‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Showrunner Promises Season 2 Character Exploration And Tying Up Canon Loose Ends

This morning at Vulture Fest in New York City there was a Star Trek: Discovery panel titled “The Future is Definitely Female,” featuring co-showrunner Gretchen J. Berg along with actresses Sonequa Martin-Green, Michelle Yeoh, Mary Chieffo and Mary Wiseman. TrekMovie was there and we will have a full report on the panel tomorrow, but today start with some of Berg’s comments about the second season, canon and future of the show.

Gretchen J. Berg, Michelle Yeoh, Sonequa Martin-Green, Mary Wiseman and Mary Chieffo at Vulture Festival 2018

Season 2 clues in season 1 finale + more character devlopment

Executive producer and co-showrunner Gretchen J. Berg didn’t want to give any spoilers for Discovery’s second season, currently in production, but hinted about the direction of the show:

I don’t want to spoil, but I think there are clues. It takes too many months to figure out how to do this. Their beautiful performances are crafted, then they are in post, so I am not going to tell you everything right now. We leave clues. Watch the final episode at the end of the [first] season as to where we are going.

I can promise you that the characters that you fall in love with, you are going to get to know them better. We get much deeper into character exploration this year and we will meet some new folks. We love our group and you are going to learn more about them.

Discovery‘s loose ends will be tied up into canon

When discussing the setting of Star Trek: Discovery,  Gretchen J. Berg reiterated how important it is for the creators to fit the show into Trek’s established canon:

I love the box that we are in, because it can be so overwhelming when you look at the entire universe of Star Trek … but we were able to focus on somewhere on the timeline and we know that this happened before and this happened after. They say boundaries and restrictions can be good and for us it was good. It also gave us an opportunity to lay in some easter eggs and we feel very, very, very strongly about making sure that we fit into canon, making sure that there are not any loose ends that may be the story that is being told right now, but we are going to fit into that timeline. A lot of consideration has been put into it.

The co-showrunner also acknowledged that the designs on the show have to work with a modern audience:

As far as shooting a show starting in 2017, we have to also realize we have caught up with The Original Series, like everyone talks about iPads and PADDS and stuff like that. We just have to make sure that it makes sense. We have our art director and prop designer and everyone who is madly in love with our show and also all the shows, and so they are paying attention to that.

Gretchen J. Berg, Michelle Yeoh, Sonequa Martin-Green, Mary Wiseman and Mary Chieffo at the Star Trek: Discovery panel at Vulture Festival 2018

Promises even more diversity in Discovery

One of the most touted things about Star Trek: Discovery is the diversity of its cast of characters. Berg noted that diversity has always been part of the franchise, and promised more:

We also wanted to reflect the world we live in now because that was always been the vision of Starfleet and [Gene] Roddenberry, that everyone was represented. We know there are still people that have not been represented yet on our show and it will be our goal to make sure we get everybody in there that we can. We are aware of it and it is something we are dedicated to and it is exciting. It is our responsibility to make sure that wherever you are on this planet and whatever background you come from, you turn on the show you are going to see yourself.

Gretchen Berg shares a fun moment with Sonequa Martin-Green at Vulture Fest panel

More from Vulture Festival panel to come

Tomorrow we will have a full report on the panel with more pictures, so stay tuned.


Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The diversity is great, Trek has always been liberal and progressive. Adhering to canon makes no sense at all though, the show has deviated from it far more than even Enterprise did. Better to be an alternate timeline, universe or just say its a reboot. I still say the show looks Kelvin. Lens flares, larger ships, hell – the comics use the ST09 shuttle designs!

Maybe I should get a life! Its only a TV show – and a pretty decent one at that.

James, I completely agree with you sir. I am so happy with the diversity in Discovery, both in gender, race and sexuality. Long time overdue. I hate the ‘maybe we should get a life’ obligatory tag we have to add everytime we feel passionate about this rich 50 year tapestry that Discovery is clearly not trying to blend into. The Last Jedi managed to maintain their kitsch 70s design style while still looking sexy and modern. I maintain Discovery could have done the same, not pointlessly reinvented the wheel at every opportunity. Had it been yet another alternative universe, or an out-and-out visual reboot, I would enjoy these interviews with the producers, writers and designers… instead I just call B.S on everything they say, double-speak like politicians. The “box” they created for themselves because to their admission the Star Trek universe is “overwhelming”. I resent the production team for their self-importance. Star Wars could never be treated like this.

Martin, I respectfully disagree. The Star Wars aesthetic was entirely different from that of 1960’s television. Indeed, I might add that such 1970’s creations such as “Space: 1999” would survive virtually unchanged into the 21st Century because they were crafted specifically to look “realistic” rather than avant-garde. Thus, the contemporary (to TOS) movie, “2001: A Space Odyssey” could survive with hardly any aesthetic changes (witness the sequel, “2010”), whereas it is simply not possible to continue TOS’s design scheme. I think we have to face that fact.

“Tribbles and Tribulations” (DS9) worked well because it was an overt exercise in nostalgia.

Any series that does not move on from the TOS design sensibility would most likely fail.

Science fiction is not a museum piece, may I say.

Hat Rick,

Have pulled back from posting because my last couple of lengthy posts never showed up, and I’m through with trying to retype these things from memory for any site, trek or otherwise. so here’s hoping this one shows up.

I disagree with you rather completely.

2010 proves just how iconic the 2001 design is, because the 2010 ship Leonov is such a step backward in so many ways, plus the look of 2010, with all those smoked sets (including the recreated DISCOVERY sets) looking cheap and dated. Plus a lot of the 2010 recreations are just plain badly made, from the styrofoam space pod to the command deck console, which looks to be foamcore (has creases and dents consistent with cardboard.)

I don’t understand how you think space1999 was crafted to look realistic either; it was seriously over-art-directed — up to the point of the look falling apart when you’d go in for inserts and see something very crude and slapped together. Just the spaciousness of the Alpha interiors alone would be enough to make it less than credible to the casual viewer, making such goofs as the too empty TOS engine room seem like a modest error.

Departures on TREK including over-detailing the hulls are bad creative departures; with all due respect and admiration to John Eaves, his textures for all ship exteriors are a far cry from the ChrisCraft of spaceships that TOS put forward, and which was carried forward by Joe Jennings in P2 and TWOK.

I can understand how a modern designer would be fearful of the TOS look, but a really good designer would seek to smooth out the transition, retaining what worked and struggling to find a balance point with the departures, instead of the wholecloth reworking we see with DSC.

Well, it would be a very difficult thing to make the TOS aesthetic acceptable to modern sensibilities, I would say.

In regard to “S:1999,” etc. I stand by my comments. A Photoshop of an Eagle next to the ISS (which someone has done) shows how quasi-realistic it is. Which I think is very.

Now, you could argue that TOS in its avant-garde-like colors would really indicate the future. I believe this is speculation. Perhaps it could b so, but it is present audiences which are of concern. “Primary colors” is the name of famous book and movie, but as a noun it no longer translates well to the entertainment.

Thank you for your comments, however, and insights.

Hat Rick,

I could not agree with you more. The look of the sets on Space 1999, 2001, and also TMP (which pretty much went with the Space 1999 aesthetic), are so much more timeless than say TOS or WOK looks in Trek. They fracking hold-up and look great today still, and still look like a possible future, which does not hold with TOS or even a lot of Berman-Trek.

Thank you, and I’m glad we agree!

Agreed 100%, Hat Rick

it IS a visual reboot, Martin.

Nope, Enterprise (the series) blew the shit out of canon by completely making up a starship that had no place in Trek history. Rodenberry’s TMP has established the XCV-330 in canon (from the scene in the Enterprise’s large event room) as the first Enterprise starship, and Berman basically ordered Drexler, who initially was designing the starship (for the Enterprise series) based on the XCV-330, to start over with a completely new design…simply out of hubris with complete ignorance of what came before. Berman wanted a new Enterpise simply because he had the power to ordain it to be so.

Contrast this completely with the TOS Enterprise “update” for DSC, where Eaves has lovingly updated TOS Enterprise to be the familiar design we were expecting to see, with updates that are necessary to improve it from the 1960’s primitive scale modeling limitations and low budget constraints.

The NX-01 is to Star Trek what Jar Jar Binks is to Star Wars. It’s a “WTF moment” every time I see it. By contrast, the new DSC Enterprise is akin in SW to doing an updated Yoda in CGI instead of as a puppet — Yoda is still Yoda, but now Yoda can move and jump in realistic directions, thereby updating the Yoda experience to make it more realistic for the viewer.

I think that ship from TMP wouldn’t have worked on a TV show. Very happy they didn’t go that direction.

But just like Discovery is proving this why it’s best to avoid prequels altogether. Especially with a pretty anal fanbase. Go forward make whatever you want and not having to worry about fitting in stuff from TV show and movies that are decades old to please people but that’s just me.

Season 2 is sounding exciting though.

Yeah, they painted themselves into a corner. It’s tos, and a prequel with direct, canon-altering, events linked to one of the main tos characters.
Can’t say they chose the easiest route lol

One can think of this as a form of “extended universe,” along the lines of the comic-book segment of fiction. In truth, I think we’ve had many “extended universe” examples — think of the various Star Trek novels and stories. Literary Trek doesn’t make a particular task of unifying each and every book or writing within one overarching narrative. That would be quite impossible given the nature of contributions.

Let’s think, perhaps, about the Blish novel, “Spock Must Die!” (1970). Scotty creates a tachyon transporter beam in that one (credit: Wikipedia entry). And yet we never see anything like that in operation subsequently, at least in TOS. This is also to ignore the fates of various characters in that book (including the main ones), which are specifically non-canonical.

In fact, all of Literary Trek is non-canonical according to most sources. But the fact that it is non-canonical doesn’t mean that the stories told are to be disregarded.

I think that many fans want there to be only one storyline that is canonical primarily because there is the sense of Star Trek is more “real” that way. But Star Trek is not real. It is fiction. Even “canon” is fictional. So, if this is the case, where is the harm in canonical diversity?

These are not entirely obvious questions, nor are the answers all that obvious to me. Consistency is important, because if this were not the case, then really and truly, “The Orville” could be deemed part of the Star Trek universe — and productions could occur that result in such crossovers. Although this would please some, it would present an incongruity.

The debate is a genuine one between what should be deemed the “real” and “true” Star Trek universe, and exactly what that actually means. I think it is an interesting one, but the more important thing to me is that Star Trek continues to live long and prosper, regardless of too much concern for what is and what is not “canon.”

So Burnham joins a list populated by the likes of Sybok and Demora Sulu. The bottom line is we barely found out anything about the backstories and families of the principle TOS characters during the series or movies and she’s hardly the first sibling or child to turn up out of the blue. It’s odd that so many fans have trouble accepting the possibility that Sarek had a foster child because it hadn’t been mentioned onscreen before whilst being more than willing to accept that Bones might have had an ex wife and daughter named Joanna despite that also not being mentioned onscreen.

Well, in TNG, when Sarek was effectively going the vulcan equivalent of senile by losing control of his emotions and sending them telepathically around the Enterprise, destabilising the crew’s mental states and causing them to have fist fights… after the mind meld with Picard… his mind melded consciousness mentions Amanda and Spock and the love he has for them, but never once was his foster daughter. Kind of odd really. But then TNG was written before this new daughter of his so it makes sense outside of the timeline.

his mind melded consciousness mentions Amanda and Spock and the love he has for them, but never once was his foster daughter.
–The Recursion Kind

As has been discussed here before, Spock was his blood child. Amanda was his wife, and mother of his blood child. He may have loved Michael, but that can’t even exist in the same realm.

Does Picard also mention his love for Sybok? By that time we already knew about Sybok, so if not, why not? He was after all his blood child as well. Why didn’t he mention his love for his first wife? And what was the context of these statements?

It is not that such a thing like Michael could be done, but using such a powerful character as Sarek as being Michael’s foster parent seems a bit out there, why? I myself couldn’t see Sarek actually doing this, with him being the Federation’s Ambassador at large all over the Federation and beyond, he simply wouldn’t have the time to raise her, and while we all know that there have been hidden siblings in the past (Sybok) Sarek just doesn’t seem to fit. plus using his katra to save her life? Not sure how they came up with that one. All of Trek know that katras are not like that, where you can break off a piece and transfer it to another, that’s not how that works. I have been a fan for like 45 years, and for some reason it just doesn’t fit for me that Sarek would be her foster father. (Now bear with me all, don’t get on me, this IS MY OPINION and only that, not trying to start something, just pointing something out from my point of view)

No wonder some fans hate on ENT so hard. Why not just go with the visuals and pay attention to plot and character.

@Marja — unfortunately the plot and character didn’t offer up much of a distraction to the visuals ;-)

Cadet, that is the problem STD is facing. Plot and character are not distracting the audience from the canon issues.

Huh? I was making a point about the application of canon to Enterprise in response to someone who was claiming that Enterprise largely adhered to canon, which is simply incorrect.

I don’t understand how someone could read my post and say I was “hating” on Enterprise? My post covered decisions involved in canon application in creating a new Trek series.

You have to remember, Enterprise was suppose to be the start or prequel itself, Earth’s first launch into space so many years after first contact. Enterprise was trying to establish what Berman and others were trying to do by doing a series that predates the Federation, so in a way they didn’t break any canon but tried to create or add on to it. I think what fans are saying about Discovery is that the way the show goes on everything is totally different from what we already knew. We know that Kirk and Spock don’t go on the Enterprise together for another 10 years, we fans know that the Enterprise with Pike and Spock was already out there, and that 13 years later is when Kirk actually takes command, so fans are wondering why the uniforms are so different, why the ships of Shenzhu and Discovery are so advanced looking compared to the Constitution class starships of that time. The likes of holo communications and the mystery of the shroom drive. I do know that the Constitution class was suppose to be the first of it’s line, creating 12 ships for the 5 year missions that the Enterprise was on, so that there is where many question Discovery. If this is a prequel but set in a time period we already knew, why is there so much there that hadn’t appeared elsewhere? now like Enterprise they had something to go from scratch and tried working with that, Discovery is in a territory all fans know by heart, I think that is what is being questioned.

@Brian — Most of what you’re questioning is the visual canon continuity. It’s the same stuff that got Berman into trouble with Trials and Tribblelations, and Klingon Augments. It was unnecessary canonization of what was clearly a visual budgetary limitation of the time. The same can easily dismiss holo communications. The shroom drive is pretty much explained the same way Transwarp can be — why was it never really mentioned after TSFS? Even the uniforms to some extent can be explained the same way TMP uniforms are explained to a new fan who saw it well after the 80s films, and TOS. You say you KNOW that 12 Constitution class ships were the first of its line created for 5 year missions the Enterprise was on, yet where is that stated in canon? And how does DISC violate any canon related to that? Other than the visual disparity? As long as they’re not violating the story and characters, I’m personally less concerned with whether it looks like a TV set from a budget-challenged 1960s network sci-fi TV series.

Curious Cadet,

It is interesting to note that since Kirk threw out that 12 number early in the 1st season the fleet’s lost The Intrepid to the Space Amoeba, The Constellation to The Doomsday Machine, The Defiant to the Mirror Universe, and The Excalibur to M-5.

So at some point there may have only been 8. And there were no indications that they were replaced, or if I missed something, no indications they were replaced with the exact same class of ship.

“CHRISTOPHER: Must have taken quite a lot to build a ship like this.

KIRK: There are only twelve like it in the fleet. ” — TOMORROW IS YESTERDAY by D.C. Fontana, STAR TREK

“MUDD: But now, Captain, now I have a ship [The Enterprise] of my own as fast as any in the fleet, so how will they catch me, eh? Just think of it, laddybuck. Harry Mudd with his own crew of lovelies aboard your vessel. Think about that.” — I, MUDD by Stephen Kandel, STAR TREK

@Disinvited — for sure there are only 12 Constitution class ships in the fleet in 2266. However, that doesn’t imply the specious leaps in canon that @Brian undertakes above. Does canon tell us they were created specifically for the 5 year missions? Are those 12 really the first of their line? As you yourself point out, there are only 12 in 2265, but only 8 by the end of TOS. How many were in existence during the CAGE era, and how many have been lost? Perhaps the 12 in existence in 2266 are not all the first of their line, perhaps there were 20 at some point, with some of the later ships possessing improvements. We know for certain that the Lexington had a high backed captains chair, so what other upgrades did it posses? The Enterprise being among the fastest in the fleet doesn’t mean that non-Constitution ships aren’t just as fast, or more impressive in other ways, nor that being among the fastest isn’t part of a continual upgrade for all Constitution vessels, as well as any other ships capable of taking the speed upgrades.

Curious Cadet,

My main reason for mentioning Mudd is he was aware of Discovery. Some consider it faster than the E.

Of course, one explanation could be in I, MUDD he was aware Discovery was no longer a part of the fleet?

My idea from the beginning is that they wanted it to be in the kelvin timeline (cue the similatities and hiring Kurtzman) to surely have more freedom, but the messy copyright situation between who owns TV trek’s rights and films trek’s rights makes it so they must place it in the tos reality and retcon that instead.

“Trek has always been liberal and progressive. ”

Trek hasn’t always been liberal. It’s been thought provoking. When it was at it’s best it has had moral quandaries. This is neither liberal or conservative.

I went and it was fantastic! They had us all laughing a lot. I can’t wait for season 2. I met a great couple of fans too. One was brand new to Trek the other was disgruntled with the show but sticking to it–because what else are you going to do?

Also, got four free drinks in the “lounge.”

Show us some TOS style klingons and TMP / TNG style klingons along with the new orc like klingons. Also some D7 or K’tinga design battle cruisers along the newly designed klingon vessels would help to fix canon issues.

The Enterprise however… That’s a huge canon error which cannot be fixed.

That ugly crappy ship needed an update so badly… just kidding.

The redesign was a slap in the face. The more they talk araound it the worse it gets.

Oh give me a break. The enterprise barely looked different in discovery. and it looked a hell of a lot better than the JJ Abrams enterprise and runs circles around that suped up one that Gabe K. designed that people went apeshit over.

I agree. I loved what they did with the Enterprise. It looks closer to the movie version which is easily the better looking version IMO.

The TOS one just feels too much like the sixties. And it would feel out of place in Discovery’s universe which is very sleek and advanced.

Well Tiger the show as set in the 60’s and Discovery is out of place, now maybe they could tweak the Enterprise a little but you have to remember that the movie version (STTMP) as quoted by Captain Decker “This is a totally new and refitted Enterprise” After her 5 year mission she was refitted as were all the Constitution class ships, but still Discovery feels out of place with them, she is way to advanced for that time frame

@Brian — I’m fairly certain that the Enterprise we’ll see in DISC will look equally as advanced, so that shouldn’t be a problem in-context. Comparing the way something looks in a film produced in one era, to that made in another, with a completely different budget and available technology, isn’t really applicable here.

Well they DID change the colour/lighting scheme of the Klingon ships to the more familiar-looking (TMP-style) gunmetal grey/red highlights in the season 1 finale. Maybe that was one of those “clues” she was talking about…

As far as shooting a show starting in 2017, we have to also realize we have caught up with The Original Series, like everyone talks about iPads and PADDS and stuff like that. We just have to make sure that it makes sense. We have our art director and prop designer and everyone who is madly in love with our show and also all the shows, and so they are paying attention to that.

– That right there tells us all that they have visually rebooted the universe! And good on them!

I’m more than satisfied that the people who are involved with DSC — from the executive offices to the cast to those responsible for building the sets — take their jobs very seriously and I think it shows.

I wanted to make a comment about the sensibilities of the movie “2010,” which were alluded to above. I think “2010” was on the cusp of two different kinds of approaches to the look of the future. There was the look of the Discovery One (the original ship from “2001”), which was what I would call a “finished” future look. All the walls (bulkheads), for example, were there to conceal the inner workings of the ship. Even in the famous scene (“Daisy, Daisy….”) where the interior of HAL was exposed, there was an uber-futuristic design within the supercomputer’s cabinet, complete with glowing sliders presumably containing optronic circuitry. Discovery One was decades, perhaps centuries, beyond the real world’s International Space Station.

The Leonov, however, was more of a direct descendant of the 20th Century’s technological state. It was more of a “submarine in space,” as it were. A quick glance at its interior (as well as its exterior) reveals a more functional bias in its conception. (This is true of some of the representations of the interior of the Starship Enterprise — for example, in the movie trilogy, and particularly in ST VI.)

Likewise, it is difficult to say that the TMP Enterprise has the same aesthetic, technologically, as the ST VI Enterprise (particularly as evident in the infamous galley scene, which looked in some respects as if it could have been filmed aboard a 20th Century ship).

There are thus competing visions of the future. In the case of “2010,” there were two competing visions within the same movie. I think that “2010”‘s disparities were intentional, in that the producers probably wanted to make clear that the Western side (led by the United States) was far ahead of the USSR. (The solution to the problems faced by East and West, however, meant that these and other differences had to be cast aside near the end of the film.)

All this goes toward the idea that the visual look and outlook toward the future in and of Star Trek has never been particularly consistent. These are dynamic concepts, varying over the course of half a century. Insofar as this is concerned, the Star Wars films also demonstrate a variety of approaches, but within an in-universe rationale (e.g., the Millennium Falcon looks different from the J-Type 327, Amidala’s ship, by design because the two are created by entirely different planetary civilizations); such a rationale is apparently absent within Trek.

One can say, however, in this regard: There is in this much merit in IDIC.

Again, we know it had to get a face lift of sort. But that could have been done and still make it look like it kinda sorta maybe could fit in the era they say they are in. They made zero attempts to even invoke the TOS feel.

I was there and it was great. It really hit home for me: there is sooo much happening on this show beneath the surface, the gloss, and the fan debates about plot twists and canon. The themes especially around diversity don’t get discussed enough. I wish we would spend at least half the time trying to untangle all the messages in the season that we do debating canon issues and what plot surprises we liked or didn’t.

I agree. What they spoke about regarding the feminine tendency to nurture is what saved the Federation kind of blew me away. The implication being that perhaps the whole thing would’ve fallen apart if all these characters had been male. It really made me think.

I am pro diversity but cautious about the kind of feminism that wants equality but really touts female superiority as progressive while actually drawing that conclusion from a stereotypical view of female as nurturer. Pick one. The whole thing wouldn’t have happened if Burnham has not been a total bonehead in the pilot. They should have taken the chance to say mirror Lorca was somehow manipulating her if they wanted to play the “women are better” card. The actresses are terrific, but the idea that female nurture saved the Federation has multiple inconsistencies with what aired.

O FFS, I Chaya,
Feminism doesn’t “want” equality. Women ARE equal with men. We want OPPORTUNITY and NO HARASSMENT.

Indeed. What kind of feminism would aim to reproduce existing oppressive systems / culture but switch who is in charge? (Answer: none.)

It’s so like right-wing authoritarians to project their worldview onto everyone else. They KNOW they’re oppressing women and minorities, and so they presume that if the oppressed people were to get into power, they would in turn become the oppressed ones!

But that’s not how it works. At. All.

It’s about freedom and opportunity for EVERYONE. Including freedom from bad old systems and worldviews, such as life being some sort of zero-sum game that requires winners and losers, for one.

Not sure where this came from, fans of Discovery make it seem like this show has created diversity for the first time in Trek history. I wish I could say this is true, but it isn’t so. It seems diversity today is about skin color and that women are depicted as inferior in every tv show and movie, not so, diversity is such like what the old series did. Examples would be: In the TOS we had diversity in the 60s with the start of the cold war, we had black a black actress in a supporting role, Majel Roddenberry was casted as number 1 in the prequel to the series but NBC said they wanted that cut, saying women didn’t belong in such positions. We had a Russian actor during the cold war thing, we had a Asian actor in a role 19 years after WW2. Later in the likes of Voyager we had a woman in a strong leadership role as Captain Janeway, her character was very popular, in DS9 Strong black actor playing Captain of a space station. As to gays Star Trek was never opposed to this and I am sure Roddenberry would have embraced this as well, after all Star Trek is about diversity, we don’t need some show to ram this down our collective throats and say there is not enough diversity and Discovery will change this. Diversity begins with the Producers/writers and directors, the core group who makes this happen behind the scenes, to simply say that the women of Star Trek are what made the Federation what it is today, shouldn’t it be that all human’s being male, female, gay or straight is what made the human part of the Federation what it is today?

@Brian — you’re missing the point a bit. This is similar to the BLM issue. It’s not that all lives don’t matter, but specifically addresses a shortcoming with a particular group, and must first be acknowledged before it can be taken for granted.

Seriously? There’s no way they said that! I don’t want to sound like one of those friggin instigators popping up everywhere these days, but that’s pretty darn sexist!
Attributing character traits to genders in such a general fashion; just switching around positive and negative connotations really doesn’t change a thing. Say such a thing and you’re right back at the “unusually strong female drives” of The Cage (1965, in case anyone forgot…)

Holy hell, I’ve never seen so many people getting their pee-stained panties in such a knot over a show that’s make believe!!!

Come on, folks, of course the design aesthetic is going to be different from production crew to production crew. Good Lord! Give these designers some room to breathe. I wasn’t around in the 8s, but was there this much pissing and moaning when “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” introduced it’s bumpy-headed Klingons? Hell, people don’t get bent out of shape when the bridge changes from movie-to-movie! What’s next, faulting the actors for aging?

Don’t like it? Fine. I didn’t necessarily like VOyager or Enterprise. But I didn’t take to the message boards gnashing my teeth and sobbing to the heavens that my precious childhood is “being raped” (a phrase I ABHOR seeing in posts, btw).

Yes, precious canon is being violated in “Discovery” and of these back-door patches they introduce are just B.S. back-peddling to service (read: shut up) fans. But you know what, it’s just a fricking TV show.

Sorry if that’s all overkill and a bit off-topic, but I’ve been on these boards for many years now and have never truly let it all out until now.

Maybe Shatner was right with what he said on SNL…

I’ve no interest in these tattooed hollywood weed-heads and their faux-nu-trek for us . That narcissistic wolf-pack only wants to bring us their black lacquered vision for the future . Please give me Callister or Orville any day !

This post is satire, right?

The Nu-Series is so FUN , I can’t LAUGH anymore , VoR !

You do realize that USS Callister was a critique of toxic masculinity, gate-keeping fandom, and incel culture, right? And that The Orville is pretty left-leaning when it comes to diversity, Trek-style Universal Basic Income, recreational drug use, and atheism, right?

You’re not exactly going to escape “Hollywood weed-heads” by watching those shows.

I know what you’re saying , Eric . But the show lacks inate humor , and where we should be exploring humanity’s future , we have a trending action-oriented show instead , that has to do with Executives/Shareholders worried for their returns . But , it is a bad view for a supposed creative Show .

Discovery has lots of humor. Off the top of my head, there’s the playful banter in The Vulcan Hello, the dueling with the computer in Battle of the Binary Stars, Stamets and Tilly’s introductions and the Klingon “Shhh” in Context is for Kings, Culber’s bedside manner in The Butcher’s Knife…, “swallowing the urge to set the record straight” and Tilly’s colorful metaphor in Choose Your Pain, Salsa orders in Lethe, so much of Magic to Make the Sanest…, the interrogation in Si Vis Pacem, Captain Killy in Despite Yourself, the threat ganglia meal and Stamets vs. Stamets in Vaulting Amibition, the fortune cookies in The War Without…, and the subtext-filled Burnham, Saru, and Georgiou banter and the Orion embassy in Will You Take My Hand?.

That’s a keen mind absorbing the nuances of the show ! Well I was hoping for something less dark or violent , and a more hopeful intellectual endeavour , so I will continue on my journey , maybe take a look at Lost in Space instead .


Well said!!!

To quote MST3k: Repeat to yourself: “It’s just a show, I should really just relax.”

Not sure about vitriol leveled at TMP, but fans most definitely lost their shit when TNG came out in 1987. They were up in arms. Same as now. Like I always say – Trekkies don’t deserve Trek.

Arathorn, The 1701-D may not have been very pleasing to many when it came out in 1987. But they had the advantage of taking place some 75 years after TOS. They had a lot of wiggle room to change things up and even those who didn’t like the look understood that. STD removed much of that leeway when they opted to be 10 years before TOS.

Thank you.

And yes, there was an uproar when they introduced bumpy-headed Klingons.

I didn’t care much for Voyager until I re-watched starting at Season 4 a few months ago. Liked it, particularly Janeway — a strong female role model, yay.

I implore DISCO showrunners NOT to write just to please the fans who are so disgruntled over the new look and feel of the show.

Just write good plots, don’t over-sensationalize twists, and honor the characters you created.


“And yes, there was an uproar when they introduced bumpy-headed Klingons.”

That’s a massive overstatement. There was hardly an “uproar”. It was a little more than a raised eyebrow. But again, most just knew it was due to the larger budget. We knew the Klingons were supposed to look more alien (In fact I heard the original intent was for them to be gold skinned) but the TV budget forbid it. Also, they only appeared in a handful of episodes. From only 3 years of a TV show. When STD made their changes the look had been FIRMLY established after 38 years. As well as an episode that canonized the two looks.

This is so great. I foresee that we will have a powerful story arc that aims at the redemption of the Emperor.

This is, as they say, a “woke” series.

This means, in my mind, that — for once — an ensemble of strong and nonwhite female figures will lead the series’ plot lines for a significant period of time. And — what means this? It means that it will be a unique series for that reason and others.

Already, there have been commentaries that DSC is the most progressive ST series ever from the above point of view. There are commentaries that state the obvious fact that DSC is the most progressive from the standpoint of the depiction of “minorities” in leadership positions (with the exception, I think, of Deep Space Nine). But this is only one aspect of how this series could blaze new trails: The fact is that not all political orientations are covered via Western views of the spectrum. I think that with the prominence of new faces not usually seen in science-fiction as leaders, we will have the potential to move toward the bridging of East and West, and North and South.

The global scene is currently still chaotic. When TOS arrived on the scene, the civil rights era, as it was, was reaching towarding an apex (1968 was a critical year, for example, in American politics). But, just as TOS moved toward multiculturalism within the United States, DSC has the ability to reach toward global understanding from the standpoint of worldwide cultures.

I think of the Bajoran religion in DS9. That religion was a most radical departure from such tropes expressed in TOS (e.g., the “Son of God” comment by Kirk”). DS9, thus far, was the most “subversive” of the present mindset of popular culture. But I see from this article that we have a number of happy warriors who are moved and are moving toward certain cultural developments of which we have not yet seen.

May the Great Bird of the Galaxy bless them!

OMG I remember 1968. What a horrible year. Two assassinations of compassionate men fighting for the poor and disadvantaged. Would that the Enterprise could come back in time and fix THAT!

I see from this article that we have a number of happy warriors who are moved and are moving toward certain cultural developments of which we have not yet seen.

May the Great Bird of the Galaxy bless them!
I agree so much!

Oh, and PS Hat Rick, the “Son of God” comment was from Uhura. “Don’t you see? It’s not the sun, it’s the son of God.” Which comment makes me wince now, but there it is, contemporary to the times. [Bet NBC’s southern affiliates were happy with that].

the “Son of God” comment was from Uhura. “Don’t you see? It’s not the sun, it’s the son of God.” Which comment makes me wince now, but there it is, contemporary to the times.

@Marja — but why does that line make you wince? In context I see it as an historical observation, one which Uhura was able to discern because she alone was monitoring their broadcasts. Regardless of one’s religious affiliations, that line is strictly analysis of the situation. Without context Spock and the others assumed a pagan belief, and to their defense, they were kind of busy to get the report until the end. But the clever writers left it ambiguous enough that viewers were able to infer a religious overtone to the series where Roddenberry likely intended none.

“we realise we screwed up in season one and that fans are right, so we’ll be using season 2 to backtrack. Oh those Klingons tho, sorry, they are screwed forever”

I think the attitude of adapting the designs to modern audiences suffers from a shortage of imagination sometimes. Like, we can’t show physical buttons any more, everything has to be touchscreens, because that’s what we have now, so we know it can exist. But are touchscreens the pinnacle of technology? I’d argue not. Sure they make for much more flexible UI, but that’s at the cost of giving up the tactile perception. So perhaps by the 23rd century we’ll develop (or borrow from aliens) the tech needed for mechanical interfaces that can adapt quickly, like touchscreenys do? (Which somehow we never saw happen in TOS, but we need some retcon anyway.) And then, towards the 24th century, we switch to touchscreens again, this time with tactile effects provided by simple holoemitters, because we figure out how to make this technology combination more energy efficient, or more reliable, or something like that.

And as for the diversity, that’s awesome to hear, just please, please, please, make sure to look at the entire world, not just the US, and aim for a realistic representation of Earth’s population. And if you want to represent currently disadvantaged groups, look for those we hardly hear about.

To be entirely frank, neither tactile nor touch-screen interfaces are likely in the 24th Century. Rather, the interfaces are likely to be entirely mind-directed. That is, it is the thought that would move a starship… we already have approached that today.

Our thoughts will move the actions of physical objects, I think, much as we move our physical bodies today.

However, that kind of thing makes for poor television. Viewers want to know when someone is doing something.

A century hence, I speculate that we will have entertainment that ties rather directly into the perceptions of viewers, such that audio-visual representations are not necessary. This means an immersive experience that would make today’s VR look like child’s play on an off day.

Immersive tech means that you, as the “viewer,” are actually within the fictional construct. Thus, you do not have to “see” anything with your eyes, any more than you need to see anything when you are reading. You are actually “there,” in the experience. And so when a future Commander Data pushes buttons on a soft interface, he actually would not do so, but merely think it — and you, the audience, will know it by virtue of your own interface with the storyteller.

I think of this as obvious. But I could be wrong.

In any event, we are in A.D. 2018, not 2118. ;)

Though we probably won’t see that 2118 either way. Need I remind the Internet that in A.D. 2101 war was beginning?

To be honest, the idea of a captain in a center chair ordering people to do things is a bit antiquated, but it’s a Trek tradition, and I love it.

Agreed, and WRT your last paragraph,
South Asians
Native Americans, South and Central Americans
Just a few groups I can think of. I’m proud they have LT Owosekun, an African, and LT Bryce, and LT Rhys ….

I honestly think if they would ever build spaceships like in ST in real life, there wouldn’t be touchscreens. There is a reason why they don’t use this in airplanes for exmple. One reason is that you have to be able to identify buttons/switches/knobs on touch. Especially in an emergency touchscreens would mean death!

“And as for the diversity, that’s awesome to hear, just please, please, please, make sure to look at the entire world, not just the US, and aim for a realistic representation of Earth’s population. And if you want to represent currently disadvantaged groups, look for those we hardly hear about.”

Lookism for example is an issue that rarely gets addressed and taken seriously. But I’d rather like them to finally write good stories that also address social issues and put in more character development instead of covering up thier shitty hollow storyline and empty characters with only talking about diversity and how deep and edgy they are in interviews. What Disco lacks beside good writing are those “filler” episodes, the season is just too short and story was also rushed. For now there wasn’t anything but magic spore drive, two men kissing, sarek smiling(that actor is just bad!) and klingon boobs that we haven’t already seen.

Back when NASA was designing the Constellation program they opted NOT to use touchscreens for their controls for fear of accidents. At least, according to an article I read and when I was touring the JSC back when the program was starting.

Yes, that’s because they’re trained to be able to identify everything based on touch and position. It’s not only a problem that you can accidently hit buttons, or buttons not reacting without you noticing you would need to recheck actions with your eyes more often wich slows down the process.

Oh good lord. The fanboys won’t stop whining about a show that they dislike so much yet they will continue to watch. Good grief.

It’s Star Trek, people care about it.

That’s not caring. That is just being whiny complainers about everything.

Not true. I care about my ball club. But will complain about all the bad players they have on their roster and how they will not win until they get better. It’s called being a fan.

No. It’s called being a whiner in both cases. In this case it’s called being a fanboy.

I am reluctant to trot out the “true fan” term as such things in the eye of the beholder. But I will say you are truly missing the point of caring about something to the point of fandom if you think complaining about perceived shortcomings constitutes “whiney complaining.”

There is a huge difference between being a fan and being a fanboy.

To me I guess “fanboy” is a fan but taken to the next, some might say “extreme” level. That is not a knock, btw. Just my definition. That said, I think fans and “fanboys” are still within their rights to complain about faults and issues in the thing they have been fans of.

Yes, but it’s the fanboys are are whining and complaining about everything constantly.

That’s hyperbloe. And even though I do not buy into some of the aspects of the show “fanboys” are complaining about they do feel like legitimate complaints. Even the ones I cannot get behind. I also think it pretty easy to see who is posting just to get a rise and who is posting their actual negative (or positive) opinions.

It isn’t hyperbole. You can see the fanboys complain about EVERYTHING constantly. A fan will say when there is something they don’t like. A fanboy complains about everything.

Would “everything” include complaining about “fanboys”?

Nope. Everything meaning about the show.

Yeah. Of course it doesn’t. I would argue that “everything” includes all aspects of the show. Including “fanboys”, however.

*rolling eyes* fanboys always try to justify or deflect their whining.

It’s cliche, I know but…

Pot, meet kettle.

Again… Rolling my eyes. Fanboys always trying to justify their whining.

But… but…. but the Enterprise looks different! Life is ruined!

(never mind the the Enterprise was changed 3 times during TOS and nobody gave a $#1t, now it is the end of the world!)

Or the fact that bridge was different in every TOS Trek movie.

Or the uniforms
Personally I thank god they moved on from the TMP ones, but whatever!

I “love” these Equipment Failure guys. I think they’d like to just do the Star Trek Battle Simulator for their TV Star Trek, where they can watch starships all the time and the heck with characters.

Heh-heh. Some fans could fill out a membership card with “Complainer” “Nit picker” and “Hater of the 2017 sensibility”

I wish they would not worry so much about canon. I think it’s fine to try to be generally consistent, but let’s be real, this is also a reinvention of Star Trek, so let’s please not sweat the small stuff in terms of getting on with some great story arcs. If they need to deviate a bit, I have no issue with that.

I’m with you.

Me too. It is nice to set up and observe limits because those make it more challenging, but they’ve just opened themselves up to SO MUCH silly criticism. I have a feeling that when DISCO overshot by 9 months, they also hit a different universe.

But I was SO WRONG about DISC S1, so take that with a Lorca-sized grain of salt.

“so let’s please not sweat the small stuff in terms of getting on with some great story arcs. ”

I agree. I wish STD had not just a great story arc but just a mere OK one. That is the problem. Since the plot and characters were not that good the “small stuff” you mention is no longer all that small.

While I acknowledge that design wise, the 23rd Century look has to be updated, but I think what I would have preferred is those visual nods that say to me that this is the same universe and things that allow you to see the evolution.

Enterprise did this better by having the Spock Scanner at T’Pol’s station, the display screens taking their cues from the display screens of TOS. It was modern, yet drawing on the iconic aesthetics of the original, which allowed a little bit of lineage to be seen. Just like the displays used in the Enterprise A in the movies was showing evolution of late 23 to the LCARS of the 24th Century.

Maybe, I am viewing DSC in the wrong context, but at times why I think I have struggled with the show is that I feel it is not being as respectful to the original, yet many other fans would disagree with my assessment. Maybe I need time to accept this is how Trek is now. I also felt that many characters were plot points rather than characters, which is a drawback of serialised television, especially ones tying to emulate other shows.

I found the main character unlikable, I just could not relate to her.

Do you think DSC can get better and do you think it will end up fitting in with the other shows, or is it best to accept this as another reality.

I think like all shows we need to be patient about it. For me the right time to fully judge this show will be when it finishes its run. Respect is a tricky issue in modern times especially when adapting or redoing older properties. Now this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t put forward criticisms of the show, we definitely should, but we should also give it a chance to grow more. I have several things that I don’t like about the show, but I am willing to continue to watch with an open mind to see how and if they will be resolved.

Alphantrion, I disagree about when we can fully judge the show. Given the platform it’s on it is fully right to judge it after it’s first season. You don’t judge a movie until after all the sequels are done. You judge each on it’s own merit. The nature of the platform puts it more in common with a feature than a TV show.

Absolutely agree with both you, Captain Neill, and alphantrion. There is a heck of a lot I don’t like about the show, but I’m coming around to the realization that may be due to Me. Like you said, maybe I just have to accept this is how Trek is now. That being said though, as loyal fans, we should certainly feel free and have the right to criticize it as we see fit. Mostly, the show needs better, more compelling writing, imo. If the stories being told were so good I couldn’t wait for the next episode, my opinion of Discovery would be stellar, despite the inconsistencies in canon and sub-par sfx, again, imo. That is currently not the case, as I don’t even remotely feel compelled to re-watch any of the first season episodes. I’m not crazy about the cast either, but am hoping they grow on me. We’re only just getting our feet wet here. Here’s to hoping season two impresses.

Oh, and I’m already accepting this as taking place in another reality, despite what the showrunners say. I’m not into the phrase “mind-canon” but it just goes down a lot easier for me if I consider this to be an alternate reality from the rest. It’s just too different to me visually to make any other sense, which could have been avoided if they’d simply set it post-TUC or post-TNG.

This is the Trek we’re being offered here in the 21st century thus far, and I’m sticking with it.

To quote Brokeback Mountain, a great film, imo, “I wish I knew how to quit you (Star Trek).”

I think that criticism helps the franchise, as long as it is (at least vaguely) constructive. So I’m with you there. We can’t have Kirk/Spock/McCoy in their classical images, any more, unless they are played by CGI characters. We do have Kirk and Spock and McCoy in the Abramsverse movies, but they are roundly criticized for not being themselves in some quarters. So, you don’t win and lose — you lose and lose.

But Kirk never believed in in a no-win scenario.

Neither should we, I think.

We will move forward — onward and upward, I hope.

“Second star to the right….” — A work by Barrie, as excerpted in ST VI.

May we always be this young.

Agreed, Hat Rick!
Onward and Upward!
Ad Astra per Scientia!

As a general rule, I think most serialized seasons are less re-watchable than episodic seasons because of the effort needed to get closure on a story line.

I also wonder if stories with an optimistic view or shows with a more feel-good ending each time are generally more re-watchable than dark and gritty stories.

Look at the recent DC vs Marvel movies. Marvel is generally making feel good movies that people will probably be watching over and over, while DC is making movies where one viewing is generally enough.

Well, this could account for why “Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad” is one of my favorites; it’s kind of a stand-alone episode, although Stamets is in part of his arc for the season.

I also love “Lethe” though, and that’s very much locked into the story arc.

I’m on that same page yet again, Danpaine. In spite of what the show runners say that first half worked better for me when I just pretended it was the KU. I know there are some who will rip me for that. I don’t care. This is what the show hath wrought. I especially concur with the following… ” If the stories being told were so good I couldn’t wait for the next episode, my opinion of Discovery would be stellar, despite the inconsistencies in canon…” Truer words are rarely spoken.

There are audio cues directly from TOS, especially in Medical.

Yes, please work on accepting what is, so you can enjoy it, Capt Neill.

I, for one, still believe it was a mistake to place discovery in the tos reality instead of the kelvin one. No matter what, I can’t see how they won’t always be limited by canon. . and when they try to work around it, it’s just blatant retcons.
I didn’t have any issue with Spock having a secret sister in theory, but they went too far making her Sarek’s favorite (making him way too hypocritical) and creating a scenario that, unlike Sybok, is much harder to rationalize with canon. I fear that this will only become a big hindrance for the rightful protagonist of this series and HER story. They painted themselves into a corner.
And again, if this were in the reboot reality it would’ve been much easier to rewrite canon and add new things.

Unless they reveal this is yet another reality.

“Unless they reveal this is yet another reality.” One can hope, Jemini. 99% of my problems with the show would disappear if they did.

This would make it easier for a lot of people who may still feel the show has gone too far from canon.

Sadly I don’t think they will though.

It would kill all the canon issues I have with the show. But the weak plot and characters would remain an issue for me.

I agree with you on the AU, but unfortunately it’s impossible due to the “ownership issue” of the movieverse [Paramount] versus the TVverse [CBS] an issue I wish they would resolve!

I think they should’ve just “re-booted” series Trek, and been up front about it, but the issue of the fanbase must factor into every decision and every utterance they make, unfortunately.

I don’t think Michael is Sarek’s “favorite,” I think like many fathers he had an ego investment in “creating her in his image” which she tried very hard to live up to, as did Spock. But I think Spock may have been a bit less malleable somehow. We’ll see how this plays out over time, but it seemed, in “Lethe” at least, that Sarek tried to treat them equally [and still failed, bless his heart].

You mean that Burnham’s story suffers for the show’s devices? I dunno. I do like that she becomes [is for most of the 1st season, in fact] the exemplar of Starfleet ideals.

All sounds awesome as far as diversity is concerned. Let’s hope they have the talent to pull it off what they’re saying about the characters. There’s only 12 episodes, so I expect nothing less than an abundance of searing character insights and relevant, deep and meaningful social commentary.

It would be very good if that were the case, and I’m pulling for them all the way.

Frankly, in a recent “past life,” so to speak (career), I wrote specifically for a living, so I know how difficult it is to make a product that appeals to a significant constituency, makes sense, and doesn’t tax your sense of integrity overmuch.

Fiction is a vast field of unknowns: It is a yawning chasm of emptiness — much like some of life — into which one tries to birth a creation worth a damn.

The greatest fear of a writer is the blank page, as has well been said.

In any event, I think there are back-ups. If the producers of DSC fail, then there are plenty of would-be pretenders to the Trek throne. So, I’m not worried, and I would say: Worry not.

The season awaits, as “White Rabbit” plays in the background. Whatever happened to Jefferson Airplane, anyway? ;) Feed your head….

One caveat: I did not write fiction; I can only imagine how difficult that would have been.

”Berg noted that diversity has always been part of the franchise, and promised more”

If that includes the Discovery’s new captain, it should probably be a Hispanic, South Asian or Middle Eastern person this time. Suggestions:

Hispanic: Oscar Isaac (my first choice). Edgar Ramirez. Jimmy Smits. Salma Hayek. Andy Garcia. Nestor Carbonell. Bobby Cannavale. Esai Morales (Adama in Caprica). Pedro Pascal (Oberyn in Game of Thrones).

South Asian: Faran Tahir or Art Malik would be fantastic. Quantico just got axed, so Priyanka Chopra should be available. Hrithik Roshan would be very charismatic, but I think it would be better to keep him in reserve to play Khan in any prequels about the Eugenics Wars.

Middle Eastern: The Israeli actor Oded Fehr (remember him as the leader in “Sleeper Cell”?). There are plenty of good Iranian and Arab actors too.

I agree. Time for some Middle Eastern, Latino, or South Asian leaders to show themselves.

I am of none of these cultures or heritages, but I do take note. Other than the appearance of a famous figure in ST IV (“solar sail…”), and other than the somewhat South Asian or Latin American Khan (a villain whose ethnicity was rendered debatable by a recent movie), Trek has not very prominently featured same. Chakotay is an exception.

(That said, multiculturalism should not be a counting game.)

Oded Fehr is an excellent choice, I always thought he was an excellent actor that couldn’t really get that one role that made him a star. I also liked Nestor Carbonell (Excellent in both Lost and Bates Motel), Esai Morales and Pedro Pascal. Part of me also wants Sean Bean as the captain just to have another British guy at the helm and I still can’t believe Mr Bean hasn’t appeared in any Trek. Sean Bean can give Jason Isaacs a run for his money.

Sean Bean would be excellent. But they would have to kill him off – he himself has admitted, jokingly, that he usually winds up dead in most of his roles.

Well they did kill off Jason Isaacs so Sean Bean is a no brainer :))

Sean Bean would not be a bad choice to play Picard in a TNG reboot, assuming of course you don’t go with a French actor. Bean actually looks quite a bit like Picard-with-hair from TNG “Violations,” and of course he’s got the Yorkshire accent.

Emm … but Stewart didn’t use his Yorkshire accent.

Heheh then they could bring in Jason Isaacs

Oooh, Pedro Pascal! Except I think he’s busy doing Season 3 of “Narcos.”
Jimmy Smits is the right age to play a seasoned captain.
Hrithik Roshan is boss, but he’s really young for the role. Faran Tahir has already played a captain, so would be accepted by many.
Arab actor: one Shazad Latif.

I’m still a fan of bringing back Jason Isaacs, but he doesn’t have to start his Prime Lorca arc with commanding Discovery. Prime Lorca’s been gone for two and half years; he’ll have some catching up to do and some PTSD to get through. Could be an interesting side plot.

Have a temporary commander of Discovery. Though I like Saru for that, Number One could be interesting, portrayed by an actress from India. Madhuri Dixit, maybe, if she’s still acting.

“Hrithik Roshan is boss, but he’s really young for the role.”

Hrithik is 44.

“Arab actor: one Shazad Latif.”

He’s South Asian, not Arab.

This is NOT Star Trek

No, it is. Very much so.

Doesn’t look or feel like Star Trek to me.

Well Mark, all I can tell you is it’s the Star Trek we’re being offered at the present time. Whether you’re in or out is your choice, of course.

now if they can get a straight, nice, human male they will be diversified

I’m sure they have one. He just hasn’t come out yet.

Don’t hold your breath.

Like Pike? ;)

I chuckle when people show their sexual insecurity in the comment section.

7 shows and 13 movies full of straight dudes is apparently not enough representation.

Har, har, Spiked, I was waiting for this. Yes I was.


Looking forward to season 2!

diversity is great, but coherence is also important…

They say they’re going for the greatest diversity possible. I got coffee and donuts that bets you never, ever see a southern white male Christian (unless written us comic relief
or a bad guy) :-D

Most high-ranking officers in Starfleet could fill that role. Maybe not Southern, but do you expect a drawl? Okay, then:

McCoy had a drawl. And he was from the South — beautiful country.

Anyway, Jellico is probably the archetype of the kind of folks who populate the untold upper ranks.

And what about the original Excelsior captain from ST III?

So, yes, diversity. It includes everyone. Even white Christian guys. ;). Also, Kirk, unlike Mr. Shatner, I think, is most probably entirely from a white Christian background.

Lettuce pray….

BTW, despite the fact that Jellico did not have a Southern drawl, I think of him as having one, whether from that actor’s sundry roles or not. He has that Southern posture of absolute earnestness. I like that.

The only more Southern you can get is the sheriff from “Cool Hand Luke,” or the comic relief from “Dukes of Hazzard.” And by comparison, Trek is as cis-Hollywood as you’re gonna get.

The actor who played the Admiral on the ship the Sarcophagus destroyed while cloaked was a middle-aged white male. Hope that made you happy.

Can’t speak for his sexual orientation, though.

Regarding the South, I do agree with you, in seriousness, David, that Hollywood has under-represented the Southern United States, except in stereotype (e.g, the CBS comedies that were eliminated in the “rural purge” decades ago). So I understand, I think, that the South should be given more of its due.

In growing older, I have increasing respect for the Southern states. I believe that despite the horrific stain of slavery, the South tried to make a civilization that made sense. And that, to me, makes some sense today. I know that, as a relatively liberal person, I think that from the standpoint of people who may actually know me, this is not a popular thought-stream. But I hesitate always to condemn an entire culture.

There is the South of “Gone With the Wind,” and there is the South of modern tales told of history, which is allegedly that the Southern states were entirely horrible. I’m sorry, but I do not agree with either depiction. The South was not irredeemably horrible, at all. It was what it was.

The character of McCoy was from the South. In a sense, a discussion of this could use him as a jumping-off point. But I won’t do that here because I don’t have the time, frankly. I simply want to make this point: If you are a conservative, so-called, who wishes to make hay of the divisions within America, or if, alternatively, you are a liberal who wishes to “progress” by denigrating others, then I have no time for you. At no time do I think people of good will are to be castigated merely because of their political beliefs, and especially not when we are all trying to enjoy a good piece of entertainment.

If unity is to occur, it will always begin within our own universe — of friends and relations, and of our social contacts. We owe this to ourselves.

Southerners or Northerners — or otherwise — if any there be, the fault is not in the stars….


That Berg broad needs to be fired. Wasn’t she the one that said that you can’t mention God in the show despite the fact that God has been mentioned tons of times throughout Star Trek? Yeah idk why people think she should be the keep of canon when she doesn’t have a clue. Also for f’s sake can you people just focus on hiring whomever is best for the job instead of fulfilling a diversity quota?

I had a good idea for Discovery re: cannon. Why don’t they take an ion cannon, aim it at the show, fire, and repeat. Then we can all better spend our energies focusing on Nick Meyer’s Ceti Alpha V sitcom starring Kumail Nanjiani and Riley Keough.

Hi guys. Amazing to see the Canon controversy continues to rumble on. After hearing various stories that have emerged about the usage rights conflicts between CBS and Viacom, I have a great suspicion now that the reason the new show is not in canon with the either the previous shows or movies, is because legally it just cannot be. What was that story that was leaked (and hastily retracted)?: the Enterprise design had to be at least 25% different to staisfy the lawyers. I think this is evident in Discovery, from the redesigned Klingons right through to the upgraded classic era uniforms. It might even ultimately explain why Bryan Fuller walked during the creation stage.

And yet annoyingly the producers continue with their schtick of “Be patient, it will all fit”. Well there is a way to end all this controversy now.. To me, the show is unquestionaly in it’s own timeline, just like classic, and Kelvin universe Trek. This universe is the “25% different Universe.”

Now, I’ve decided that, I can watch it on it’s merits.

That’s how I’ve come to reckon with it too, Darrin. You’re not alone in that here.

What was that story that was leaked (and hastily retracted)?: the Enterprise design had to be at least 25% different to satisfy the lawyers.

That story was debunked. There is no legal requirement to change the show 25% to satisfy the lawyers (and what body would be tasked with making such an arbitrary determination?). Also, since CBS unequivocally owns TV Trek and everything related to it, why on Earth would DISC — a CBS TV production — be under any obligation to change the look by 25%? Paramount has zero interest in the underlying copyright to the TV series, nor any IP beyond the visuals and unique contributions made by the films. What Paramount has is a license to utilize the IP owned by CBS from which all Trek stems. While it’s true CBS would have to negotiate to use specific visual aspects of the movies, none of that applies to any of the series with respect to DISC, which is the basis for the debates raging around the Trek community.

“I can promise you that the characters that you fall in love with, you are going to get to know them better. ”

Problem… Non of the surviving characters are ones that I feel are all that intriguing. Perhaps Saru is the most interesting of the lot. Beyond that if any of them were to leave the show it would be an insignificant change.

“I love the box that we are in, because it can be so overwhelming when you look at the entire universe of Star Trek”

It seems they only love certain elements of that box. Others they ignore completely.

” and we feel very, very, very strongly about making sure that we fit into canon, making sure that there are not any loose ends that may be the story that is being told right now, but we are going to fit into that timeline. A lot of consideration has been put into it.”

Then why didn’t they put that effort in their first season? Why wait for season 2? They also said everything was going to fit by the time the first season ended. Never happened. This show’s producers have “said” a lot of things. Very few of them came to pass.

While there are components that I like, Discovery will ultimately go down as my most disliked show. So many things could have been avoided if the show runners knew what they were doing and instead of plopping it down 10 years before TOS it was post-Nemesis

@Brian — and yet, I love how this show ties into canon, and the new perspectives it’s giving us on old characters. To each his own.

And make no mistake, setting it Post Nemesis would not have eliminated most of the complaints. Hard core fans still wouldn’t have accepted hologram communication, or re-designed Klingons, or evidently “diversity” casting.

Make no mistake… Setting the show post Nemesis (or even post TUC) would have certainly eliminated every one of the production design issues (the look and feel problems), save for the Klingon redesign. The poor plot and writing issues likely would have remained, however. The “diversity” stuff would be largely ignored if the production crew would stop publicly stop patting themselves on the back for doing something most other shows have been doing for years.