hope you were being sarcastic.
Tiger, fans aee accepting the so. So called “fanboy” love to whine and complain about it, but they ARE watching every episode and will continue to do so.

At first glance they don’t seem so different. Unfortunately I build models and I can tell you its radically different (hull texture, profile, and detail) to the original as much as the TOS Enterprise is radically different to the Refit and A.

Its also lot bigger, on par with the Shenzhou according to the VFX team, and the Shenzhou is bigger then the Excelsior. So Starfleet shrinks the Enterprise down for the refit and the A down only to increase its size with the B?

My point is when they change certain things, it may seem subtle and unimportant when focused on, but it tears at the thread of continuity.

I LOVE Discovery, but this is the one continuity thing that throws off its prime timeline status for me. I don’t want to watch DS9 Trials and Tribbleations, or TNG’s Relics, and have to do the mental gymnastics that these are the same as the DSC Enterprise.

My point is… to the nitpickers… Who cares?!

A lot of the fans do, even Trekkies who love the show.

Continuity is partly what makes Trek unique.

And this isn’t really nitpicking. Nitpicking is being annoyed a collar doesnt match another show or they made something traditionally square like a PADD circular. Stupid stuff. Microscopic stuff. Something you have to really look for to find a “problem”.

Wanting the Enterprise, a character as famous if not more so, then Captain Kirk, to look like its supposed to in the time its meant to, and something the DSC team has made a centerpiece of discussion is a far cry from the typical ridiculousness Trekkies have become famous for.

The Enterprise is like an actor, if you don’t like an actor’s performance or find their look distracting, that’s not nitpicking. That’s a genuine qualm to have.

No Saru. Nitpickers like you and the so called fanboys care about little details that are irrelevant. I’ve been a fan for as long as I can remember. TOS has always been my favorite Trek and characters. I have Trek memorabilia that fills a room. I have a TOS uniform. I have met and interviewed a lot of the actors. I like Trek because of the characters and the stories not because the ship is this big and it needs to be this big in every appearance of said ship. The Enterprise looked different all through the original show. The problem with you fanboys is that you are so focused on minor and insignificant details that you can’t even see what’s going on in the show or anything about the characters.

Like I said nothing else about Discovery bothers me, not even the Klingons.

The Original Enterprise though has a special place in my heart. Seeing it change, with the presumption by this show that the Enterprise always looked like it does on DSC is EXTREMELY disheartening.

If we got an explanation that the TOS Enterprise will still exist, then i’m entirely fine again. What bothers me is the idea that moving forward its being erased in favor of the new design.

The Enterprise changed 3 times in the original series and was never consistent throughout the episodes. Did that bother you as much?

You’re making a lot of assumptions about me and casting what I assume is a lot of your own anger and frustration at haters of Discovery at me. I get it because I too have been there, i’ve gotten in fights with people who won’t give the show the light of day. Its frustrating. Its like hitting your head against a wall. (I didnt see your response when I wrote my prior comment.)

But my freaking comment name is Saru. I have an Eaglemoss model of the Discovery next to my computer as I type this. I want to buy a DSC uniform from ANNOVOS. I’m not the kind’ve nitpicker you take me for.

Great you don’t have a problem with the new Enterprise, good for you. I for one love the DSC design, its one of my favorites in all of Trek behind the original. However I have a right to be upset and vocalize as much when something I love feels like its being erased. I don’t need to be treated like i’m some (words I can’t say on here) because I have particular disagreements with a show I enjoy.

As for the TOS Enterprise, you overstate inconsistency. The changes were minimal. Ask anyone. It barely changed from the Cage to WNMHGB to regular TOS. It got a smaller bridge dome, a smaller deflector, more colorful bussard collectors and the balls at the end of the nacelles but it still looked like the same ship.

The DSC Enterprise is significantly larger then the TOS ship. Go look up scale of the Shenzhou next to the TOS Enterprise and replace the Shenzhou with the TOS Enterprise. That’s not a small change. I ask you, how do you put that into the continuity of everything?

So exactly WHICH Enterprise do you want it to be?
I have no problems with minor details to fit it into a 2018 show and not look like it’s a 1966 model.

What I can only hope is this.

The DSC Enterprise is what the Enterprise looked like at launch, and i’m fine if the constitution class of ships look like that for the duration of Discovery’s run on TV.

However my hope is by the end of the series we get an easter egg like Earth Spacedock under construction, where we see the DSC Enterprise under refit and it looks like a 4k 2018 CGI version of the TOS model as it looks on display at the smithsonian. That way we get a fantastic updated version for the course of the series, and the TOS ship remains canon.

In person the original model is impressive in a way special effects until now have ever been capable of conveying.

I got to talk to Scott Schneider, who is the co-designer of the ship with Jon Eaves, on the Unofficial Discovery Fan page on Facebook and he said the reason we got the updated Enterprise wasnt because CBS wanted an update, it has nothing to do with the 60’s look, its because they didn’t want to pay royalties to the Matt Jeffries estate for the use of the design.

Is that the Scott Schneider who used to be the head of the modelshop at DreamQuest Images 20 years back? I’ve interviewed him (though I didn’t know at the time we’re both from San Jose), he’s a good guy. But that story makes me wonder, because I don’t see how they could avoid paying royalties to the MJ estate just based on these crummy changes inflicted for the DSC 1701 design. If it is true, then CBS is so cheap and meanspirited that the show should be boycotted just for this reason alone – this is worthy of how DC/Warner screwed over SUPERMAN’s creators for so long, till the press shamed them into given those guys a stipend around the time of the first Reeve movie in 78.

Kmart so what he said was they were briefed to make the DSC 75% the same as the TOS Enterprise but 25% different, which is the legal precedent of sampling. The only reason a company would specifically order that is if they don’t want to pay someone. He said he was told by various people that the Jeffries Estate either owns or gets royalties for Matt’s Original Series designs.

That’s why i’m angry. CBS are cheapskates, the CEO only cares about money, and I think the Trek community deserves to know if avoidance of royalties is the real reason.

Saru, that’s a bombshell. I’m as cynical or more than most, and I wish I could say it surprises me. Jerks.

Don’t you have a bluelight special to get to? You must be crazy to think they would reuse that crappy 60’s enterprise design.

That design’s so crappy that is has formed the basis for pretty much everything outside of DEFIANT that has followed, up till they stole from Ken Adam on DSC. Man, correcting you is tiresome, somebody else take up this mantle.
I suppose you think the Klingon battle cruiser sucks too (don’t even bother answering on that one, it won’t change my mind on you no matter what you cough up in response.)

I think the new Klingon ships look great and truly alien. The old ones look like what a human thinks that an alien spaceship should look like.


No matter how you try to slice it, new or old, both ships were conceived by humans and reflect what each of those humans think an alien ship should look like. Just as as the presumably very human you just did in preferring one over the other.

If you HONESTLY think the new design looks truly alien, and that ACTUALLY matters to you, then I heartily suggest you watch UNDER THE SKIN, a movie that is as close as you can get to the impression that the film itself was directed by an extraterrestrial. It is not for all tastes, but it gets about as far from conventional human-minded storytelling as you can want.

Personally I think you’d be bored silly by this extraordinary film, and that you’re more impressed by the window dressing of gussied up and unneccesarily-nernied art direction, but if the truly different angle is what appeals to you, UNDER THE SKIN should be of interest.

If it’s anything like The Human Centipede 2, I’ll watch it.

The TOS Enterprise just looks too outdated for 2018. I can understand why it was changed.

So these tweaks made a positive difference to you? It didn’t strike you as change for the sake of change, but somehow improved things aesthetically? (for myself, outside of the antenna dish, I can’t see doing any tweaks, because then you wouldn’t have the necessary feel of upgrade — well upgrade with 3/4 sidegrade, I really like the spinnie round nacelle caps in TOS — when you get to the refit in TMP.)

Uh A. I just said I think the changes are fine personally.

B. I don’t have a problem how it fits into the PU.

C. I was making the point I can see OTHERS who DO hate the changes can perceive what they said as not really fitting into the PU. That statement isn’t going to convince the naysayers, thats all and yes feels contradictory.

The courts have ruled that the Batmobile is a copyrightable character and that all of its artistic renditions including comic art and film while wildly varying from Kane’s initial rendition are recognizable as that same character.

I can’t see how Jeffries could have any rights that supersede that?

Unless, like Harlan Ellison, because of Desilu’s lack of due diligence to the copyright law’s particulars back then, he too was allowed to register a copyright on its art? But if that is true the Batmobile ruling would seem to NOT allow for any mere %25 change as a relief for escaping said royalties.

And it’s worth saying again Tiger that this ALL stems from them setting the show within 10 years prior to TOS. Had they done the same show 10 years after TUC none of it would be a problem. NONE.

Exactly. After TUC just would’ve worked so much better. They would also have a lot more freedom to tell any story they wanted. That said Fuller seem like he really wanted to do a Klingon war and that wouldn’t have worked well after TUC but I don’t think it worked well where it was placed either.

But yes so much of these arguments would be gone tomorrow if we didn’t have to pretend this show is suppose to be a prequel to TOS. It just doesn’t work for a lot of people in that regard.

If Fuller really had his heart set on a Klingon war they really needed to go more than 10 years prior to TOS. Maybe 70 or so. But then they would need to come up with something to replace the Sarek/Spock/Burnham connection. Which, quite frankly, wasn’t really needed at all. At least in the first season.

According to Picard the Klingon war happened sometime after first contact with them, so you’re right. In reality it was suppose to be much earlier but Enterprise already retcon that canon and then Discovery made it worse by saying there was no contact with them for a century after that.

So it would’ve made sense to put Discovery in a much earlier period but I guess they didn’t want too many comparisons to Enterprise.

That’s why I suggested 70 years. Puts it about half way between Enterprise and TOS. But what do we know? We’re just fans. :)

Well the guy everyone wishes was still with the show is the one who came up with that and he’s now gone. But it is what it is. I mean, we can complain about it for the next decade but why bother?

Saru [and I find your screen name an odd choice since you seem to dislike DISCO a lot]

Yes they can have it both ways. Watch them.

Stupid answers, trying to justify all the stupid decisions they made in pre-production before season one began.

“I don’t think we are gunning for shock value.” Yes you were. “Everything always comes out of character and story.” Season one had neither.

Whaddya mean? It was an ARC OF REDEMPTION. Burnham felt bad about accidentally killing a Klingon and then neck-pinching her new mom and then purposefully killing a Klingon and so Burnham had to get redemption by doing kung fu in a parallel universe which saved the multiverse and then giving a magic volcano bomb to this Klingon lady she barely knows which saved the quadrant. AN ARC OF REDEMPTION. #StorytellingGold

Might I suggest you keep quiet if you don’t have anything but sarcasm and trolling to offer. Grow up.

An arc for somebody like that has to really burn, so you feel it for them like you’re with them, and DSC didn’t ever deliver that for me. Back when Kersh became the boss on X-FILES, around season 6 or so, we were practically having ulcers over how real-world painful the work situation there was for Mulder & Scully. They were really being put through the ringer, and the pressure kept tightening, week in and week out, so that the actual investigations they did were almost secondary to their ongoing work environment woes.

DSC would have done better to never show the stuff on whatshername’s ship in the first two eps, except perhaps in brief flashbacks, because even with all that time spent there, you still don’t understand Burnham well enough to comprehend her rationale, let alone embrace it. Keeping that all a mystery would have at least allowed us to extend some benefit of a doubt, based on the actions we DO later see Burnham take, but that’s the sort of dramatic call that undermines a lot of storytelling.

May seem like a weird digression, but in the old RUNNING MAN movie, Arnold goes to prison for something he did that was ethically correct, but politically wrong. The movie makes a HUGE mistake in presenting this up front, so we know he is an okay guy. The public in the film have seen a differently-edited version of the event, and THAT is the version we should have first seen, so there is a contradiction between our perception of Arnold and the real deal, and only seen the unedited true footage at the climax, along with the rest of the world.

One last example: while HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER works fine as a movie, it could have mined its dramatic premise better by staying with the initial plan to have Klaus Maria Brandauer in Connery’s role, because you’d BELIEVE this guy was quite capable of launching his own first-strike on the US. By withholding the notion that Connery’s character is defecting till late in the story, you’d have had genuine suspense over not just finding RED OCTOBER, but also whether we really should be gunning to blow this guy out of the water. Different movie, I guess.


Hear, hear!

I continue to be absolutely shocked that so many “Star Trek” fans have given this series a thumbs-up. It’s had it moments, and the cast is mostly great; but on the whole, it is the definition of squandered opportunity. The world NEEDS “Star Trek” right now, ffs — and whatever this is ain’t it.

Agreed. If Aaron Harberts wasn’t a self-described ‘gay man’ would we be normalizing all this gay sexuality on Discovery? I think not. Aaron is projecting himself into the show in an attempt to normalize homosexuality. While there was sexuality in every Trek show it was done in a tasteful manner, and not written in as part of the plot. Discovery is an abomination of what the fans really want. Don’t take my word for it, or the slew of millennial’s that frequent this site with their PC BS. Read the comments from all the other sites, and watch YOUTube. Both those places will give you the gist of how the general fan base REALLY feels about it.

Being gay IS normal, Captain Klansman.

Normalizing? ummm Homophobe alert! Can we clean this place up please?

How are you even a Trek fan? You betray everything we, humanity, are supposed to be in the future by your small-minded thinking. Grow up Callisto!

Oh FFS, do I have to register on all those other sites to have my frackin opinion as a FAN who really wants Discovery to come back?

I’m a real fan, Callisto, your opinion is as valid as any other, but no more valid than mine.

PLEASE stop saying “real fans [this] and real fans [that] or fans [this] and fans [that].” To me that just makes your opinion invalid, since you are ignoring part of the fanbase.

I try and avoid all the gay discussions over this show but I am truly amazed when I read something like Captain Callistos type of thinking and feel like I just warped back to 1978.

If you don’t like the show, fine. But if you don’t like it because they have the nerve to show people who are different from you, that’s your hang up not theirs. Do everyone a favor, PLEASE stop watching. You’re an embarrassment to the fanbase.

This Callisto d-bag seems to have been agreeing with me, so I’d like to make it clear that I don’t support any of his disgusting views regarding homosexuality. I wanted MORE of that from the series, not less; Culber was killed off far too quickly.

My issues with the show are that the basic storytelling is poor and that there is an insufficient amount of the philosophy that attracted me to Trek since the early eighties. Plus, eff off with the idea that this is the prime timeline. No the hell it isn’t.

I 100% total disagree with you. Giving Discovery TWO THUMBS UP. If I was a Klingon I would give two other parts of my body up.

Shock value Fu*k in a sentence only once in a season. 2 penis Klingon. Gay kissies. Georgiou and Saru delicious. These were definitely needed to help that story along, not

““I don’t think we are gunning for shock value.” Yes you were.”

There are some moments of that…yeah. I guess what they were trying to do is winning over some folks who are into Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead by inserting some minor shockers every now and then… The Emperor’s New Fidget Spinner or L’Rell’s goodies come to my mind. But who’s to blame them? They were trying to upgrade Trek for a new generation, stiring up some controversy wouldn’t hurt.

Some shock value is fine, but yeah they probably went a bit overboard in some places. But Enterprise did the same thing as well when it was on. And of course Discovery is on a streaming site that can allow more of that stuff.

Like that poster Smike who just disappeared, he was ALWAYS going on about too much sex and violence in Trek. While I actually disagreed with a lot of what he said, I never thought Trek needed any of that stuff to be relevant either but yes it is the times we live in. So I don’t expect them to stop doing it and yes they may up it even more next season.

When you actually work on the show, then you can contradict their intentions…

Visionaries, my ass.

Yikes, did these people go to The Baghdad Bob School of Propaganda? Whenever they try to explain things they just make it worse. Just say “If you want to think of it as an alternative universe, fine. If you want to think of it as a soft reboot, fine. We’re going to keep telling new stories and we hope that you enjoy them.” Period. Not “No really, it’s the same universe that you’ve known and loved. Now sit back while we explain to you why we changed everything.”

This show is such a mess. I still watch and will watch because there is a lot of good in it, but it’s so poorly planned and pales in comparison to almost every “Prestige TV” show available these days.
The sunshine pumping by the staff and crew is so tiresome.

Appeasement. They are between a Trekkie and a trekker and trying to please both. I can’t fought then for that. But you’re right. They don’t help themselves when saying those things

Robo, that would be an amazing answer. Of course, it would tick off a lot of fans. But at least by being ambiguous about it they don’t open themselves up to questions about the show in that nature. The biggest criticism to that is that it’s a wishy washy answer. But better that than insist it’s one thing then show something on screen that suggests something else.

Thats not what they said.

It feels very much to me as if they are wheel-spinning in the hopes of the Viacom re-merger going through so they can simply establish it as a prequel to the Kelvinverse. Which would be fine with me; but I agree, this b.s. that this is set in the prime timeline is just silly, and they need not only to stop it but to never have begun it.

I don’t know why anyone listens to this rubbish. We were told that we would know Discovery’s place in canon by the end of S1, now they say we will definitely find out in S2. The redesign to the Enterprise sounds like no-one had a clue what they wanted, no-one had a vision. All the stuff about gay characterss – as a gay man, I don’t give a toss about seeing gay characters shoe-horned in left, right and centre.
Unfortunately, so much media production is immersed in this ocean of BS, and the individuals with ideas, creativity and vision forced to sink or swim in a morass of writing-rooms and endless executive producers.

@Winkie — how exactly have they shoe-horned gay characters in left, right and centre? The characters are the characters, who happen to be gay. Just like you, and everybody else you know with their respective sexuality.

That’s a fair comment; I expressed myself poorly. My point was not a criticism of the presence of gay characters, or that I necessarily had an issue with the characters themselves (although I found Stamets rather obnoxious), it’s more to do with the way the producers emphasise how great they are to have created such a diverse show in a way that seems designed to make me feel grateful that I’m being represented. As you say, the characters should be who they are – no-one needs to talk about it, least of all the producers, and I would prefer (again, just my opinion) not to see romantic relationships between crew members. Of course I know how unrealistic that it, and it simply reflects my never having found anyone to share my life or anything else with.

I should probably just keep my mouth shut on this topic, since my experiences and my views are not so common.

I apologise if this offended anyone.

Stamets is obnoxious! It’s part of why I fell in love with him as a character! “Smartest person in the room” … except when Burnham is there, per Lorca and Saru [hee!]

As to romantic relationships, they are a given in today’s TV.

I dont even know what you mean by “show their place in canon”. We know exactly. You pervert their remarks to support your narrative. Pay better attention.

Also, if you’re gay, thats an odd remark. Of course, someone wanting to be critical of including gay characters might claim to be gay to avoid appropriate backlash. In any event, no gay characters were shoe-horned in at all.

Their comments that there might be another gay couple in plain site is sort of the opposite of shoe horned in.

Think before you type.

Your suggestion that I might be pretending to be gay to avoid a backlash is inaccurate and desperately unkind. I’ve spent my entire adult life dealing with being gay, with a poor societal attitude, bullying and shame.

I already apologised for any offence I might have caused; I really don’t know what else to say, but your determined intention to just have a go appears immune to any regret I might express. Your response simply adds to my life long negative experience of being gay and attempting to express myself as a gay man.

Your overly dramatic attempt to guilt trip me for YOUR feelings is sad and silly. if you knew me, you’d know how wrong you are.

My reply was to your initial comment and well deserved. I did see your apology after. You now owe a second one, my friend. But we can call it even.

The gay folks I know who are Trek fans think how Discovery has portrayed this facet of humanity is great.

Well I don’t know you and you don’t know me so your attempt to characterize my response in your terms is irrelevant.
You appear to think “gay folks” all think with one mind, which is not true. I don’t share the opinion of your “gay folks” and if you dislike that, there’s nothing I can do about it. If you and your friends like Discovery, great, I don’t.
I’m not going to look for or respond to any reply to this message so if you feel the need to have the last word again, knock yourself out.

It has nothing to do with having the last word. Its a discussion forum. I made the point earlier that we can call it even.

The rest of your reply is moot. The issue I took exception to (as did another person) is your characterization of shoe-horning in gay characters. Which is neither fair or accurate and would be offensive to many people.

You certainly entitled to feel (or not feel as the case is) anything about whether a character is gay or not. I actually tend to agree in the general sense of “it doesnt matter”. Which is the point. To show characters where being straight or gay doesnt matter.

Discovery did a remarkable job of having a gay couple who didnt stick out as gay whatsoever. They were just a couple.

That was my point.


This your final warning. You’ve had problems being a bully, and all around hot head, off and on for the last few years. Time to clean up your behavior, or the next time you’ll be banned from commenting.


Matt I fail to see what is bullying about taking exception to a negative remark about gays on the show (especially one that is factually incorrect). As our replies continued, I think we came closer to understanding each others perspectives which is a big part of what makes discussions forums work.


As I see it, the problem isn’t the goal, of “let’s advance representation of gay characters in our show.” It’s some combination of (a) writing the characters ineptly (is there no other way to motivate Stamets than by fridging Culber?) and (b) describing the goal ineptly at the fan events chronicled here on Trekmovie. It’s conceivable that DSC’s writers and producers are universally bad at thinking on their feet and expressing themselves verbally (as contrasted with a keyboard and time for revisions).

I can relate to your last sentence; I have that affliction! I’m not great at expressing myself in person. Sometimes not in print either :^)

I do not want to get involved in the “gay characters” discussion at all but I think I will add this little tid bit. Personally, I do not care if there are gay characters on the show. They can be there or not. For me, that doesn’t make the show better or worse. They are characters and part of the show. That said, the fact that they said they went to some LGBTQ organization to get approval or input on their decision to kill a gay character suggests pandering. If it wasn’t, they would just do whatever they needed to do to the gay character just the same as they would a straight one or alien or whatever. I know this post might open me up to ridicule as some might misunderstand. But it is all I will say on the matter. Moving on now…

Its not pandering to take great care in being responsible. They were certainly under no obligation to seek advice or feedback. That they did shows a strong sense of moral obligation to being responsible to their fans. And I think that has been evident every time they talk about it.

They did so because there is a sense of “bury your gays” out there in entertainment and they wanted to tell the story they way it worked without being seen as doing a dis-service when in fact, their intent was the opposite.

I commend them for caring enough to ask.

It’s a good thing Andy Probert didn’t get a job designing with these folks, because their fluid idea of canon and respect for what went before would have flown with him about as well as neutronium balloon. If you look at the fights he had on TNG (and to a lesser degree on TMP), respect for the material is clearly a sticking point for him, but I don’t see that with these folks.

On another note, I see that the production designer for s2 is the woman who worked on most of the last half of season one, when art direction for the Mirror Universe took a serious detour into FLASH GORDON 1980. Am thinking this is NOT the person who should be walking point when dealing with TOS Enterprise art direction issues.

It may be age and cynicism (which has somehow managed to only increase since I was a pessimistic teen back in the 70s) talking, but these excerpts from the panel really don’t sound much different than most soundbytes from a politician. An occasional bit of what sounds like earnestness, backed by what I can only take as being spin. It’s easy to not believe any of it, especially now after seeing s1.

I still can’t figure out WHY they are sizing up the starships this way … scale really only matters when you’ve got a personal connection, like a spacesuited figure waving goodbye as a starship leaves dock, or if a Bird of Prey is hovering in front of a whaling ship (that was a massive cheat, scaled WAY up, I do admit.) I haven’t seen any reason for them to depart from TOS-sized ships in this so far, other than just to make it more like the Abramsverse (which is about as far from a GOOD reason as I can conceive of.)

It’s not about being a visionary.
This team of creators want to leave their personal mark.
They value their ego above respect for what has been laid down before.

More like REvisinary

Why isn’t anyone asking the panel where Nick Meyer went?

Very Good point

I imagine the questions are pre-cleared, to avoid embarrassment, given that there are plenty of questions these folks probably don’t even want to have to ‘no comment’ on.

I would weep with laughter if Meyer wound up on THE ORVILLE, along with Menosky.

Meyer doesnt deserve that. He’s a nice man.

He was actually something of a jackass the one time I interviewed him, back in Jan or Feb 1991. It was a really bad week for him, which I didn’t find out for years,

Maybe he does deserve that then! lol

Wait is there some official word Meyer has left Discovery?? People seem to state this as fact but I have seen nothing that says he is actually gone and his name did show up on all the credits. But if he is gone, it would explain why there is zero mention of a man that was probably the most famous Trek writer outside of Fuller.

Nope and its strange no one reporting on Trek seems to want to ask. I guess any of us could tweet them ourselves.

He came on to advise on Klingon federation relations I believe. And to have a name to get fans excited.

Well if the former were true, he did an awful job considering there was zero nuance to any of it.

Just to present the other side, I am completely on board and my head doesnt hurt at all.

Until the show demonstrates itself to be prime, it’s an alternative timeline to me. It certainly doesn’t tie into the original universe and fits better with the Kelvin timeline.

This is James looking at the blue sky…
“I don’t care what anyone says to the contrary, the sky is green until it demonstrates it is not.”
Seriously James, do you know how truly stupid you sound?

Ouch. Your sharp comments wound me sir. You might remember producers and actors promising that Cumberpatch was not playing Khan. There have been plenty of retcons in Trek. It’s not canonical if it ain’t on screen. I don’t think that is a stupid thing to say, do you? Id prefer it to be an alternative timeline as it would free up the show and address the contradictory visuals and events.

That was a movie and not this TV show.
More to your point, unless the show morphs into an exact copy of TOS, you will never be convinced otherwise.

That’s arrogant presumption. And you are quite wrong.

I realize that this show is a visual reboot. I like the show. I disagree with the universe and time period that the creators seem to have chosen. Until its established that this is the prime timeline on TV, I choose to take the writers comments with a pinch of salt.

Established characters like Mudd and Sarek do not match the established portrayals. I very much enjoy Discovery, but have a hard time reconciling it with Canon. It’s not just the visual discrepancies, or even technological inconsistencies such as hologram tech, but character assassination that bothers me most.

I actually don’t disagree with you much James. While I honestly take the producers at their word its in the PU, it is hard to reconcile that idea with so many changes. Of course I just tell myself it looks updated because its 2018 but then you do wonder why did they have to change the uniforms so completely from before? Why does the tech like the spore drive and walking holograms feels like it belongs in the 25th century and not the 23rd? I can completely get behind the bridge not looking like a sixties carboard set with big buttons but I’m not sure why all the ships look like nothing in this era either? Why the Klingon ships feel like they belong in a different universe as well?

But my guess is the Enterprise appearance will attempt to reconcile some of it and I’m curious to see how they do it. Or they can make it worse lol. We’ll see!

James, In some ways I agree, but Mudd was a rather sinister character in some ways. In D&D he’d be chaotic neutral, serving good if it served him, and serving evil if it served him. In “Magic to Make …” he was avenging himself on Lorca and trying to make a profit at the same time. So I don’t really see a big character violation there. To say, “But Harry Mudd never killed anyone!” ignores the fact that he was a pimp. That’s pretty bad. Who’s to say if he ever killed.

Sarek, well, there was a definite weird moment or two during “Discovery,” particularly in the last episode [I call the episode “Fail!”], wherein he’s smiling. Sarek, smiling!?

Hmmm, maybe he’s in pon farr ….

You can head canon whatever you want but its silly to make that remark. Its prime. the creators and writers and producers say so. They know better than you.

James, the (one) other person I know who watches the show, and myself, feel the exact same way you do about it. Thinking of the show existing in an alternative timeline is the only way we can get through it. You’re not alone.

Yeah I do agree it probably would’ve just been better they put it in another universe so they don’t HAVE to explain the changes. It looks different because it simply is. But I guess they were worried some of the more anal fans would reject it out of hand like some reject the Kelvin universe. And it doesn’t help when the guy who helped create that universe is also running this show.

I don’t really get it to be honest. What I mean is why NOT just call it a reboot? Or just put it in another universe? Or just set it in a different time period? ALL of that would make their lives so much easier since Discovery can clearly be all those things right now. If it was a reboot, another universe or in the 25th century no one would blink. No one. And thats frankly part of the problem, the show doesn’t have a real identity to this period. People can pretend it does but I have eyes, outside of the phasers it can be set pretty much anywhere else.

I’m with you Tiger2.

Then people wouldn’t be whining about DASH drive [‘shroom power] which I find a fascinating concept; uniforms; technology that’s “too advanced,” and so on, forgetting that flip phones predate Star Trek TOS communicators by 300 years.

Face it, folks, technology has advanced so much in so mmany ways since TOS, and TOS is partly to thank for that.

Why not allow the “imagineers”/designers of now to continue to influence future developments in science?

I’m really hoping the showrunners don’t cave too much to fan pressure. What’s Stamets going to do now? Learn warp engineering? SMDH.

Tiger, I too am forced to agree. The canonical and visual issues would have never ever been an issue had they said it was KU, or a reboot of any kind or set it in a future time period. That said, the story line still would have been lame. ;)

I do agree the story could’ve been a lot stronger in general. But that has gotten overshadowed over how much the show just doesn’t feel organic in this universe.

But yes if I had to focus on one, story vs consistency, story is what I care about the most. And I have always said if the show is good enough that other stuff will go away on its own. Clearly it wasn’t strong enough for most to get past these issues. Maybe next season though that will change.

I’ve felt the same. If the story was strong the viewer gets swept up in it and does not think about the inconsistencies with the established Trek universe. The fact that people are hung up on the nu-Klingons and other things tell me show itself was not good enough to get people away from that sort of thing. Sure, there will be a certain percentage who will still moan. But overall there would be a feeling for “goodness” for the show as opposed to the flood of criticisms there seem to be for it.

I super hate the idea of changing these dignified blue uniforms to the awful Cage-era TOS uniforms. Ugh. Are they going to take the tech backward to TOS production values as well? Jaysis.

Ffs, don’t do it!

I think only the Enterprise crew will be wearing those awful uniforms.

I assume the Cage era unis would be sufficiently updated. They absolutely have to go in that direction.

I think people are getting a little too caught up in what’s past. Passed. Mayyybe they could do a design similar to the uniforms [not the Away Mission jackets] they used in “Beyond.” Those were all right.

Whatever. If they redesign the three-departments uniforms, red, yellow and blue, maybe they should explain why they switched from Command Gold to Command Red. I don’t remember any huge controversy over that.

Oh, but wait, no interwebz back then.

In the sense that canon is the story not the visuals, they can change whatever they want. But there are limits to that in the sense its still the Star Trek sandbox you’re playing in.

For example, in the JJ films, people didnt lose their minds over the uniforms looking different from TOS. We accept they are the same but designed using modern technology and a better on screen look. But they’re the same uniforms.

We accept that Quinto and Nimoy dont look the same but its the same character and they DO look the same in canon. And they went out of their way to find an actor that resembled the original.

So my point is, they cant ignore the Cage uniforms. The same way they couldnt have the Enterprise show up and look wildly different (remember how antsy people got when they saw the outline of the Defiant on screen and it looked different).

We know they designed, at least images or even a prototype of the TOS style uniforms for Discovery and opted to go with new ones. So I think its a change they always intended to make.

Its very possible they explain it simply as newer ships are changing over and we never get to the point where Discovery changes over. Maybe its a thing where ships dont alter unis until full refurbed. Who knows.

But they do have to go with the cage unis and I expect them to be updated sufficiently to look cool on screen.

To be perfectly blunt, it’s a simple fact that their statements on the topic of whether it’s Prime timeline are utterly mutually-exclusive. If they’ve not only changed the specific details of the shape of the Enterprise, but also significantly increased the size of the ship, it’s definitely not at all the same ship; if they have devices that were not invented for another century, it’s not the same technology. I’m perfectly willing to accept it as a direct, unrebooted *narrative* prequel if they don’t do anything that contradicts the stories that follow in TOS, et al., but if they’ve changed that much visually & technologically it *is* a different universe. There’s nothing that absurd in that in Star Trek canon; if the Mirror Universe(s) can manage to coincidentally have the same people in it despite the history being different, the idea of a parallel timeline where the people and the history are the same, despite more advanced technology, is entirely believable. Just don’t insult people’s intelligence.

The majority of us don’t agree with you.

If that’s true (and I suspect there’s a bit of an echo-chamber effect at play here), then that’s genuinely concerning to me… Such a position is downright Orwellian. Two plus two doesn’t equal five; and a five or six hundred metre long starship with 35-40 decks isn’t the same vessel as an approximately three hundred metre long one with 20ish decks. That’s not even a matter of opinion; it’s a simple, incontrovertible fact.

I’ve been watching Star Trek since I was a kid. I couldn’t care less about that nitpicking. BTW didn’t Star Trek 5 show that the Enterprise had over 70 decks? LOL.

I gather that film is largely dismissed as non-canon, given all the errors therein.

It’s canon. You can’t change that.

Yup. People tend to remember older works more fondly and forgive the errors. Of course, it helps when there is a genuine affection for that work or its of good quality.

But we have people arguing about how good Enterprise was. Time heals all wounds.

Every incarnation of Trek has had inconsistencies. Even from season to season. People need to relax.

Wait! I thought the Enterprise had, like, 98 decks, as per STV:TFF.

@HN4 – Don’t presume to speak for other fans. You can’t speak for a “majority of us” anymore than David Harrison can. (BTW, he didn’t. He spoke about his own tastes.) Get over yourself.

Sorry but we are the majority now. Discovery Rocks !


Just look at this thread, the HN4 is just polluting all over. Guess it’s just his way.

I don’t remember anyone saying STTMP was another timeline because the interior sets of the Enterprise didn’t fit the exteriors. I don’t remember anyone saying half the Enterprise-D exterior shots didn’t belong to the prime timeline because the from windows are different from the original model.

Let’s face it: Star Trek is FICTION. Creators have leeway in making it inconsistent with itself from time to time for the sake of art, and already used that many times before. Beginning with Gene Roddenberry, who sanctioned the reinvention of the Klingons for STTMP. Get over it.

The variation in the Enterprise-D was subtle, not a profound redesign; and small errors in scaling unavoidably *have* to be dismissed via suspension of disbelief, or else the only other explanation is that the Enterprise was a TARDIS.

I don’t quibble over small changes, or even large changes that are explained; until DSC it was canon that the Klingons had almost always looked like they did in TMP, except for the slightly over a century where they looked more human as seen in TOS, and that was eventually explained in ENT as being due to a retrovirus, now there’s new ones that seem to have come out of nowhere.

Other changes are unavoidable – e.g. two different Saaviks because Kirstie Alley refused to return to the role – but to claim the people making DSC aren’t changing a lot of things quite profoundly just for the sake of changing them, seemingly out of artistic vanity & feeling the need to “mark their creative territory” on the property, is simply disingenuous.

In short; I already am “over it” in the same way that I can watch the JJ Abrams movies & accept Chris Pine as being just as much Kirk as William Shatner was, but a definitely *different* Kirk (same goes for James Cawley, Brian Gross, and Vic Mignogna in ST:NV/P2 & ST:C).

@David Alexander Harrison — I’m waiting for black Kirk and maybe even female Kirk. Trek has been around almost long enough to go the Shakespeare route. We’ve had enough of the original formula that I’d be cool exploring these roles outside of the confines of 1960s network casting mandates.

Just imagine the fanboy trauma! Alas!

So long as they’re not just done as a lazy gimmick or to push some overbearing self-righteous patronising political agenda, a black Kirk is fine, a female Kirk is fine – a black, female Kirk is fine – but to try to claim that any of them were literally the exact same “person” as the original version of the character as played by William Shatner, not alternate versions existing in alternate continuities, would be ridiculous (& surely kinda defeat the object of changing the gender and/or race of the character in the first place).

Salvador, I think part of that was because the “timeline” concept was not yet popular in movies and TV; the Enterprise had been re-designed in spacedock per canon, and so on. Also the large numbers of fans and the internet were yet to come.

I remember when Star Trek wasn’t cool, and when we fans ran into each other in “ordinary society” it was cause for celebration!

Next same sex couple: Detmer and Owosekun or Airiam?

Wasnt it Detmer who was making out with a guy in the Disco episode?

Yeah, she’s a hottie. In the same party scene you can see two women dancing together in the background.

Pan romantic or bi-sexual?

She could be bi but I figured they wouldnt go that route if they were telling a story of gay characters. But you never know. Maybe we’ll see her wake up with a woman and a man in the same bed. Threeway seemed to work for Kirk in the film (even though it was stupid and played for laughs)

First, they didn’t NEED to change the Enterprise. The Enterprise is what is it. NO change needed. Second…ENOUGH with the same sex couple nonsense. It is not necessary. Stop pandering.
Poor Star Trek.

Why is this guy still posting here? Look, if you want to hold a backwards homophobic opinion, thats your business. Please go away.

And yes, now you’ll come back with whining about SJW BS blah blah blah

I actually agree with Jack D. Another same-sex couple is really overdoing it, especially if it has nothing to add to the narrative, like season 1’s Stamets/Culber storyline. There was no real point to it, no payoff to the storyline. With the inter-species relationships like Worf/Dax or Paris/Torres or Trip/T’Pol, this actually feels like a step back, not forward. I’d love to see more of those, if we really have to. How about a love interest for Saru, (who is still basically the only alien crewmember of the main cast, which I also find quite conservative – even Enterprise had T’Pol and Phlox)?

I wouldnt agree with Jack D when you consider his other homophobic remarks here especially when he refers to it as “same sex couple nonsense”.

Its funny, Detmer was kissing a guy in the background of a scene and I didnt see too much outrage over it. But answering a question in a really general way creates this rage.

Its a sad commentary on the species that such hate still exists.

This is the prime universe (hate that phrase) but you’re going to change everything, make it unrecognizable, and have gay people around every corner. Got it. I think I’ll still to the old Trek.

If gay people bother you, please go away.

It’s 2018 and we’re around every corner right now, we’ll be around in the future. The irony that some of you consider yourself Trek fans but can’t even live up to the ideals that Gene put forth… I’ll never understand it. I expected some Star Wars fans to respond to diversity in the way they did but Trek “fans” …so sad.

Having gay people around every corner? You must be afraid every time you look in a mirror then.

I’m just calling Discovery Prime-A and moving on with my life. If the showrunners say differently, then that’s their prerogative. There’s a lot I’m willing to forgive, but even I have limits. So, Prime-A. Events may be the same, but the look-and-feel is different.

Exactly, JonBuck.

Its not really a “prerogative” thing. Its the difference between fact and fiction. Their statements are fact. Yours are fiction.

But in the big picture, people can use whatever head canon they need to if it helps them enjoy the show.

“Season one] was an interesting season because it was set against the backdrop of war. ”

The war they say was a huge thing felt very much like a TNG B story the way this group handled it. It was ignored for 2/3 of the season. I wouldn’t call that a “backdrop”. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that nothing this group says should be taken seriously.

You must have watched a different series. Even when they were in the Mirror Universe, the focus was getting back to win the war. The war was always there.

They clearly call it a “backdrop” not the chief storyline. And that description was very accurate.

Im not sure why you’d imply they are liars. I think that’s very unfair.