‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Showrunners Drop Season 2 Hints, Talk Cementing Canon, and Spock

On Thursday in Studio City, CA, CBS held a special “For Your Consideration” event as part of their promotional campaign for Emmy voters, with a series of panels hosted by Keltie Knight of Entertainment Tonight. On hand for Star Trek: Discovery were co-showrunners Aaron Harberts and Gretchen J. Berg. We have highlights from the event and full video below.

Season 2 is about family, wink wink

The panel ended with the moderator asking the pair what they could tease for season two, and Gretchen started by hinting about who might show up:

Gretchen J. Berg: You can see clues where we ended our last episode, episode 15. That’s all set up, and we are going to be paying off all the stuff that you saw. And the people that maybe were brought to mind, you may be seeing some of those folks too.

Harberts got even more cute when he started dropping hints too:

Aaron Harberts: The show this season, the themes we are tackling is a lot about family and the family that you choose, and the family that you don’t. And as Gretchen said, we ended our finale with the USS Enterprise and the Discovery and this tableau. So, when we talk about family, you can draw your own conclusion.

Of course the season one ended with the USS Enterprise under the command of Christopher Pike showing up. Anson Mount has already been announced as playing Captain Pike, so the most obvious other person that comes to mind from the USS Enterprise is Spock, son of Sarek and foster brother to Michael Burnham, both of whom are on the USS Discovery in the final moments of season one.

When the first season wrapped, producers were indicating that Spock would not be part of the second season, but clues that he will appear are piling up. In addition to the above hints, show star Sonequa Martin-Green recently said the second season will deal with Burnham’s “family dynamic,” and added, “We all know who is on the Enterprise.” Then the production teaser released in April showed a shot of Michael Burnham going into what appears to be Spock’s quarters on the Enterprise.

Sonequa Martin-Green on board the USS Enterprise

Michael’s struggle in season 2

In past discussions, showrunners have teased how the second season’s theme will focus on science and faith. Harberts gave a bit more detail on this and how it relates to the main character for the series:

Harberts: We are also tackling this season as well, where spirituality and science might interact. For Michael Burnham, the struggle between facts and feelings and faith.

Season 2 will cement Discovery into Trek’s canon

Aaron also echoed remarks given earlier this month by Gretchen that season two will make an effort to tie Discovery into the rest of Trek, saying:

Harberts: The other thing we are really excited about in season two is, for all the Star Trek fans that have been going bonkers about “How is this possible? Micheal Burnham is the foster sister of Spock… How come they don’t know about the mycelial network in the other [Star Trek shows]?” Part of our goal for this season is to cement Discovery firmly in the timeline of Star Trek canon. And to explain to the audience how these things reconcile.

USS Enterprise meets USS Discovery in the season one finale

Discovery designers raising the bar

In talking about the finer details on the show, Gretchen Berg talked about seeing an early cut of the first episode for the second season and how the team behind the camera have been raising the bar:

Berg: Star Trek is bigger than all of us and it really does take such a huge group of people, bringing their talents and bringing their passion. We just got to see an early cut of [the first episode] of the next season. And, I am blown away. I work on the show and have been part of every conversation, every vision board, and I am blown away when I watch it. The artistry is incredible. I really feel the bar has been raised by the talented team on this show.

And they have a plan

Harberts also talked about how the show is good for binge-watching, noting that they do have things worked out ahead of time:

Harberts: Creatively the show is meant to be watched multiple times, which is why we layer it with so many things and so many reveals. We know where we are going, for the most part, before we start shooting. The fun part is to go back. You can now go look at the show and enjoy the story points you may have missed and really start to look at the craft, down the detail.

How Discovery would be a different show on a network

The talk also touched on how Star Trek: Discovery is carried on the streaming service CBS All Access, with both showrunners highlighting the advantages to them as creatives. They said it allows them more freedom, such as not having to “always look at your watch” and make sure the show fits exactly into a typical network time slot. Harberts also noted that Star Trek fans are “sophisticated” and want “to be challenged,” and All Access gave them the freedom to give Michael Burnham a season-long arc, starting off from a difficult place:

Harberts: One of the big buzzwords on network TV is likability of a character. And our character Michael Burnham commits a mutiny in the first episode. I don’t think that a lot of networks would have been game for that, but it really did allow us to tell a pretty exciting chapter for that character and a journey. And they were absolutely willing and on board to things like that.

Michael Burnham started the first season off as a mutineer

Watch the event

Here is the full event from CBS. (Special thanks to Terry Snyder for providing video)

Star Trek: Discovery is available exclusively in the USA on CBS All Access. It airs in Canada on Space 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

Here we go again. I fully expect to have an AHA moment as far as Canon goes, but we shall see.

They do have a great deal of explaining to do. Chief among things that needs explaining is why the Klingon Empire is unrecognizable from the Klingons in any of the other series.

And why Sarek has a very different attitude. And why they communicate with holograms. And why Burnahm’s mutiny was never on record. And why… Well this list is seemingly endless…

@ML31 —

1) People change
2) How do we know they didn’t, and the technology of the 1960s TV series just couldn’t afford to show it?
3) Her record was expunged
4) I’ve yet to see a problem that isn’t easily explained by more than one reasonable explanation …

1.People change. Sure. But one certainly has to admit his change would be a rather large one.

2. Because they didn’t.

3. Was it? And the record would still show there was a mutiny, wouldn’t it?

4. Most of them are convoluted unlikely fan related explanations. Not ones that can be fixed with just one line of dialog.

Most will disagree I know, but it’s quite simply a huge and unnecessary mis-step setting a new show in the TOS era. Many of us grew up on TOS (often seeing the show on a daily basis) and recognise instantly what is and isn’t true to canon.

@DPrescott — are you still talking about visual continuity, or the information conveyed in dialogue? I grew up on TOS, and haven’t had a problem reconciling any potential conflict with information presented in canon. And frankly, many of those getting the most upset don’t seem to be recalling the canon they cite correctly — which is an honest mistake since there’s a lot of fan retconing over the years just to make TOS consistent with its own internal canon. Visually, it’s a whole new direction, but I don’t consider that binding canon.

You’re obviously a fan of the new show, but it has yet to win me over.. I’m talking on screen Trek, no comics, no novels, no fan speculation.. The new show is inconsistent with the original and has attracted a lot of comment because of it. Maybe all this lip service the producers are now paying to Canon is at the behest of CBS who really want fandom to accept the show. Worrying then that they are teasing the appearance of Spock next season.. Imagine it: a Vulcan steps from the shadows. “Spock,” Burnham says. A close up. Then the roar of the audience collectively asking “Who the hell is that guy?!”

@DPrescott — I’d likewise have issues with this if Star Trek had never pandered to fan service. But, they most definitely have, over and over again, from TOS to TNG and beyond. It’s a franchise, and they all have to make sure the fans are tuning in. That’s why we had two Harry Mudd episodes in TOS (3 if you count TAS), Kahn, Bones appearing in Encounter at Farpoint, followed by Scotty in an implausible episode, Kirk in GEN, Trials and Tribbilations, Mirror Universe galore, The Q “Chronicles”, Sulu in VOY, Soong’s ancestors, Riker, Troi, endless retcon, Spock traveling back through time to witness the destruction of Vulcan, more tribbles and on and on … ALL OF IT to entice the fans to watch.

So no, I can’t really complain about it. It’s not the first time a Trek series has pulled out an old chestnut in service to the fans, nor will it be the last.

And why the uniforms are different. And why the Klingons are physically different.

Frankly, they should just be consistent with their aesthetic tinkering and give the humans brow ridges.

When TMP came out and the Klingons looked vastly different, we old people were fine with, “Wow, they had the money for more than spray tan. Cool!”
Trek is not a historical document or some religion adhering to a costly old tome.
Stop being anal retentive.

Sure. Let’s give the Klingons a 3rd eye, two extra arms and a tail. It doesn’t matter, right? They can look like whatever the show people want them to look like. Why did they slavishly adhere to the standard old Enterprise look? Why didn’t they just make it look like a Star Destroyer while they were at it? Let’s stop being anal about it.

Actually, according to Gene Roddenberry, yes, they could have done that with the Klingons. He always wanted a much more alien look to them. Look up his quotes from the time.

Gene also wanted to give Troi three breasts. Personally I go by what’s depicted on screen and not what Gene may or may not have imagined in his head.

That would have been fine — again, it would have made the Andorians look more Alien so as to make is more realistic versus the budget limitations of TOS.

@Frank Mondana — there’s really not winning this debate. I’m kinda tired of having it. It was fun at first, but seriously, these people want it to look exactly like it did in 1964, or there’s no point for them. It’s ironic really since fans have been retcon-ing explanations since the first episode to try and explain every real-world production discrepancy “in-universe”, but here they want literal spoon-feeding of the explanation in dialogue. I give up.

This what prequels do Curious Cadet. I’m not shocked by any of it and predicted it the second that first trailer came out.

That said hopefully it will be reconciled a bit in second season and I’m crossing my fingers they will.

We are in full agreement on this one. However, part of the blame goes to Harbarts and Berg, who keep bringing up how they are trying to adhere to canon — that just sets them up for ML31 and others wondering why they can’t get plywood sets and green spray-painted women every week. They should just drop that and move on and make a great Star Trek series.

Whoa whoa there BorgKlingon. First, the sets on STD I promise you are also made of plywood. All sets still are to this day. Next, I’m not saying the entire Enterprise needs to be reconstructed to be 100% EXACT to who it was in TOS. What I AM saying is that they need to make Discovery LOOK like it would actually WORK in that time frame. Make an effort to evoke the feel of the era. It needn’t be a duplicate. It IS possible to upgrade it and still make if feel like it belongs. It appears like ZERO effort was put in to make it look like it even belonged in the era they said it did. I will thank you to NOT misrepresent what I say.

“I give up.”


@Frank Mondana TRUTH

The Klingons in TMP were how they were envisioned for TOS, but the budget wouldn’t allow for it. They finally got their chance with a big film budget a decade later.

Other than Gene’s later statement – which could be considered self-serving – is there any documentation from the productions of TOS that indicates that?

And DISCOVERY is pushing the visuals further into territory they couldn’t have (boldly) gone before.

I’m down with people liking or not liking DISCO on its merits, but this “it has to look like the 60s show” thing is silly. I do not take people seriously who accept changes from before they started watching (e.g. movie Klingons) and not changes that are made now.

If it was okay to go 30 years without an explanation for movie Klingons, you can go a few seasons of DISCO until someone over-explains all of the visual inconsistencies into oblivion.

Drew… Circumstances. Circumstances mean everything. 1979 Star Trek was in a VERY different place that it was in 2017.

‘Historical documents.’ 👍 for the reference to GALAXY QUEST!

The look of the Klingons – people have to get over that, this is what happens in Trek. Are you still waiting for a retcon as to why TOS Romulans (including in Star Treks V and VI) look different in TNG or for DS9 to explain why Cardassian flashbacks don’t feature the hideous brown suit Marc Alaimo wore in The Wounded?

We can complain about how they are written all you like, but the makeup and costume issues are moot.

@Ian — thank you! The Romulans have ridges now, so the dumb fans can tell the difference between them and Vulcans without wearing name badges — “Hello, I’m a Romulan”. Or maybe their scientists experimented with the Human augment gene too? That’s a story I don’t want to see, ever.

And don’t forget how different the Trill looked when they first appeared in TNG from when they appeared in DS9. They must have experimented with the Human augment gene too? The funny thing is the real story there is far more interesting than anything they could retcon it with in-universe.

Except… When you look at a Romulan in TNG one who saw them in TOS can still recognize them as Romulans. The same cannot be said for the Klingons in STD.

The Klingons in TMP are not recognizable as Klingons from TOS.

Drew, in that case they were still recognizable as Klingons to anyone who had seen the most recent Trek incarnations over the previous 8 years. (which was nearly everyone who tuned into TNG) Over that time frame that look was cemented at THE way Klingons will look. And there was a real reason behind the change. A reason that does not apply to STD in any way shape or form.

The Klingons in TMP are not recognizable as Klingons from TOS.
–Drew Melbourne

Exactly. Why should DISC be denied the same ability to ignore the Heavy Metal Hair Band look of the Klingons of the 80s just as the 80s era Trek ignored the TOS look?

I think they have made the Klingons far more compelling looking than they’ve ever been. They’re far more than just some actor with a latex forehead appliance and a wig — and that’s the point! For the first time, I’m seeing them as a truly alien race.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think that Burnham’s mutiny was never on record? (If it has anything to do with “The Tholian Web,” well, sorry, but you’re wrong.)

It’s a fictional show that is dated and very much in need of an update. Deal with it.

I can handle a up date but this is crazy.

Exactly. Precious few are arguing in favor of a straight recreation like the fan films. But we WOULD like to see and update that kinda sorta looks like it could fit into that era. STD didn’t even try.

It’s known that there was a virus released on the Klingon homeworld that has genetically altered them. (http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Klingon_augment_virus)

Also, in an episode (“Trials and Tribble-ations”) of DS9 when the Defiant goes back in time, Worf mentions that he didn’t wish to speak of that “dark period” in their history in response to a question of why the Klingons on the Enterprise look differently than he does.

So true.

@JASV — unrecognizable how?

Let’s take a beloved character and turn him into a d-bag. The fans will love it!

that’s the one that left a bad taste in my mouth from season 1.

“Let’s take a beloved character and turn him into a d-bag. The fans will love it!”

Because he was a loveable puppy in TOS?

Kirk: “Spock, show your Dad around the ship.”

Sarek: “Nope. Not him. Someone else. ANYONE else.”

Seeing as how they do not resemble in any way either of the previous two versions I think he means unrecognizable as Klingons. We needed subtitles to tell us that is what they were from the start of the show.

The ridges, the armour, the attitude did not tell you that?

It strikes me as odd that the show’s more vocal (and vitrolic) detractors constantly bring up this idea that the Klingons are unrecognisable- and yet they are quite the opposite. This is just another example of bashing the show because it does not conform to a fans narrow view of what the franchise should be.

But go ahead, be rude, belittling and obnoxious and tell me that I’m wrong.

Nice, start name calling because someone decides to share their opinion in a calm and respectful manner. You’re definitely a Democrat.

@Luke Projecting posters’ political affiliations is uncalled for, give it a rest.

Probably right

Yeah, sure. Because disagreement cannot be anything but belittling, obnoxious and rude. When you told me I was wrong you weren’t being obnoxious, of course. Not you…

That being said… No. The armor and the attitude did NOT tell us they were Klingons. At best one could say they “reminded” us of Klingons. Cardasians reminds us of Klingons, too. But if they retained some sort of Klingon look… Then the audience would know for sure that is what they were.

You want to argue against that, great. See if you can do it without the attitude.

It’s because those other series are old.

No they don’t. The “Roddenberry Klingon Precedent” established that Klingon designs can be changed for different versions of Star Trek simply to update them and make them look more alien.

It’s only the fan-pandering nonsense of the Berman-era where they felt they needed to explain this to the fans.

OK… Then what’s to stop (apart from budget) some show deciding that humans now have tails and 3rd eyes?

Humans are real, and we know what they look like in the real world. Klingons are not real, and therefore do not REALLY look like anything.

This is a really important point that you should consider carefully.

Drew, it doesn’t matter because the world they are creating is fake. There is no rule that says humans must look like real humans. If producers wanted humans to have a 3rd eye in their fake world, they can. Using the reasoning BorgKliongon used.

Humans are real, and we know what they look like in the real world. Klingons are not real, and therefore do not REALLY look like anything.
–Drew Melbourne

Exactly right. Star Trek has always been presented as the future of our reality. Therefore, it should mirror the people and technology around us, and what we can reasonably accept as what we might expect in the future. Aliens do not exist, therefore, there is nothing binding them to what we expect for ourselves.

“Aliens do not exist, therefore, there is nothing binding them to what we expect for ourselves.”

For first time aliens, sure. And if those first time seen aliens are a work in progress then they can feel free to change them up. Look at how Ferengi changed. Not in appearance but a radical change in behavior. But for an alien that has had a certain look for nearly 40 years… Not really. Sure, you can tweak here and there. But fundamentally change nearly everything about them? Bad move. These are nu-Klingons. They shouldn’t be speaking Mark Okrand’s language either. You want to change everything? Change that too.

Yup. Right there with you. Right now, I’m just trying to enjoy it from an alternate universe/timeline aspect. Works much better for me that way.

@Numenosium — frankly I can’t wait until CGI technology is so good it’s indistinguishable from the real thing (maybe 10-15 years), and the day they re-imagine all of TOS to match the art direction of the latest incarnation of Trek, with the original dialogue and performances. Some of these fans heads will explode. It will be something to behold.

They have to be 25% different because of rights issues, is my guess.. In fact that’s how I think of this whole erm enterpise: The 25% Different Timeline.

@Darin — that theory has been debunked, and there’s no legally enforceable way to police such a edict anyway.

How so debunked? One person said he’d been instructed to make the Enterprise design 25% different due to rights issues and 24 hours later someone issues a statement saying it’s not true – who can you believe? Plus it all fits the facts; Trek as we knew it is now in a rights quagmire.. And believe me, if there’s money involved, you will find lawyers enforcing the rules.

@Darrin — so you choose to believe the one whose statement makes no sense? please tell me legally how how you prove that 25% changes have been made, and that such changes will hold up in a court of law. You won’t be able to because lawyers can’t enforce such a law.

@Curious Cadet. Your a fan we get it, but do you honestly not even sense something is not right here? Is it your mission to shut down all speculation if it is negative. we speculate because we don’t have all the facts and are trying to make sense of the situation. The chap who says it has to be different makes perfect sense. It fits the facts. It might be 25%.. someone leaked that. It might not. But the producers are so adrift from Canon, one has to wonder, is it because they have to be? It just explains the whole thing. Of course we have no conclusive proof yet, it,s just going on leaks, and just like TNG it will be years before the truth of this birth trauma comes out. But it just fits.

@DPrescott — I see modern producers who don’t want brightly colored, dating looking art direction. What the fans see is a conspiracy theory which has no basis in IP law. So believe what you want. But I don’t believe there is any legal requirement, that is either enforceable or necessary based on my extensive experience with copyright and trademark law, studios, and what I’ve read about the Trek rights issues. And that’s what I will state as I see it arise.

Did Harberts just admit Burnham isn’t likeable?

Well, she certainly wasn’t at the beginning. Later on I think she started to grow.

It’s funny… I felt the opposite. Before we got to know her I was kinda interested in her story. The more the season went on the more I started to… not so much as not like her but more that I didn’t care about her.

To me, it was the time loop episode that really made me see a change in her.

He admitted that having a character do what she did in episode one isn’t the route you go to making a character likeable. Whether one considers Michael likeable by the end of the show or not is simply personal taste not a blanket fact.

I don’t find Burnham likeable at all and even slightly warmed up, I still didn’t feel she was relatable enough to care about by the end of the season. I thought it might be the actress until I caught up with her stint of The Walking Dead and Sonique is infinitely charming, warm, compassionate and at moments funny. An adopted orphan raised a Vulcan is an interesting idea, and perhaps a backstory tnat should of been given to an ensemble character, but not a good candidate for a lead.

Oddly I have always liked Burnham. I thought by episode 3 she came off a bit too angry but I obviously understood why. But they loosened her a lot, especially when Tyler showed up. But I know a lot of fans do hate her.

I have the same reaction to the character. The actress is enormously appealing. I really hope they can find their way into the character to make her work better as the lead of the show. Picard had some rough edges in early TNG like his disdain for kids. Once the writers found the Picard groove he became a classic character. I saw glimmers of a Burnham I really did like in the episode where she rescues Sarek and at the dance party in the Harry Mudd episode.

Very excited about the second season and Spock!! This show has such great characters and production value. I’ve been a hard-core Trek fan for over 30 years and Discovery makes the previous shows feel like children’s television… both with production design and fakeish hero characters that feel flat now in comparison. With Discovery, I feel like Trek has grown up with me. Love it!

Really??? You put Tilly over Picard and Sisko?? You think Burnham is better than Spock and Kirk?? Really? Or they ara paying you or you are just never saw any other trek show.

I think we found one of the producers fake accounts.

Not a producer on the show but I’ve written for Paramount’s Star Trek Communicator magazine (see the final interview with Persis Khambata) I’ve been on the sets of TNG, DS9, VOY and First Contact working on an unpublished interview book back in the 90s, I have friends who worked on the show, I have swiped props and sat in the captian’s chair… I’m a huge fan from way back. And I love Disvovery. Deal with it :)

Man I think I had 50 of those magazines lol. I use to love it. That’s when Star Trek felt really big and special. I still miss those days. :(

I miss those days too. The magazine was great! I interviewed over 50 Trek guest stars for a book that never happened. But I still got to talk to visit the homes of everyone from the Borg Queen to Spock’s mother Amanda. It was great for a super fan like me and some stuff was repourposed for the magazine so that was good.

I’m sorry about the book but since this is the internet, can’t you release it online? I’m guessing a Trekkie or two may be interested in purchasing a copy. ;)

I don’t want to ‘change’ the topic but off the top of your head who was your favorite one to interview?

The Communicator was a great magazine. You forget just how much stuff was going on with Trek back in the day. I would give anything to know what I did with those books lol. Probably in a garage somewhere.

My favorite interview for emotional reasons was Jane Wyatt who played Amanda in TOS. She was very old at the time and while at her home I helped her set up direct deposit for her bank and she sent me home with a loaf of homemade lemon bread. It was surreal for me because at the time Journey to Babel was an episode I would always watch over and over. Other favorites included King Abdullah of Jordan who was an extra on VOY, Ashley Judd, Ricardo Montalban… it was also fun having the Duras sisters in my living room and spending an afternoon with the Borg Queen. Someday I may do something with all of the tapes I have as they are a time capsule from that era.

LOL that is hilarious about Jane Wyatt. Sounds very grandmotherly.

I know King Abdullah is a big Trek fan and I read he came out to meet the Discovery when they were in Jordan to film. I had no idea he actually had a role in Star Trek. Double cool.

I always loved the Duras sisters as well. And of course Khan and the Borg Queen. The villain actors were probably a lot of fun to talk to. Sound like you had a lot of great memories. Yeah I would do something with it, even if you just set a podcast and play some of the interviews. I’m sure tons of people here would love to hear them.

That’s a great idea! :)

The Communicator was a great magazine. My favorite was the issue about Generations with the Enterprise saucer burning through the atmosphere. Beautiful cover art.

@Althus Come on.

TNG took a couple seasons before it was really accepted. Enterprise was accused of being “too advanced”. Voyager was criticized for Janeway and (gasp!) a black Vulcan.
I’ve been a Trekker for almost 50 years. I learned to stop treating it like a religion after TNG and began looking forward to the changes(some good, some bad)with each new entry.
You can make a very long list of all changes that contradicted or straight out changed canon for every movie and series. I learned to stop picking Trek apart and gatekeeping a long time ago.
It’s less tiring when not being a douchebag contrarian anyhow.

Thank you, Frank.
I feel like cutting and pasting your comment all over these different threads. I’ve been a Trekker since 1967, and have been wild about various characters and episodes and movies, but have always been able to spot the flaws in various iterations of Trek and LOVE IT IN SPITE OF THEM.

Frank and Marja…. Thank you!! My thoughts exactly! We have a new Trek series and I do embrace it. Nothing is perfect in this world and besides it is a TV show not reality… Can’t wait for the 2nd season.

I call BS on the black Vulcan point, I might have been super young but I don’t remember anyone ever having a problem with a black Vulcan or female Captain! The only thing that let Voyager down was the writing staff, because most of the cast and characters were fantastic, along with the production design.

@Luke — sorry to contradict you, but no. You clearly didn’t get around much when you were young. Even in Los Angeles, there was a lot of debate about Janeway and having a female captain. I don’t remember as much discussion about Tuvok, but that might have been because I was in LA, which was and is far more progressive when it comes to that kind of casting. Certainly based on the closed-minded comments on this site about the diversity of DISC, would suggest that 20 years ago it was likely an issue. But anyone who found out I liked Star Trek inevitably asked me what I thought about having a female captain, which is a pretty weird thing to discuss even then to me.

The black Vulcan thing wasn’t an issue I remember but the female captain WAS A big deal at the time.

There is a video on YouTube where Garrett Wang said the studio got death threats over it.

People accepted it in time but people did accuse the show of being done only for diversity reasons (sound familiar ;)).

I will confirm that the black Vulcan received very little ink. It was just accepted. The black Captain in DS9 was not really a thing either. But for some reason there was some issues with the female captain as the regular. I think the casting was indeed intentional, however. But I’m surprised at the backlash they got from it. To me it felt amazingly appropriate. And then there were people whining about her hair and how it changed all the time. As if people would care what Kirk’s hair did! (yes, i know… Toupee.)

Yes there was a LOT of blow up about having a female Captain which really shocked me at the time. I couldn’t believe it was Star Trek fans out of all people who had an issue with a female Captain. Also hypocritical since by then there were several female Captains we saw in both the movies and TNG but I guess having a full time one was a step too far. It really did remind you how far we still had to go with some of these issues.

And of course Discovery got a similar backlash. Not as harsh in terms of the Captain being female but the fact there were just two many females period lol. One in charge, yeah OK, but TWO???? A Captain and a first officer, outrageous!

But like Voyager itself those people have slowly disappeared thankfully.

I prefer Tilly also.

Tilly is an obnoxious Mary Sue. A cadet with more training and knowledge than anyone else?!

She’s basically the female Wesley…..but it’s ok to bash Wesley because he’s a white male hahaha.

Yes Tilly is one of those characters who I’m not in love with like everyone else seems to be but she is growing on me. The comedy just feels a bit too forced at times IMO.

Hmmmm. I’d throw the rest of Trekdom under the bus for a price (wink!).

None of the previous hero characters were flat or fakeish. I want to continue watching Discovery and the show has potential for improvement but I won’t do it at the expense of what has come before. I like Star Trek in all of its incarnations. You can like one version more than the other, but I don’t think you should just dismiss the previous versions.

alphantrion…..In a nutshell

Each series has episodes during their runs that dismissed previously established canon.
TOS tossed out the Prime Directive with impunity.
The magical properties of the transporter were ignored. Time travel became a magic bullet. Vulcans going into heat became the go to move to sidestep the logic.
Even The Wrath of Khan forgot who the bad guy remembered and that nobody higher up in Starfleet thought to check up on Ceti Alpha 5? Why? Because Kirk never filed a report? It should’ve been unthinkable that everyone in Starfleet just let that incident slip their minds! This was the movie that brought Trek back to life after that plodding overblown TMP. Why? Because it made it interesting and fun for the non-obssesed fan.
Then again, I’ve always wondered why the aging angst occurred after the transporter was able to youthify and/or cure most disease…

It’s not a damn religion. It’s a space opera that occasionally becomes more.
Nobody says you have to like everything. It’s your prerogative. You don’t have to blindly follow the crowd either, but this series and the new movies are liked by a lot of folks many of who didn’t care about Trek-The Religion. It’s worth pulling back a bit to try and see why.

Then again, I’ve always wondered why the aging angst occurred after the transporter was able to youthify and/or cure most disease…
— Frank Mondana

Ha. That would be the top cosmetic procedure of the 23rd Century. Store a copy of your transporter pattern and beam yourself into it after a disfiguring accident, or you aged beyond an acceptable point.

Or add a few weeks inches 😏

Still this doesn’t mean you should dismiss, or forget about all the rest. Remember if those “old and fake” shows didn’t exist, you wouldn’t technically have Discovery too. It is not a religion, it is just something that should be taken as a whole. I understand some people like parts of the meal, but I prefer the whole meal.

The problem is there are people who DO treat the franchise with a near religious devotion. It’s rather disconcerting.

That maybe true, but is it so bad though? As long as they don’t physically hurt themselves or another person. I am not a religious person, but I am a big sci-fi fanatic and it is good to have a certain devotion to something.

Well said!

Good for you, Luke. Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Picard, Riker, Sisko, etc. were in no way flat or ‘fakeish,’ but I’m glad you’re excited. I’m glad someone is.

This is intended to be snark, right?

Sadly no, I think he’s pretty serious.

What Characters? There is one character on the show & she is teidious, unlikable & just plane sad to the point of social & emotional retardation. (burnham)


Hi Star Trek Discovery Exec! Haha. Great post there.
You must have completely missed DS9 then…
Mushroom drives and unrecognisable Klingons with two willies feels like ‘children’s television to me’ but each to their own.

If you assume bad faith simply because someone has different tastes than your own, that says a lot more about you than it does about them.

I didn’t miss DS9. I used to hang out on the DS9 set. Besides knowing the names of pretty much every DS9 episode I’ve sat in the Defiant captain’s chair when the set was dark, stolen dabo chips from Quark’s bar, had lunch with “plain and simple” Garrick, had Morn (Marc Shepherd) over to my house and interviewd Rom and Lita actors in Quark’s (Armin S.) trailer. So I didn’t “miss” DS9. I just think Discovery characters feel more realistic and make previous Trek iterations feel a bit simplistic. Why all the hate because someone feels different than you might? Why all the stupid conspiracy theories about the comment being from someone who works on Disvovery. “You must learn to govern your emotions, Doctor. They will be your undoing.” -Spock, ST2

I like a lot of the characters on DIS but they still feel pretty flat compared to most of the characters on the other Trek shows. Its no comparison to me by a mile but people have their opinions. But outside of maybe 1 or 2 of them none has really carried the show for me.

Lorca carried the show for me. But they stuck a harpoon in that one, didn’t they? Now it falls on Saru to carry the show. It sure as hell isn’t Burnham at the moment.

Yes Lorca was great! I really do miss that character and he was one of the people I was referring to. And its interesting there has been zero talk or announcement of who the new captain of Discovery is. Maybe they are holding it back for a big reason but yeah its kind of crazy no one has even hinted at it.

I will truly miss Lorca as well. A compelling, layered character with an edge to him. And then misused, and disposed of.

If Lorca was a prime universe character, he was compelling and layered and interesting. Since it was revealed he was really evil Lorca, all interesting aspects of his character were destroyed in a single stroke. No no… He’s not really a fascinating character. He’s just pure evil. Facepalm.

If they find Prime Lorca, I suspect Jason Isaacs will make him just as interesting. He’s a very nuanced performer.


My guess is even if they find him he will only be in an episode or two. It looks like they have no interest to bring Issac back full time.

And I’m fine with that. As long as the next Captain is a good character on their own. And I just thought about this but we may get another full time woman captain as well which would be interesting.

There is an epilogue in the discovery novel drastic measures, that suggests he is alive in the mirror universe

I think most fans knew as time went on that Lorca was from the Mirror Universe or at least would turn out to be evil/corrupt. No way would the producers of this show let a white male character be a positive on the show.

No way would the producers of this show let a white male character be a positive on the show.— Luke

— Oh OK, I got your number now.

Agreed CC!

Its sad these people are still around.

Joking, right? DS9 a children’s show? How much are they paying you? Because your comment smacks of studo propaganda.

@Dr. Can we stop this the studio must be paying you stuff? Can’t someone just have a different opinion than you?

Even DS-9 is a little hammy sometimes compared to modern standards.

Exactly. I love Discovery and I love Trek so much that I found a way to worm my way onto the sets, cast and crew premieres, and even am responsible for a tiny, tiny visual element in VOY’s “Hero’s and Demons” (The Viking hat that the main guest star wears was found by me in a box at Western Costume in Burbank when I was tagging along with key costumer Tom Siegel on a costume run for Bob Blackman). So to say that I can’t have an opinion that the characters on Disvovery feel more like real people than previous Treks is just silly. It’s what I think. And I’ve sat in the captian’s chair, spun Quark’s dabo wheel, shaken hands with Kate Mulgrew at the premier of VOY on the Paramount lot before the show was seen by the public, walked on the deflector dish of the Enterprise-E, sat in Ten Forward, played with original series console buttons in Mike Okuda’s workshop and stood in Picard’s ready room door during filming on the bridge in First Contact. So I’m a fan and I get to think that the characters in Discovery are more “real” than many of the previous show’s characters that now seem like kids’ show characters in comparison. It’s just what I think. But what do I know? I’ve only sat on the bridge of the Klingon bird of prey in Generations ;)

So many sets you’ve visited, so many stars you’ve met, yet you never understood that Star Trek characters were never supposed to be “real”.

Of course Discovery characters feel “more real” – but that’s not because Discovery is better, it’s because Star Trek never strived for “realism”. It was always supposed to be “larger than life”, stylized, bombastic and ever so slightly pretentious. Something tongue-in-cheek, something quotable, memorable and memeable. Like old westerns… like naval adventures… like Verne novels… like radio serials.
Sure, Discovery is an interesting experiment, and also, something that many fans predicted and anticipated since early 2000s. Thing is, realism can get really old, really fast. When I come home after a long week of interacting with real people, the last thing I want is to watch more “real people” on my TV.

“When I come home after a long week of interacting with real people, the last thing I want is to watch more “real people” on my TV.”

You sound like the perfect fan for Star Wars and Marvel…I think you are hanging out in the wrong franchise. Come home, drink some boze, and fire up Agents of Shield and you will be fine.

The characters shouldn’t feel too real to us, they’re evolved humans, better than your average 21st century person, morally, ethically, intellectually.

That’s a cop-out excuse for bad writing. TOS didn’t need that excuse.

Hmmm… Why would a studio pay someone to talk poorly of its previous shows in comparison to its current one? Not a vey well thought out comment. Illogical ;)

Luke, there are plenty of illogcal comments from people about Discovery thesedays- all because they cannot handle any deviation from Berman-era Trek (which was so tired by the end of Enterprise, imho).

Please don’t let the views of a few rude, intolerant fans get to you. You have had opportunities that few of us fans have had- and these attacks against them and ypi are cheap and reek of jealousy.

Beware – if you climb any deeper, you’re gonna taste his breakfast. :P
Of course everybody who opposes the “progress” must be intolerant and rude, and – most importantly – FEW. That’s the key to delegitimize the dissent. That’s why Bolsheviks called themselves Bolsheviks (= “The Majority”) even though they were really in minority. Lo and behold, it’s STILL used 100 years later.

You know what, I’ve been praying for “deviation from Berman-era Trek” since the mid of Voyager’s run. After each and every episode of Voyager’s second half, I just sat there, frowning in disbelief and thinking to myself (sometimes aloud): “What the eff was that? Why did they put a Star Trek label on this pile of manure? Why are they showing this to me? How is it possible they haven’t been fired yet?” So, ultimately, Discovery is the change I’ve been praying for. However, what I expected was the return *back* to Star Trek, not heading further away from it. Why is it so hard to follow the original formula – fun space naval adventure/western/space opera with a bit of high-brow philosophy sprinkled on top to make the audience feel clever? Star Trek Beyond almost nailed it – so why can’t we have a show that’s a bit more Star Trek Beyond and a bit less Band of Walking Throne-Gambling Dead Brothers?

It’s getting nasty in here, maybe all of you should smoke a joint and chill the fuck out. It’s really not that serious

But again its not just the ‘Berman era’ its also that a lot of people just didn’t want another prequel. Now if you are happy its a prequel, that’s fine, but there are people who aren’t. And then there are people who is happy its a prequel but it doesn’t feel TOS enough or at least feels like it connects enough to that era and last time I checked Rick Berman had nothing to do with that show.

In other words its not one thing or people who just want one type of show. I agree people shouldn’t have to be rude to others when discussing it but Discovery is divisive for a reason.

My take on the prequel concept. I have no problem with them. But… They are REALLY hard to make right. Prequels by nature are prone to include a lot of fan service. That can be fun but it can easily become too much without even realizing it. If a producer wants to tackle such a thing, fine. But be prepared for potential consequences. In the case of Discovery, because they set their prequel so very close to the TOS time, they made things even MORE difficult for them. It sorta forced them into a certain design aesthetic if they wanted to adhere to the established material. Again, they did not have to duplicate TOS but it DID have to have that feel. They decided to chuck the established feel of the time and do their own thing. Which again, is fine. Just DON’T do it in that time frame! Do it 20 years after Nemesis and NO ONE complains about visual continuity as far as the ships and uniforms go. After watching season one there was absolutely ZERO reason it needed to be set in the time it was. Everything would have fit right in 20 years post Nem. Although the plot choices would have still sucked…

I’ve been saying that exact thing from the beginning, ML. Set it post-NEM, you have a wide open canvas to work with. They should do a permanent time-jump with DSC, imo.

I’m not anti-prequel. In fact some I even welcome. I dug the idea of Enterprise some 150 years before TOS. That said, STD does not feel like a prequel at all until the very last shot. (Dropping in out of place props and mentioning Constitution Class ships does not make it a prequel) Maybe the producers are happy with that comment but it begs the question, if you are happy with it not feeling like a prequel, like it is it’s own thing… Then why waste your time placing it there when what you wanted to do would stir up such controversy? Answering my own question, could it be that they did it intentionally just to get people talking about this show on a streaming outlet no one wants or heard of? Do they subscribe to the concept of “there is no such thing as bad press”? I’m telling you, it feels like there is no one involved in the production who knows or cares about Star Trek. Seems like more than half of the creative decisions were complete head scratchers.

Known troll.

Yes, this is exactly how I feel. Just another iteration that is still fascinating to me.

No matter what, this is the worst Trek show. Season 1 was hardest watch for me.

I have been a fan all my life and I can’t get enthused for season 2. It is sad that the latest show in my fav universe has become my least favourite Trek show but the only series I struggled to stay with.

I want to love this show but it’s not the style unlike in Trek. And I am a fan who loved all past series

again….do you remember the first season of TNG? That was better than Discovery? IMO it was horrible. It was clouded by the fact that it was the first new TV Trek since TOS

Ever see the first season of TOS?
More iconic characters and storylines than any first season of any trek.

Don’t give credit to bad writing by comparing it to other bad writing. Demand better

Well put, Meeee.

The first season of TOS is still the best opening season, some of TOS’s best were in that premiere year.

Even the first few episodes of TOS feel a little “off” before they got the camaraderie of Kirk-Spock-McCoy going, not to mention they changed almost all of the characters from the original pilot.

I have to disagree regarding the original series bein a “little off”, Corbomite Manuever was the first regular series episode filmed….not aired, but filmed. Take note if the character interactions….good acting and good writing makes the audience believe these dynamics have been at play for years. With the right talent and intentions, it can be done. With the wrong talent, you have Discovery.

Yes, I’ve seen it, and I agree. But what does that have to do with what was being discussed?

IMHO, the first season of TNG was better than the first season of STD. It was flawed, yes. But their flaws were fixable. STD is flawed but in ways that would be VERY difficult for them to fix. You can’t undo plot points. The best they can do is pretend season one never happened and move on. Even THAT wasn’t the case in TNG.

If you think racist crap like Code Of Honour, drivel like Justice or Skin Of Evil and uninspired tosh like The Naked Now are better than anything Discovery offered in its first season then you are divorced from reality in my opinion.

TNG Season 1 was atrocious. It took until The Best of Both Worlds to find its feet. Was Discovery Season 1 perfect? Far from it. It was extremely messy in places, it took too long to get going and the last two episodes were questionable (at best)- but lets not pretrend that it wasn’t early TNG levels of bad. I think that your comment simply shows you cannot accept any deviation from the Berman-era formula.

STD is all about women power and social justice. The men are weak or gay and need the women to solve all their problems. Hell, the women can even fight and win every hand to hand with Klingons! Mary Sue’s and male impotent men is all we are getting now

Yea, I mean, I have to be high on crack to make that statement he made. Just ridiculous. I can no longer take him seriously after that remark.

On the contrary. I was never 100% on board with the Berman era Trek. It was OK but it was never ever as good as the TOS stuff. Sure, there were good parts. But there were more bad than good. But even at TNG’s worst moments I was never as disappointed it called itself Star Trek than Discovery was calling itself Star Trek. Not only was the show not good but it doesn’t even LOOK like Star Trek. I get the impression that many of the show runners really don’t know what Star Trek is. As flawed as the Berman era was, at least those people had an inkling of what Trek was. There was a lot of garbage in Season one. But there was a lot of mediocrity and garbage the entire run of the show. There were some excellent standout. TBOBW was their high water mark. But with all their sub par episodes and baby steps that took place in TNG’s season one, NONE of their problems were as BAD as what Discovery did. It went from mildly interesting, one good 40 stretch of 40 minutes. To downright crap the the entire final stretch. TNG had a better track record their first season. I’m sorry to say. I wish that was not the case.

LOL. With that statement, I am going to have a hard time taken you seriously ever again here…no personal offense meant.

That’s right. Because you can’t take anyone who has a different opinion of you seriously. How enlightened of you. Carry on…

Oh, I can take the opinion — I just take in terms of entertainment value in this case, because it makes me laugh.

The first 2 seasons of Next Gen were THE BEST before they abandoned science fiction for melodrama, bland lighting, bland music & even blander characterization & stories. With few exceptions. After Roddenberry left it went down hill which sadly made it more popular to the bland masses.
I think the first seasons of each show (Except STD) are the best because they are experimenting. Once they decided what each show was in later seasons they stagnated & just did the same episodes over & over again.

……….. what?

Ok then.

Truth! TNG was fairly fresh and imaginative…even had good, rousing music on occasion…before it went down the long, tedious, boring road of mediocrity and paint-by-numbers television production.

Ah, like “just no way” regarding seasons 1 and 2. They were BARELY watchable.


Yes season 1 of TNG is extremely weak compared to the great stuff we got later on, but there are still a few lovely gems in that first year, and when I rewatch it I still enjoy it.

I just wish I had the enthusiasm for DSC that you guys do. I actually envy you guys. You see new hope, I see all that I love being screwed with. Maybe my feelings will change.

Perhaps there is such a thing as loving something too much. No television series or franchise is worth this much.

“Yes season 1 of TNG is extremely weak compared to the great stuff we got later on”

Then how about getting some perspective and watch DSC Season 2 first before continuing with the whine-fest that so many of you continually have here?

Can you imagine if the internet were around in 1987/1988? With the fan whiners of today posting back then, TNG would have been cancelled after one season; two at best.

The big difference is no on had to pay extra for a specific service JUST to get TNG. If you had rabbit ears or cable already you were getting it. Because of the nature of the pay streaming service nearly no one had already and had to add on top of whatever they were already doing, it is 100% totally fair to be extra hard on the first season results. Because it is on CBSAA it does not deserve the “give them a chance to gel” argument. It’s like the first movie being terrible so you are told wait for the sequel before judging the first movie. NO ONE does that.

What a lame, obviously strawman excuse. That’s all you could come up with? Seriously?

It’s like $6 to binge watch the whole thing. If that’s really an issue for you, you have a lot more to worry about than the quality of the latest Star Trek series.

OK… So your response is that you don’t like my take but you don’t really have anything solid to say against it but you feel the need to say SOMETHING… And THAT is what you write. Nice.


I don’t understand why they feel the need to keep talking about canon. The audience members who care about canon are hopping mad that the show isn’t slavishly adhering to every detail of TOS’s 1960s aesthetic, and no amount of fanservice will win their affection. It seems to me that the folks behind Discovery are trying to stay true to the spirit of Star Trek while doing their own thing from a narrative and visual standpoint. I wish they’d just come out and say that; those of us who enjoy the show won’t hate them for admitting the truth.

The show is re-imaged which I have no problem with. I haven’t seen anything that goes against Canon no matter what others say. But I think true fans want to see how this ship and story fits into the whole Trek narrative

I don’t understand why fans feel the need to keep talking about canon.

Well said. The first season wasn’t perfect, but I enjoyed every episode. Take the basic idea of Star Trek and just tell good stories. I feel like the canon discussion is silly. At the beginning of TOS there wasn’t even a Federation. Let’s let the idea evolve with the times. Bring on a new actor for Spock. Can’t wait to see the Pike Enterprise!!

Visual canon is an unquestionable thing when it comes to Star Wars, to Tolkein’s universe… to numerous other franchise. But Star Trek fans need to be shamed and learn their place! God forbid Star Trek fans felt emotionally invested to the rich 50 year tapestry of series that came before Discovery. Visual canon doesn’t mean 1960s sets with flashing plastic multicoloured lights, but the Discovery production team going out of your way to create an entirely different look and then inexplicably making one of the most iconic alien races totally unrecognisable is a strange decision and if they then insist on calling their series ‘Star Trek’, inevitably they are going to upset legions of fans, fans invested emotionally and who have escaped to the Trek universe from their own real world problems. They are invested, you may not be! But to so many people, visual canon matters and improving upon it instead of ignoring it would have been the more intelligent and respectful thing to do. They don’t revere Trek, they want to break new ground and scratch out names for themselves – Trek in name only.

And again, sorry if this is repeating but I honestly believe it cannot be said enough… It was possible for them to modernize the look for current audiences but still make the ship at the very least FEEL like it belonged in the era they said it was in. I am fine with the uniforms on their own. But they are amazingly out of place with what we know of this version of the mid 23rd century. People may hate the TOS shirts but it has been established. They can make an update and still make them seem like they could belong. Instead, they opted to go with something 100% new and different. Which was the easy path. It was also the best way to annoy at least 1/2 the fanbase. And again, if the final product was better, all these things would be less of an issue. Which is also on them.

Don’t you guys get tired of having the same conversation over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?

Do you ever get tired of not reading the posts you respond to?

Exactly! I could not agree more!

@Martin. Star Wars isn’t set in our future and, well, it had better production values overall then Trek in the first place.

So what, we film the thing at the fan studios in upstate New York?

I don’t think we’ll resolve this. Personally, I don’t think Disc violates the spirit of Trek, visually. I don’t need these Klingons to suddenly look like roadies from Aerosmith (the TOS/TMP Klingons didn’t have long hair, either).

@Jack — re: Star Wars, exactly. Let’s not forget that they chose to continue that Art Direction. Star Wars would be the same if they likewise gave it an updated look as well — it in no way relies on the specific look of the individual sets. Every director who ever made a Star Trek film chose to give it their own look. That’s why we have pajamas in TMP, and red tunics with turtlenecks in TWOK. TNG even got those all black uniforms in FC because they wanted a more cinematic feel. The bridge changed every time, as did many other aspects of the movies. It’s been over 50 years since TOS established that look, which is dated no matter what subtle updating occurred. So no real reason to retain any of it, except the most iconic parts, which they’ve basically done.

Yes. They changed things. But NONE of those changes (save for the uniform change from TNG to WOK, which was done for aesthetic reasons) made it look like it was NOT Star Trek. Unlike the changes in STD.

We call them Kiss Army Klingons

You insist on keeping up that dumb STAR WARS comparison, even though it’s been debunked on these threads by multiple posters, myself included. *Sigh*

@David Agreed. There’s no way to win the canonistas over.

But you can beat them with sticks.

For a lot of people it just feel like they are talking on both ends of their mouths. I think it would’ve been suicide if you kept the show looking like the 60s BUT as the Kelvin films proved you can add a bit more of it here and there. I think a lot of fans just felt like they ignored everything to the point none of it looks familiar and feels distracting when you look at TOS.

But as I have said before I think the Enterprise is proof that you can meld old with new and why I liked the new look. Now its true you are not going to please everyone and there are a lot of fans out there who feel the new Enterprise is blasphemy but I think most fans are reasonable that you at least TRY to reconcile canon a bit most will come around. It didn’t feel like they were trying at all in season 1. It looks like they got the message though and trying a bit more next season and why I have hope that’s what they will do.

“None of it looks familiar,” really? The bridge of the Discovery looks nothing like a Trek bridge to you? At all?

Not for that ERA chief. Thats my point. It all feels like it belongs in a different time completely, not 10 years before TOS. And as I said I don’t expect it to look EXACTLY like that nor want to but it would’ve been nice if they at least created some more familiar elements here and there LIKE they did with the Enterprise itself.

You could have an event that does mandate a tremendous style switchover, like the entire tech that is seen in DSC is susceptible to takeover or such, but that would mean showing Enterprise like this DSC ship in s2, BEFORE this event happened. I don’t really want to see a DSCofied Enterprise at all, myself.

Nor do I. I always explained, in my head, that the jump in tech from Enterprise to TOS was due to the implementaion of a revolutionary whole new tech created Daystrom. The new aesthetics followed the new advances in tech and everything was overhauled. Great. Makes it work in my mind. Now you have Discovery. Nothing makes it work….outside of it being events in an alternate universe….the best solution….that was cast aside in favor of it masquerading as true, real-deal, home of TOS Prime universe Trek. Nothing has been so easy to dismiss as Discovery. It’s someone elses’ Train wreck. It’s faux-Trek, right up,there with New Voyages and other fan films. It’s just not as good.

Yeah. Discovery can be handled as a complete reboot. A Star Trek-ish new Star Trek show that has no ties to existing canon. Then EVERYTHING beyond the bad writing, uninspiring characters and atrocious plot points can be accepted with amazing ease.

Exactly, Tiger. What we got in season one looks like they didn’t even TRY to connect their show to the era they said it took place in. If they wanted to redo everything then don’t tell us it takes place in the same prime world as TOS. Just tell us it’s a Trek reboot on a different ship. They will never please 100% of the fans but if they would just be open and honest with things most will accept it. Even a complete reboot.

“Just tell us it’s a Trek reboot…”

Let’s not wait for them to “tell us.”
Let’s just enjoy it for what it is, right now. As far as I’m concerned it’s just their job to do the best they can to make a Star Trek show, not tell us this or that, nor smooth the canon adherents’ ruffled feathers.

I don’t give a rat’s ass whether it’s a reboot or they’re really trying to cram it into canon or what. Why they keep talking fitting it into canon, I have no idea, and I think it was a mistake, but YMMV.

I like the show. I like the characters. I have a new Trek “family” and will watch their adventures from week to week.
Yes, the writing can be problematic. Yes, things look different.
It’s 2018 folks.

Yes calling it a reboot would’ve been the better route IMO. Others have argued why they didn’t do that but I think it would cut down all the debate tomorrow if people just looked at it as its own thing and not trying to reconcile it with a 50 year old TV show.

I find myself nodding in agreement with every sentence you wrote Tiger2. Of course they had to modernise the look, it’s natural to take advantage of improvents in make up and the writers surely couldn’t be expected to not include technologies that were not envisioned in the 60’s but at least do it in a way that honours the original designs. The Klingon look is the biggest misstep for me, we’ve had a principal character from that race that’s appeared in about 4 movies and 11 seasons of Trek so surely they must realise there’s a large chunk of the fan base that’s invested in this appearance.

Actually I think you said it best with the phrase ‘honor the original designs’. I think that’s what is missing. Not a complete rehash but just add enough elements where it at least feels like the show is in the spirit of TOS. And I don’t think anything about the show is doing that. Which would be FINE if they didn’t tell us over and over again its a ‘prequel’ to TOS.

This is probably the issue with a lot of fans. You pretend this ties into TOS but then you practically ignore everything about that universe, even whole changing the uniforms. I STILL don’t get that lol. But again it looks like they are reconciling that a bit next season so thats good! I just wonder why couldn’t they have done that FIRST season?

I would go into my whole ‘this is why I hate prequels’ but I don’t want people to throw stuff at me lol. But yes I just don’t get it, why bother if you ignore so much of that universe? I will at least give the Star Wars producers credit in the sense their prequels actually feel like they are part of the same universe as a whole. But to be fair I guess SW universe look doesn’t feel as outdated as TOS does.

@Corinthian7 — why honor the original designs if they don’t like the way they look? There’s a lot I would change about TOS if I had the chance to redesign that era for a new production. Heck even Gene Roddenberry did it. There’s no universe where TOS and TMP are a natural progression of each other. TOS was the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater for a more progressive vision of Trek in TMP, with many features Roddenberry originally wanted, but couldn’t afford, or wasn’t aware he wanted until he lived with it for a while. His was the original re-imagining of the Klingon race, which was NOTHING like anything the Klingons had been before. The reality is that this is nothing new for Trek, but some people simply can’t let go of the least important part of what makes this franchise important.

Again, because they have said this is prequel to TOS and lives in the same universe. If they said its a reboot then thats one thing. I don’t think its JUST about not accepting something different and its more about telling us its all suppose to fit with existing canon but people have eyes. This is the disconnect that is happening.

Thats why they were so smart to place TNG 80 years after TOS. That was the best decision Roddenberry made because it was basically another universe and they didn’t have to worry about fitting anything in with the old. TOS was already considered ‘old’ and it was just 20 years after TNG hit the airwaves. But even then they knew after the films its suicide to try and relive that era. Many people didn’t like that at the time but now it made a lot of sense (and expanded the universe at the same time).

This is problem when you try to make something that came before and why none of this is a shock. What did they THINK was going to happen? Its Star Trek fans, adhering to canon has been the biggest sticking point for 50 years now.

You know, Tiger, I was one of those who really REALLY did not like the idea of TNG being 80 years later at the time. I wanted to see a new Trek show with new characters in the same time frame as the feature films. But as time went by I came to realize the time shift from TOS to TNG was probably for the better.

I was a little bit skeptical as well. I remember watching the first preview and how ‘strange’ it all looked lol.

But I embraced it after the first few episodes because I LOVED that it felt so different from TOS. But I guess for me I love for shows and films to just go in different directions. Take chances, don’t just get lazy and fall back on the familiar or what works all the time. That’s exactly why I don’t like most prequels. Not because I think the story can’t really go that far (which IS true) but because they generally fall back to the nostalgia/fan service route (anyone who has seen Solo, all four of you, know exactly what I’m talking about).

But thats why I loved TNG and why DS9 is still my absolute favorite show because it took MANY risks and was a better show for it. Now that said if they just did another TOS redux at the time, I probably would’ve been fine with it and watched it but I am happy they expanded the Star Trek universe and it just feels so much bigger and diverse now because of it.

I truly hope they will do it again in the future.

I recall watching TNG when it started. I was SUPER happy to see new Trek. So I just went with it. Got used to the 80 year time difference. But I also recall my overall feeling of the show was that it seemed to lack an intangible quality the original had. TNG had a handful of really stand out episodes. But overall the episodes were “meh” and many were watchable only because of Stewart’s charisma. IMHO, Stewart made that show work. Big time. And there was so obviously more acting talent in his pinky fingernail than all the other actors combined. I got to the point where I was REALLY looking forward to DS9. Because it was different. Because it did not take place on a Starship. And it turns out I rated it as the absolute best of all the sequel series’. On a number of levels it worked. It took some of the traditional Trek tropes and turned them in their ears. I liked that. Id did not like all the risks they took but they tried them. Good for them. I’m seeing nothing like that in Discovery, BTW. I see producers trying harder to convince us their show is spectacular than they are trying to actually make it good.

By Grabthar’s hammer Curious Cadet…you’ve suddenly inspired a solution to a problem I’ve had with the franchise for a long time!

I’ll go into it in a further post in this topic shortly.

“why honor the original designs if they don’t like the way they look? ”

IF they didn’t like the look to the point where they didn’t even want to even evoke that style of the era they said their show was in, then they should not have put their show in that time frame to begin with. This is STILL on them.

Probably all true. ‘Visual reboot’ seems a bridge too far for many, sad to say. But given that they elected to do a prequel, it’s impossible to see how there was really any choice.

@David Landon — when they’re speaking of canon, I don’t think they’re even referencing the visual continuity. It’s clear that this series visually does not align with previous visual canon. So far, I think they’ve otherwise been very respectful with canon, while introducing new details which for have dovetailed nicely into parts of the original canon which inspired them, helping them to resonate more, while being unique to this story.

Again, they didn’t call me. I wish I had spoilers for you all, but I guess nobody watched or like my audition tape. Thanks for nothing. I’m not bitter. ;P

“….annnd, we’re going to send Discovery and her crew over 100 years into the future, for good!”

One can dream.

Maybe instead of trying to “add so many layers” to your story telling, focus on a cohesive plot that makes sense and eliminating plot holes you could fly a starship through… Before you try telling yourself how fancy of a writer you are.

These two remind me of my college self, turning in lousy writing assignments and later talking myself into thinking they were great. They are somewhat delusional in their thinking.

I know this happens but I find it disquieting when writers and producers tell us how great their product is before it is received by the public. And especially so when their initial effort came up amazingly short of what they told us it would be. They can say they did something THEY THEMSELVES like. Fine. But its quality is not for them to say. It’s for the public.

I think they need a few more eyes on their drafts before sending them to be filmed. It has been my experience to never trust anyone fully who constantly blows their own horn. Self criticism is good virtue that many more people should benefit from.

This crew blows their own horn more than any show I’ve ever seen, I must admit.

And you guys blow the hate horn way too much.

Incessantly…it’s like it’s a hobby for some of them given the amount of time they spend here, in article after article, repeating the same whining-negativity over and over and over.

It’s SHOW BUSINESS. Promotion is a big part of it.

Promotion is well and good, but a little honesty also goes a long way.

That is well said ML31. If they prefaced the statement with “We ATTEMPTED to make a show (with layers). We’ll see if it turns out that way.”

A little modesty goes a long way in people forgiving crap writing.

Most filmmakers will say things like “I made the movie I would want to see.” They are not speaking for others or how others will receive it. They hope many others will agree but they tend to not speak for the viewers of their work. It would be nice if Berg and Hobarts would say something like, “We make the Star Trek we like and think expands the franchise. We hope it will be well received but how it is accepted is up to you. We stand by our vision.”

Or something similar. That would at least garner some respect even if I did not appreciate their vision.

Yep. Too busy patting each other on the back to realize their show really, beneath all the hype and Emmy consideration, is a highly polished looking series that really isn’t very good.

Lets see you write an episode of Star Trek, then. Just don’t get butthurt when its picked apart and then torn to shreds by fans.

Gretchen J. Berg, Aaron Harberts and the rest of the writers have long careers in television writing. What have you got? Being rude and bitchy on an internet website.

Well, if I ever get the chance to write an episode of Star Trek, then I will give it my best and I would appreciate all the criticisms I would get. I would try to do the best work I can and I wouldn’t mind hearing what other people would think too.

And my excuse when my script is torn apart by fans and critics would be that I am not a professional writer and have ZERO writing credits to my name. What is Berg and Hobart’s excuse? But I can honestly say that I feel I know Star Trek better than Berg or Hobarts do. I think a better role for me would be as an advisor. I would have advised them to make the ship look more like it belonged. Suggest to them that if they wanted to make changes to the Klingons then make them more subtle. I would have advised against Burnman being Sarek’s adoptive daughter. I would have suggested they make up some other Vulcan family to create that dynamic. I would have advised to make Lorca from the Prime universe and leave him as the captain unless there was no way Issacs was going to do more than one season. In which case either not cast him at all in the role or come up with a better reason for his demise. I could go on and on here but I think the point is made…

Thank goodness you were not advising them then.

For you. But I think had they followed that advice the show would have been better received overall.

“How come they don’t know about the mycelial network in the other [Star Trek shows]?” Part of our goal for this season is to cement Discovery firmly in the timeline of Star Trek canon. And to explain to the audience how these things reconcile”

Let’s hope they can reconcile other discrepancies like the “serial killer” version of Harry Mudd, the warmonger Sarek, not to mention the Klingons, cloaked ships etc…

This is also another reason to avoid a prequel series like this. Move forward. An occasional flashback ep is always fun to plug in some gaps but move forward.

I completely agree Denny. So well said. Nobody wanted another prequel (as if they wanted the first!) “plug in some gaps” was always fun in TNG, DS9 and VOY, but we want to move forward as sci-fi fans.

I wanted a prequel.

For me I just didn’t want ANOTHER prequel but here we are. Its been 15 years of looking back since Enterprise. I just think its time to boldly go forward again and hopefully they will with the next show.

Maybe they talk about the network as much as they talk about going to the bathroom on the Enterprise.

It never happens.

Yep. I echoed that in my longer post below. They are calling discrepancies things that really aren’t discrepancies. To me it suggests how out of touch they truly are here….

@James — all of that has already been answered to my satisfaction, if not explicitly, by my own ability to reconcile it with the canon I know well. Sorry you’re having such trouble with it …

Care to elaborate? I guess it’s plausible that everything from Enterprise forward is an alternative prime timeline caused by the Borg.

@James — sure. I don’t agree Harry Mudd is out of character. Those that do remember “I Mudd”, which even in that he was going to strand the crew of the Enterprise on a robot planet if not out right kill them. Mudd was a serious guy, who 10 years earlier was probably even more serious. I don’t see Sarek out of character. I see him making logical decisions — the Vulcan perfectly capable of killing if given the proper motivation. What’s wrong with the Klingons? This is 10 years before you met them. Their appearance is set dressing. I like the new Klingons. I hated the heavy metal hair band Klingons of the TNG era. It’s clear you don’t agree, but you’re also not making a very compelling argument against the new look, other than it’s different from what you expected and wanted and you don’t like it.

I like the show, but it fits perfectly with the Kelvin timeline in terms of looks. I thought Vulcans were pacifists, but I guess Enterprise did away with that. It’s so hard for the producers to squish this show into Canon, as it was for the producers of Enterprise. Holograms, holodecks, vastly larger ships, cloaking tech, magic mushroom drives, all before TOS is hard to accept. Spock certainly was a private chap, so I have less of a problem with Burnham.


Re: … Vulcans were pacifists

No, the Vulcans were smugly logical and liked to fool outsiders, and possibly themselves too, that logic had made them so, but everything revealed about Spock in the first series showed that at their core they were deadly combative and emotional. Fans often forget that Romulans don’t just look like them; they ARE Vulcans.

@James — you should go back and watch ENT. They already retconed canon with most of your issues. If all of this tech could exist over 100 years prior to TOS, it can also exist 10 years prior. Disc is the perfect cover for all of it, being a top–secret, experimental vessel, recently constructed, compared to Constitution class ships, which were at least around 10 years prior to DISC, and presumably longer. So far they have addressed every seeming discontinuity skillfully for me. The look is the biggest change. But if fans can’t get around that, then there’s really no point in trying to address the rest.

Cadet, I’m honestly not trying to be a jerk here and I can understand you might think that when you read this but this is indeed what it appears like from the outside looking in. Reading your comment it feels like you so desperately want to like Discovery and want it to fit into their time frame that you will latch onto even the flimsiest and unlikely or illogical reason for it to do just that.

Apologies if that comes across not in the spirit it is intended.

James, the thing is, the Enterprise era Vulcans had a slightly different philosophy. The reason they did the three episode Vulcan arc in season 4 was to help show that they would eventually reach the level they would 150 years later when we see them in TOS. And that is enough time to buy a societal change. 10 years is not. At the time of Discovery, Vulcans needed to be the Vulcans we knew in TOS. At least overall.

Star Trek Pike spin-off around the corner ;)

A lot of people want that and All Access may need exactly that.

This train has left the station some time ago but I still think a “Captain Sulu” Trek was a decent idea back in the day…

I was actually thinking about that the other day, and what a missed opportunity that was. If done right, a Sulu/Excelsior could have been an excellent incarnation, and a proper bridge from TOS to the future.

@ML31 And then that guy comes out and tells the world about that time Sulu took off his pants whil he was sleeping. Such a great idea 🤣

OK… So they hint at doing some fan service. Which we already knew was coming. I honestly would not be surprised to see Spock show up. He really should since they went THIS far with the Enterprise showing up. To do that and never show Spock would be truly pathetic. But then, this is the same group that turned the most interesting character in the show to a one dimensional black hat wearing Snidley Whiplash type. So I shouldn’t put anything past them.

““How is this possible? Micheal Burnham is the foster sister of Spock… How come they don’t know about the mycelial network in the other [Star Trek shows]?” ”

Neither of those are real huge issues. The Burnham thing while I think it was a bad creative choice, is completely possible. The mycelial network obviously will get abandoned as a usable concept. So that is not really an issue too. These people are thinking the inconsistencies in the show are things that really aren’t inconsistencies. Which is quite disappointing and making me think that when they say they will show how it all fits in the TOS era they really won’t be.

“Creatively the show is meant to be watched multiple times,”

So that means if we thought the show was bad we should re-watch it and maybe it will be better on repeated viewings? I don’t know… Somehow I think Lorca will still turn out to be evil Lorca and Tilly will be as irritating as Wesley Crusher no matter how many times I watch it.

“They said it allows them more freedom, such as not having to “always look at your watch” and make sure the show fits exactly into a typical network time slot.”

There is that. Which is a plus. But it feels like they never really took advantage of it. Nearly all episodes were around the 42 minute mark. Making them a near perfect fit for network or cable TV anyway. If all shows were around the 55 minute mark then what they say could be more believable.

“Harberts also noted that Star Trek fans are “sophisticated” and want “to be challenged,””

Yes. Too bad they didn’t challenge us at all. Except for us to come up with reasons for the show not looking like it belonged at all in the era they claim it sits in.

“and All Access gave them the freedom to give Michael Burnham a season-long arc, starting off from a difficult place:”

This again… I don’t believe that for a second. They are acting like TV today is still the same model it was in the ’80’s. Flawed leading characters are the norm today. Even on your standard over the air TV. Burnham starting off with a mutiny (canon violation right there unless her mutiny never officially went on record, which would be difficult to buy as well) is not something that would scare away TV execs today. Hell, the main characters of The Americans were killing innocent people left and right all on behalf of the Soviet Union. And they think a character who mutinies against her captain because she was she was making the wrong choice, networks would not be “game” for that? It’s like Berg and Hobarts think TV is like it was 30 years ago….

On point. Kudos.

Appreciate the kudos. Always nice to have a few of those.


Anton Karidian, you mean.

Spock turning up (again) wouldnt completely scare me. The problem is these writers think there really great and awesome and they really aren’t. Their writing and plots leave something to be desired. I enjoy it for what it is but always find myself watching TNG or DS9 or TOS Movies over Discovery.

They don’t have the “chops” to handle a character like Spock and will do more of a disservice than a service to the character.

Maybe they need to focus on being their own thing and creating their own unique characters without crapping on ones that have come before.


There is something to be said for putting Spock in this group’s hands. Who knows what they might have him say or do? But as I said before, to go through the trouble of having the ship show up, recast Pike and all and then NOT have Spock on the bridge? Are you kidding me? Will his interactions all take place behind closed doors? Weak. Don’t bring the Enterprise in if you are going to half ass it. It was obviously done for fan service and no other reason. Go all the way then. Let Discovery be there for the change in command from Pike to Kirk. Talk about fangasms.

Ten years before Kirk.

I know that. I said it to be facetious. A comment about how they have been playing fast and loose with the Trek universe already so why the hell not?

I couldn’t agree more. These folks wouldn’t know how to write for Prime Spock whatsoever, from what I’ve seen so far. They should stick to the inconsistent original characters they’ve already created, imo.

“Creatively the show is meant to be watched multiple times…”

Translation: “Please keep your CBSAA subscription.”

That is so spot on it literally made me laugh.

Please please please ppppppplease keep your subscription! We beg you…

No need for subscription. We have the Internets.

NB: I’m well aware that this comment is worthless, but sometimes I’m just baffled by the triteness of such announcements, since they kinda start to remind me of RedLetterMedia satirising empty exec-talk (or also director-talk) with phrases like “It’s about family” and suchlike

Talking of RLM, their idea of us finding out that we had been in the mirror universe all along really could have saved the show.

Network tv is constraining. I remember the Enterprise showrunners saying they originally wanted season 1 to be contained on Earth and deal with things during the completion/readying of the launch of the NX01. On a Netflix show or a streaming show it sounds like you could get away with going that route and easing into it instead of being a little more cookie-cutter. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea but I like what they’re doing and hope to see more Trek shows in the future get a chance to do the same with their stories.

Talk of family should really be how the crew bond and operate as a single unit. Spock’s a great character, but come on, he’s been done to death at this point! I’ll be disappointed if that’s what they’re mostly going on about.

It’s a bit sad hearing these 2 talk about haw great their work is- its really not up to them to judge that but the fans, the audience & we have & It wasn’t good, it was an undeniably inconsistent mess.
these 2 are like narcissistic salesmen saying anything to sell their goods.

Hi, I took the video above. In their defense, this was an Emmy Promotional Event, where Showrunners are supposed to emphasize the quality of their shows to encourage academy members to vote for them in the various categories, so every show that was represented at the event took the same emphasis for them and their show.

OK Terry. That’s fair. It really is. But the thing is this is by far not the only time they have been caught patting themselves on the back.

@Terry Don’t confuse us with context. :)

That actually helps does a lot to mitigate the triteness of those statements. I don’t know why Star Trek exec-talk just keeps triggering that stress reaction in me…

Sounds like they may have more in common with President Trump than they would care to admit. ;)

This is a star trek parody rhite.

For me it’s a visual thing. I know Klingons have evolved visually over 50 years of Trek, but when shows like DS9 and Enterprise referenced and retconned the TOS Klingon look, I find Discovery’s visual reboot to be an insult to all the hard work that came before it. Wrapping up loose ends for a failed mushroom drive really doesn’t bother me… even the Discovery tech in general not looking like it fits… I can reconcile in my mind – But what I would like Discovery to do, for me to be able to fully enjoy the series and feel to me it’s a part of that 50 year tapestry, is to retcon their own decision to give us these wildly different looking Klingons. Hair, beards and some subdued prosthetics, and I could reconcile the fact their are just lots of variations of the Klingon species we haven’t been used to seeing. If the Discovery production team pulls back from their ‘change for changes sake’ ethos and respects the universe they are claming to be in, I would feel much warmer to the series instead of watching it with a continually raised eyebrow. Talk is cheap. Let’s wait and see… I don’t think they will reconcile anything visual. I don’t think they will work hard to find a balanced aesthetic between TOS and their own flashy futuristic tech, for the Enterprise interiors. Hell, they will just do what they want. They keep saying “the fans demand more… the fans have certain expectations” when justifying all their ridiculous choices, when what I gage from fans here, forums, comic cons and my friends – is that Discovery’s changes come across as precocious and pointless, more about asserting themselves and creating controversy than any true artisitic decision. Give us Star Trek that is visually familiar and improve upon it. Star Wars doesn’t reinvent what Yoda looks like, they work over-time to recreate the same retro puppeting techniques… The Star Trek Discovery producers don’t have that same reverence for their franchise. Because they are not fans. There’s another word for what they are.

Regarding the Yoda example… He does change some. But the point is he does not change to the point where he is no longer recognizable as Yoda. They changed the Andorians. Fine. But they are still blue skinned with antennas. They STILL look like Andorians. They can even change the look of Discovery. But it HAS to be recognizable as being a part of the era they say they are in. The Klingons were changed to the point where the audience had to be told they were Klingons from the start.

@Martin “I find Discovery’s visual reboot to be an insult to all the hard work that came before it.”

Let those people speak for themselves.

He is. He said “I find”. He was speaking for himself.

Thanks El Chup. I love how they try to shut us up, but the tide has turned here it would seem :-)

This is pretty it for me. I’d be a lot warmer if the show felt like it was familiar and they only took design liberties when absolutely necessary.

Contrary to what the Discovery-can-do-no-wrong types will tiresome accuse us of, I for one have never needed the show to be visually slavish to the point that the show has to resemble things like Trials and Tribbleations and In a Mirror Darkly. The TOS aesthetic isn’t realistic today. I get that. HOWEVER, what irks me is that the changes aren’t about modern techniques as is claimed. It’s change for changes sake. I can make a case for each of the major changes where they didn’t need to go as far as they did. Like you say, had the Klingons still had hair and beards and had they not had those strange elongated craniums it was be much easier to accept them as Klingons. They did it with other races so why not the Klingons. Same with the uniforms. When you look at the phasers and communicators you can see elements of TOS in them. SO if they can do it for the handheld props why can’t they make the uniforms at least a little more like the TOS ones, even if not identical?

Then to add insult to injuring we keep being told how important canon is to them while giving us bogus explanations for the changes like most of us are idiots who’ll just accept that and keep paying our subscriptions.

They really need to start making more effort. Instead they’re going for the easy gimmicks with The Enterprise and it’s crew.

Discovery feels like Star Trek made by dumb people for easily pleased people. It just doesn’t feel it truly has they care and effort that Trek has had at it’s peak.


To Captain Jean-Luc Picard, Commanding Officer USS Enterprise, stardate 46358.1. You are hereby requested and required to relinquish command of your vessel to Captain Edward Jellico, Commanding Officer USS Cairo as of this date. Signed, Vice-Admiral Alynna Nechayev, Starfleet Command. Computer, transfer all command codes to Captain Edward Jellico. Voice authorization, Picard delta five.

Replace ‘Picard’ with ‘Harberts and Berg’ and ‘Jellico’ with ‘Ron Moore and Ira Behr’ and I will be very happy!

I’m a Trekkie. I just cannot bare to watch this show.

I watch it with my pants on.

I’m a Trekkie. Gay, from a middle eastern family, in my 30s. This show does nothing for me. I find it cringe. Patting itself on the back for things they should be doing anyway. I hate the way they’ve changed visual canon, which doesn’t make me feel I’m escaping to the same universe I fell in love with as a teen. This newest installment to the franchise is supposed to cater to marginalised people like me… I don’t want to see a hijab in the mess hall like I did in a season 1 episode. It all feels very preachy and patronizing. Give us adventure, fun, discovery and strange new worlds. I watch Discovery and I feel depressed.

I’m a Trekkie. Gay. From a Jewish family. 30. I have Aspergers. I react badly to any sort of deviation from what came before. In theory, because of that last part- I should hate Discovery. Its radically different in tone, style and aesthetic. The Klingons look different. It looks more advanced than TOS. Canon has been contradicted.

Yet I have given it a chance and once I move past the differences, I can enjoy the show as problematic and as “preachy” as it can be. But then Star Trek has NEVER been subtle with its social commentary or its celebration of diversity. At times- before DISCO- it has been incredibly patronising. So I’m not entirely sure why DISCO following suit bothers you.

I’m sorry that you don’t like the visual reboot. Truly, I am. But in the grand scheme of things- it has happened before. The difference in aesthetic between TOS the series and TOS the movies is staggering. Hell, the look of Kruge’s bird of prey changed DRAMATICALLY between III and IV.

@AdAstraAspera — when the day comes they’re able to convincingly replace the TOS visuals with new CGI actors and sets to match the era of any current productions (and don’t think CBS or their successors won’t do it), these die hard fans’ heads will explode.

I think you have odd impressions of TOS. Yes, there were a couple of times when they were VERY preachy. (Let that be Your Last Battlefield is probably the most obscene offense there). But FAR more often than not, Trek was VERY subtle in its preaching.

Now that I think about it, they even showed a tolerance for racist thinking people so long as they didn’t let it get in their way professionally.

“Leave any bigotry you have in your quarters. There’s no room for it here on the bridge.” -Captain James T Kirk.

Who cares about the design or canon when they apparently don’t know how to write a fun or interesting story? They’re so busy making quota hires and slapping each other on the back for how enlightened they all are, they forgot to appeal to the mass of viewers. Second season sounds just as pretentious. I don’t give a crap about their assessments of spirituality in a modern context. We have enough “cautionary tale in the age of Trump” shows. In fact, it’s pretty much every genre show in the pipeline. Give it a rest!

That’s the bottom line right there, Greg. Good points. I’m hoping you’re wrong about season two, but the signs do seem to be pointing that way.

Greg could have made his point without being hostile, though?

On reflection: probably not, most detractors of the show cannot express their concerns without being rude or combative.

Forgive me… I’m still trying to find the underlying hostility you claim appears in Greg’s comment… Unless it’s just another example of anyone who expresses an opinion you personally disagree with by definition cannot be anything but rude.

Here here. ‘Fun’ and ‘Interesting’ were two things completely lacking in S1. A dark, moody war-arc that is resolved in one episode because a bomb is placed underground a home planet. Laughable. I feel like EVERY show is on this ‘cautionary tale in the age of Trump’ vibe and it’s patronising and condescending. Especially to a Star Trek audience.

Put in Sybok in a flashback. THAT would be some ballz to reconcile cannon. Make Burnham one of the reasons Sybok went batshit crazy. In fact, if you create a whole series around Spock having a bloody stepsister… and you wanna reconcile canon… there’s your giant figurative bulkhead for Scotty to smack his head on…

Is Sybok alive in the Kelvin timeline? Asking for a friend…

“Remember that great Trek story where Spock had a secret sibling? Let’s copy that!”

LOL! Good one!

I would actually like to see Sybok again. But the franchise seems almost embarrassed that he exists.

Me too actually. He was a pretty interesting character. Would be nice to see his evolution of rejecting the vulcan philosophy, a contrast to every other vulcan who is enamoured with it.

@GQMF — I agree. DISC can actually do that. As written in TFF, the character makes no sense, let’s find out why he chose the path he did. That’s actually a story I’d like to see which might have some cultural relevance, unlike say, why the TOS Klingons didn’t have ridges and the TNG Klingons did.


Re: …a contrast to every other vulcan who is enamoured with it.

Don’t forget; the Romulans were Vulcans who weren’t.

I’d actually REALLY enjoy a Sybock name drop on Discovery. The interwebs might explode!

I’d genuinely give them credit if they pulled in Sybok somehow. It’s the visual canon that needs to be reconciled for me. Making an iconic race unrecognizable, changing the design of the TOS Enterprise – an iconic hero ship, even the Smithsonian has more reverence for than they do. I will watch S2, but I watch it in the same way I watch Dr Phil or other ‘in the background’ tv. I just don’t have the same excitement and wonder as I need for previous series. This show isn’t a window into that universe I use to escape to. This is just very expensive cosplay.

You would PAY for CBSAA only to have the show be “in the background”? I don’t get it but how people spend their own money is their business.

Gretchen is a cutie.

I’m counting the days to kill my CBS All Access account. Discovery is an embarrassment to everything Trek.

I don’t get it, you can cancel it now.

Me too SH123. It’s Trek in name. Little else.

They seem pretty impressed with themselves.

I feel that too. Every time these Discovery creative team interviews pop up, I’m reminded by that SouthPark episode were they visited the West Coast where they all liked the smell of their own farts.

Then don’t read them.

And dont be hostile. Explain your opinions without resorting to being rude and derogatory. Have some respect or log off.

Stop telling others how to comment. Stop telling others how to feel. Stop telling others how to react. Who are you to insist that fans show respect to these showrunners?! Who are you to define what is “rude and derogatory”?

Your comment is more hostile than anything Fridgehead or Martin said. I suggest you should focus more on your own comments and less on how others choose to express themselves–but that’s your choice.

Oh, and they’re both right–the DSC showrunners are pompous and full of themselves, but their writing and decisions show how empty and vacuous they really are.

PaulB, you’re contradicting yourself.

You’re saying AdAstraPerAspera should stop telling others how to comment, and at the same time you’re telling AdAstraPerAspera how to comment.

Are you able to resolve this contradiction?


Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

[A less flippant answer: In my first paragraph I was imitating AdAstra’s imperative-spouting style–giving orders to others. In my second paragraph, I clearly state that I am only suggesting what AdAstra should do and that the choice is AdAstra’s. Thus, no contradiction. :)]

Let them be. I would like to see you write and executive produce an entire Star Trek television at the 11th while having to pick up the pieces from the original EP throwing his toys from the pram when he couldn’t get his own way.

I’d take that bet. I could take my old (1995) Ent-B miniseries premise and retrofit it onto DSC and it’d fit like a glove, sans mirror universe, since the strongest villains are always going to be our own humans.

You know what other legendary franchise is about the same age? The James Bond 007 movies.

You know what other legendary franchise didn’t shackle itself to canon and reinvigorated itself 12 years ago? The James Bond 007 movies, and specifically, “Casino Royale”.

Sometimes strict adherence to “canon” can be a noose.

Bond is a TERRIBLE example. Each movie is an entity unto itself. (Well, until Casino Royale and Quantum. Which was pretty much the first time one movie fed right into another) It is always in the time frame of when it was made. The actor changes but it’s still Bond. When Craig stops playing him Bond will get remade. That is the deal. Trek doesn’t work like that.

Yes and I always argued every new Bond actor basically rebooted the franchise, just more of a soft reboot. They sort of acknowledged what came before but they played in a very loose universe because it would be ridiculous trying to explain how Bond never ages lol. The fact that the films never stayed in the original 60s era but carried on with time with a Bond who was always roughly the same age kind of proves its not playing with hard canon as Trek does.

And even from movie to movie it is kind of a soft reboot each time. Until the Craig version, I can only think of a one instance where a previous outing was directly mentioned as having happened.

And what gives you the right to make that judgement? When were you appointed as the gatekeeper of how Trek should work.

I’m not saying how Trek “should” work. I’m pointing out how Trek DOES work. There is a difference that goes way beyond subtlety.

But thats the thing, they made it clear it was a complete reboot to all the films that came before it. They didn’t try to convince anyone Casino Royale was a prequel to Dr. No, they simply started from scratch with an all new Bond, new origin story and all.

And it worked!

This is the odd disconnect. If you say its a complete reboot, ala Casino Royale, then I think people would be fine with it. But when you tell people its canon to everything that came before and it suppose to fit in with all the others then naturally its going to get more scrutiny, agreed?

Thats exactly why the Kelvin films are in a completely separate universe from the other shows and films so they can do just that.

But CASINO tried to have its cake and eat it too. There’s Judi Dench still in place, but apparently with a different ‘tude and backstory. Plus you’ve got the alleged ‘serious’ take on things, but CR hinges on a guy who gets all of his leads from people’s cellphones, when professionals would keep this data in their heads. I find the Craig movies to be nearly as stupid as the Moore ones (about the only saving grace on some of those is the Ken Adam and Derek Meddings work), and a lot more offensive because these new ones are masquerading as something serious, and except for a few minutes in QUANTUM, none of that has worked at all (I find CR and SKYFALL to be, along with most Moore films and TND and DAD, the very worst of the series.)

I actually was one of those weirdos that didn’t understand all the praise Casino Royale got at the time. I thought it was OK and I understood they were trying to do something very different and make Bond a bit more realistic and grounded but it sucked the soul of a Bond film. Daniel Craig just felt too much like a brute. It just didn’t really land with me although it was definitely a well made film and the beginning was great. But yeah I did not love that film at all. QoS was even worse IMO.

It was probably Skyfall though where I FINALLY embraced Craig’s Bond and they were trying to move a bit more to what was familiar about the character. I honestly loved that film and its probably one of my top Bond films of all time. Sadly Spectre ruined that goodwill lol. But I do like him as Bond now but I agree the over seriousness of the films just didn’t land with me.

But they didn’t try to say those movies were in the same universe as the others which made it easier to just look at them as their own things even with Judi Dench there, which was odd at the time but its freakin Judi Dench!

Why is representing an iconic hero ship in a consistent way a “shackle”? They changed the Enterprise design for no good reason. They could have updated it the hull plating and minor detailing, they could have improved the Klingon visual diversity, instead they feel the need to change for changes sake. None of these changes effect the ability to tell story – just distancing fans who are emotionally invested in the rich 50 tapestry of Trek. Discoveryis self-important and ignored what came before… THAT will be their “noose”.

I wish they would stop worrying so much about canon. By doing this, they open themselves to the silly 10% of fans like ML31 and company who want to see a bigger budget version of Star Trek Continues instead of a newly updated Trek series for the 21st century.

Canon can easily be retconned, but Discovery’s insistence on not adhering to visual canon is nonsensical and distants long-term fans. Fans who have every right to be emotionally invested in a 50 year legacy. Nobody wants Discovery to have cornball sets but atleast IMPROVE on what came before, not change it so it’s unrecognisable. Imagine if Disney had changed Chewbacca’s fur to purple, because they wanted to assert themselves. By the way BorgKlingon…I find your post mean spirited and personal. Why single another poster out? What makes you the authority on where a franchise should go? If you’re so eager for this horrible show to have been ‘updated for the 21st century’ perhaps they should have set it post-Nemesis instead of giving us yet another prequel nobody asked for. They dug the selves into a hole, the press releases and interviews never represent what they end up showing on screen, the sfx are soft, hazzy and everything drenched in blue – the story telling is poor – the visual canon ties so little in with what came before it – why bother calling it Trek at all.

Your whining-hate about DSC is just so over-the-top that it’s hard for make to take seriously..and I say that just in terms of what you are saying here with words you use like “horrible,” “poor,” “why bother calling it Trek at all,” — so please don’t bother saying that I am somehow getting personal with you — I am responding to your own over-the-top bitch-fest words on DSC that you just posted here.

You and ML31 are entitled to bring in all of this incessant negativity on DSC; and I am entitled to respond to these posts you make. You don’t see me whining about your post above where you comment on me…I’m not saying like, “oh that’s so unfair Martin that you’re getting personal with me?” Nope, I don’t whine when somebody challenges my views; I simply respond with my own views…because I have confidence in my own views and can take some hits on them without publicly whining about it.

” Nope, I don’t whine when somebody challenges my views; I simply respond with my own views…because I have confidence in my own views and can take some hits on them without publicly whining about it.”

This reminds me a great deal about the Discovery show runners. They say things about what their show will do. But when we actually see the show it is nothing like what they said.

Go back and watch the TNG trailer from early 1987 and explain to me why it bears such little resemblance to what we as fans experienced in Season 1 of TNG?


Done. And it looks EXACTLY like what we got not only in season 1 but pretty much the entire run of the series. Not sure I’m seeing your point.

Wow, no, it simply does not.

It shows an action-packed series with lots of phasers firing, dramatic strife, characters dying etc. — and there’s no sense of the inept Roddenberry Rule in that trailer.

I remember at the time that how disappointed most of us fans were given the trailer versus what we actually saw in season 1 eps. Perhaps you are a younger fan and weren’t actually around then as an adult to experience that — If you watched TNG years later in syndication with eps mixed across seasons, you can never Understand how disappointing it was to many of us at the time.

That’s why I pointed this out to you. We may disagree about DSC, but I do get how you feel because that was exactly the way I felt betrayed when I saw season one of TNG after that very promising trailer highlighted the promise of something like an update of the original series concept.


How familiar are you with trailers in general? They are designed to get people jazzed about the movie or show. So you show a lot of cool looking stuff. Starships firing phasers and such. It’s pretty common. No Trek trailer is going to emphasize the “Roddenberry rule”. Ever.

I cannot speak for anyone outside my circle especially since back then there was no social media like today at all. (You really sholdn’t speak for many of the fans either, because you have no way of knowing.) But I can tell you not one of my Trek fan pals were disappointed at what they saw of TNG based on what the trailer showed us. Any disappointment came from weak characters and unfulfilling plots and displeasure with design aesthetics. I was in college when TNG, came out BTW. I made a point to be available on Saturday at 7pm when it aired on the local independent station to catch it live. From time to time a number of us would gather to watch the episode.

What’s with you with all the challenges to me saying I’m speaking for you, I’m speaking for other fans — all that nonsense?

A skeptical person might hypothesize that you know you have a weak position, so you have to keep nitpicking with the silly challenges like I’m trying to put words in your mouth, etc, to distract people from reading what you area really saying.

PS: When I say many fans back then were disappointed it’s because I had been involved in fandom since the late 70s, have been to nearly 50!conventions and actually have met a lot of people involved with the production of most of the Star Trek series. So yeah, I could take a pulse of Star Trek fans in late 80s and render a reasonable conclusion of the general opinion – and there was a lot of head scratching and questions after season one among many fans. And I frequently heard people make the comparison about how disappointing the season was versus what they showed in the trailer — people who sell the trailer thought it was going to be an updated version of the original series, and many felt cheated.

Here is a direct quote where you are speaking on behalf of other fans… “I remember at the time that how disappointed most of us fans were given the trailer versus what we actually saw in season 1 eps.” Your words. “Most”. As in a majority. As if you personally interviewed hundreds of thousands of fans to determine that.

You know what a skeptical person might do? Hypothesize that you know you have no defense for falsely speaking on behalf of others so you ignore the actual content and start going of on tangents.

You can believe all you wish. I’ve been to plenty myself and encountered NONE of that. (Trailer disappointment) If what you say were true it is reasonable that if more than half of ALL fans felt that way odds are I would have encountered them at some point at these events. So no, you do not appear qualified to speak on behalf of most of the fans. Please stop doing so. Present your own opinion. Fine. Present the opinion of some around you. Fine. But “most” of Trek fans? No.

“” Your words. “Most”. As in a majority.”

Exactly, because I talked to several hundred fans at the time through my personal network and at conventions. That’s a sample size high enough to make a reasonable judgment call to say it’s a majority. I am thus eminently comfortable with my original statement — most fans were not happy with the first season of TNG. Like, duh!

And your out of control hubris given your view on DSC versus mine on TNG is just so hypocritical. Ypu would have us all believe that only you get to say for the case of DSC that you were not given the series that you claimed was presented by you by the creators, but no way will you allow me to make the same case for feeling exactly the same way when TNG came out. You reserve this type of opinion/conclusion only for yourself in the case of DSC. That is just asinine as if shows that you create rules for judging Trek series that are different for yourself versus other fans…your own twisted version of the Kobayashi Maru scenario.

“That’s a sample size high enough to make a reasonable judgment call to say it’s a majority.”

And there is also evidence to reasonably say it’s not as well.

Regarding potential “hubris”… Nothing could be further from the truth, yet again. All I have done regarding STD was issue my opinions. I have never claimed my opinions reflect the majority view (at best I have claimed they were shared by some) nor have I claimed my opinions were factual. There is a HUGE difference between what producers writers and actors actually say about the show vs what the trailers present. The TNG trailer did not lie and it seems quite a stretch to me to claim it did. It basically said there was a new Trek set in the future and gave us character names. Little more. Did any TNG writer come out and claim TNG would be some sort of action packed roller coaster ride before a single episode aired? It was harder in those days to come across such material but I never found one instance of that. Sorry you feel such things are hypocritical. But as I just explained, it really is not.

There are no “silly” fans. There are fans who like something there are other fans who don’t like the same thing. This is the nature of fandom. I like my soccer team, but there are some aspects that I don’t like and I can criticize because I am a fan. The same is true for Trek too. I like all the previous versions, and I am willing to be patient on Discovery too but it is perfectly natural and appropriate to criticize some of the choices that they made. It is only with criticism that a product can improve, same thing with people too. As long as you don’t resort to personal insults a person must be willing to be criticized so they can learn from them. I personally don’t want Trek producers having too much “tunnel vision”. They should be open to more variety and different points of views in their shows. Star Trek has always prided itself on looking at issues from different angles and asking the relevant questions in the end.

10%? That is being generous. Maybe 5% with multiple accounts haha.

I’m sorry… Please site me anywhere that I have ever wrote that I wanted a big version of Continues. Until you do, I will ask you to cease speaking falsely on my behalf.

You don’t have to say it (and I never claimed you actually said that). Any objective person examining the totality of your comments over time would conclude that if somebody were to produce essentially a big budget version of Star Trek Continues as a new official Trek TV series, you be like a kid in a candy store.

It’s completely evident. No need for you to say it specifically — we get it!

The thing is BorgKlingon, your conclusion is not logical. I have continually claimed what many others have. That a new show in that time frame could not simply duplicate the look of the 60’s But it DID need to look like a modern take of that aesthetic. Concluding what you did from that comment makes zero sense. So no, you do not “get it” and I will thank you to stop speaking on my behalf. You are getting things wrong.

Sounds like I hit a nerve. :-)

When I say, “Star Trek Continues on a much bigger budget,” of course I’m factoring in some aesthetic updates. I think my point stands and that others will agree based on your comments track record. But I’m not forcing anyone to share my opinion, as objective as I believe it to be.

PS: I never claimed I was speaking on your behalf so please stop saying that.

If you meant ” I’m factoring in some aesthetic updates.” Then you really needed to point that out. Many have ripped on those who think STD strayed WAY too far from the look of the era as people who want a 100% exact duplicate of the TOS sets right down to the colored toggle switches. This is not an assumption. This sort of thing is written out plainly in their posts. The “plywood set” comments, while wrong, gets their point across perfectly well.

You did claim it when you say things like “ML31 thinks this…” And it turns out to be disastrously wrong. If you got it right I would not ask you to stop speaking for me. So please, stop speaking for me. You are getting it 100% wrong.

““ML31 thinks this…”

Nope, Never said that. I said that you and fans like want to see a bigger a budget version of Star Trek continues.

That is OBVIOUSLY my OPINION, and not me trying to put words in your mouth. You don’t like my opinion, so you are using distraction here to keep whining that I am putting words in your mouth, which I am not.

You are embarrassed that my whittling down your recent history on constant negativity on DSC into an opinion that you would really prefer a retooled Star Trek Continues series…obviously my point hits home, or you wouldn’t continue to get so defensive about it and try to distract others from what I quitel aptly pointed out

“Nope, Never said that. ”

Don’t get nitpicky. I was paraphrasing. It was not an EXACT quote. This is what you actually said, “By doing this, they open themselves to the silly 10% of fans like ML31 and company who want to see a bigger budget version of Star Trek Continue…” That is just another way to say, “ML31 thinks…” You know what you did and I would not have responded like I did if you did not misrepresent me to begin with. It’s fine that you have an opinion. But don’t write mine if you are going to get it WRONG. That is all.

” an opinion that you would really prefer a retooled Star Trek Continues series…”

You just did it again after I politely asked you to stop. That is not at all what I have ever said or inferred. In fact, I never even SEEN the Continues show. Further rendering your conclusion illogical. How about showing the the actual quote that led you to your astoundingly incorrect conclusion? Yeah. Because it doesn’t exist. Please cease writing what you think or wish my opinion is. Each time you did it it was wrong.

Tell me the truth, is this show worth watching?

only if you don’t have to pay and there isn’t anything actually very good on (or barring something actually very good, at least THE ORVILLE.)

Depends. Is TNG’s first season worth watching, in your opinion?
DSC is better, but suffers from growth pains in much the same way. It needs to find its voice. And as much as TNG, it starts with great characters. So, we may expect improvement going forward.

Of course a lot of people will disagree with me. and that’s why it’s really worth watching for all fans: they have to make up their own minds. ;-)

If you like klingon heavy plot lines, Sarek, and modern science fiction shows with an ongoing story then you’ll probably enjoy it. If not, maybe wait to see if things settle down in season two or have it on the background while you do something else. It’s not unwatchable but not really edge of your seat stuff either.

@GQMF — I absolutely hate any TNG era plot lines that feature the Klingons. I simply won’t even watch them anymore. But these Klingons are compelling to me. For the first time since I started watching TNG, I’m actually interested in a story about Klingons.

I agree that there’s a definate improvement in the klingons but they still turned me off of watching the rest of the season for a good six months. I would be more than happy if we never hear from klingons again, unless they revert to the intelligent TOS ones.

You can barely understand what the Klingons are saying with all that cheap make-up and plastic teeth. The make-up and masks are definitely a giant step back for Hollywood. Even the first officer of Discovery can’t emote with that dime store one-piece Halloween mask. Also, let’s not forget about the plastic gloves he wears that won’t allow him to bend his fingers. Freddy Kruger showed more emotion and flexibility in the 1980’s.

Hey Einstein, that’s because they were speaking in an alien language; the had subtitles, Mensa. Lol

BorgKlingon, you were warned about this before. Get into personal attacks again and you’re gone.

— The TM staff

Honestly I was bored a lot by the DIS Klingons. I didn’t care about the war at all. It didn’t really get interesting until they entered the MU, but thats just me.

Actually my favorite time with the Klingons was on DS9 when that war started. I was just way more invested and they did a better job with the plotting. But other than that and TUC I was never a big fan of the Klingon story lines. I just felt they been done to death at this point and why I wasn’t looking forward to seeing them on Discovery.

More like the anti-Sarek; this has nothing to do with Lenard’s Sarek thus far, and does a lot to repeal his character and make him more like a human politician.

If you’re going in FRESH, with no expectations and no standards to be met, no targets for them to hit for you as a fan of the previous series that came before… then sure, have it on while you’re eating. Enjoy! If you’re going in as a long-term fan, with a love and investment for that rich 50 year tapestry – where each series built onto the mythology, establishing design, tech and a look for each species… then no. It’s not a window into that same universe. They have redesigned the Klingons, making them unrecognisable, instead of improving onto them, a new look that is ‘less cool’, nondescript ‘birds of prey’ – ignoring all the hard work, artistry and design that came before. So many contrived ‘change for changes sake’, the Discovery production team feeling like pretentious interior designers have come in and redone your bathroom, painting the walls peculiar colors and hanging random decor but all the while forgetting to put in a toilet and sink for you. They seem to go out of their way to give fans the opposite of what might be expected. Which I understand, but if you cut away too much, you kill the shrub! Their efforts to change things up feel contrived and laboured. There are no glory shots of ships, all very soft and hazy sfx and too dark or too drenched in blue grading. The entire season is a war arc, which is wrapped up in the finale episode with an insultingly simplistic deus ex machina. I watch Star Trek for escapism. Discovery makes you feel glum. There is no sense of wonder. No adventuring to strange worlds, discovering new things, all of which the first season of TNG did. But I don’t want more TNG, I certainly didn’t want the first prequel Enterprise either. I wanted something from modern Trek that would hold it’s own against Orange Is The New Black, The Walking Dead, Game Of Thrones. It doesn’t grip you. You see where it is going. Such a short season and then you’re forced to wait another year for another unsatisfying dribble. As a modern show, it’s self-righteous and looks inward. It doesn’t inspire. The idea of an orphan being adopted by Vulcan is great! But does a stern, joyless, emotionally constipated main character endear you quick enough to care before the season is through? No. So you’re left with a series which has bad writing that doesn’t match your favourite non-Trek shows, is embarassed of the legacy it’s part of so is visually re-imagining things you were quite attached to, a main character you can’t warm to (Poor actress, she’s wonderful in The Walking Dead!) and pats itself on the back for a diverse cast when it should of been doing that anyway. I’m a gay man myself, in my 30s, my parents are staunchly muslim. Growing up I used Star Trek to escape their conservatisms and my own pain and isolation growing up. I liked geeking out at the tech, the continuity, the retconning when things didn’t quite make sense. Discovery has broken that lineage. For me, Discovery is The Emperor’s New Clothes. Everyone’s nodding and calling it Star Trek but it’s really not. It’s another universe, another franchise. Watch it if you are a sci-fi fan hungry for another sci-fi series, as it’s production values are better than most new sci-fi series… but for me, it’s Trek only in name. No exploration, no optimism, no escapism. DS9 was tense and yet there was discovery and excitement in the air. Discovery feels like you’ve sat in a dark water tank for an hour. You just want to climb out and dry off and forget it ever happened.

If you like bald Klingon orcs speaking like the Ferengi and you like surf costumes as military uniforms..

They trashed the Klingons even more than Abrams did in STID.

Well this is awkward.

Bob, straight up…it’s gorgeous. Doesn’t fit the time frame at all. You will be bored and you will cringe at the bad acting, bad storytelling and bad plotting totally devoid of fun…with characters you won’t feel like investing your time with. And if you DO invest your time, you will be pissed with absolutely zero emotional attachment to any of them when it concludes….and you will wonder how most of it ever got to the screen in the first place. I’m a huge Trek fan, been one since the 70’s. Love the Kelvin timeline…love good quality television. Discovery is a train wreck. Proceed with extreme caution.

Not if you’re fan. But if you love politically correct sjw pandering, you’ll be in heaven!

It’s hard to say without knowing your tastes. If you could watch it for free then I say do so and form your own opinions. But if you have to pay to see it, I would personally recommend it be skipped. Obviously that’s just one man’s opinion but you did ask.

I don’t know Bob, maybe this is sounding a bit too personal from a complete stranger but weren’t you and Alex Kurtzman friends, writing and business partners? I know the whole Trek experience soured you on things but wouldn’t you be curious to see what your friend has made? Sorry this sounds too personal I just find it a bit weird you’re asking us about the show when you can call the guy who created it and sit and have a beer with him watching the show together giving your thoughts on it.

It sounds like you cut all ties to people you been part of the industry with forever.

Well, they got that right…she’s definitely not a likeable character…at least so far. Tidbits toward the end of episode 3 tend to lean a little more into the likeability department. So far, I’m not real impressed with the show overall (except visually), but I can see potential. We’re just starting to get around to watching the show, but I’m really looking forward to the last episode of season 1. Saw the Enterprise design online and I have to say…she is absolutely gorgeous!!!! I know Eaglemoss has to be planning to make a model of that design and I’ll be first in line for it. LOVE that design. THAT…is what the ship in the 2009 film SHOULD have looked like (or even the one hanging from the ceiling of Admiral Marcus’ office in the deleted scene from Into Darkness…either one would have been preferable to what we got in those films).

I agree with you about the design. I have use it a desktop since I saw it the first time. Beside the few design changes it looks like a HD-version of the original Enterprise. I fear they won’t be that close to the interior designs.
But it should be possible (if they relly want it). I found thhis amazing clip with a subtle updated version of the TOS-bridge which looks modern and fits yet into the old aesthetic.

HD version? LD version is more like it, considering the lack of clarity in DSC’s space shots.

Hack hack. Hack hack. Sorry, had a rhyl in my throat.

Please no Spock.

They’re going to ruin the Spock character, just like they did Sarek

They went through the trouble to have the Enterprise appear. They cast Pike. It would seem absurd and a disservice to hide Spock or have him not be there altogether. But I would never put such a thing past the STD crew.

What is STD?

Star Trek Discovery. I guess I assumed it was obvious. You are the first to ask. If more people do then I guess the abbreviation is not as obvious as I thought….

But that is not the correct acronym for the show? It’s “DSC.”

“STD” has an obvious well known meaning, So it’s interesting to note that all the people I have seen using “STD” are people who post negative on DSC. Isn’t that an incredible coincidence? Might you have an explanation for this?

I know this is a promotional event, but these two perpetually ooze unctuous insincerity… the quintessence of Hollywood bottom-feeders. (If you’re wondering why Discovery is more hollow than Yonada, look no further.)

How much time those two guys will lie the new fans about STD as being part of the rest of the canon ?!?

Maybe they’ll brush off all their tech and knowledge like they did with “Kevin Can Wait.”

Pike: “Wow, that’s cool, what is that?”

Burnham: “Oh, that’s nothing. Doesn’t work anyway.”

‘Part of our goal for this season is to cement Discovery firmly in the timeline of Star Trek canon. And to explain to the audience how these things reconcile.’

…that oughta be be rich.

In other words…admit all their mistakes

I just can’t help but get the feeling as hard as I’ve tried not to, that these show runners are just not up to the task of making this show. Held my breath after season finally. I hoped that they would Learn from mistakes of last season. But afar reading this, I am convinced they have no clue what the hell they are doing.

You are 100% correct. None of them are qualified. But that’s what happens in politically correct sjw Hollywood. They are hired for WHO they are, NOT their talents.

Alas, I agree…

Discovery is not on cbs all access first season then nothing on cbs all access about what is happening when next show nothing . A lot of bull , very disappointed in cbs for lack of information

STD is all about social justice for women. The men are ignorant cowards.

You are not a coward at least.

Actually I wouldn’t even give him that much credit. I doubt he would even say two-thirds of what he says behind a computer as he would in public.

Good point

Honestly, you guys don’t see the parallels between current Star Trek and Star Wars??! Both are being led by people who don’t know and understand the rich history of the franchise. They were hired because they hate the fanbases and think they can pump up the profit. Three studios only care about the bottom dollar. That’s why Star Trek is nothing like the series’or films that came before it. They only target people under 20 who are female and/or minorities

I really don’t think blatantly targeting women and/or minorities is the way to make the most profit, which they surely know. Star Trek 2009 had a huge female fanbase, yet we didn’t have any female characters who weren’t defined as being love interests (including Uhura unfortunately). There are more women and minorities in these franchises these days because it’s effing 2018 and we’ve finally realised that not only white guys exist. Saying that, Star Trek has always had a diverse cast.

I do agree about profit being an important driving force though, which means that they are afraid of doing anything too risky or new and old ideas get recycled ad nauseam.

I didn’t say I wanted more white mean. You are a typical liberal. Rather than discuss the issue you resort to labeling and judgment of other people. I’ll repeat. They make the women smart and powerful and the men weak and stupid. More screen time is spent on women. Like it’s realistic a woman can fight a Klingon and win??

“Rather than discuss the issue you resort to labeling and judgment of other people.” “You are a typical liberal.” Hmmm.

Did we watch the same show? I don’t recall any weak or stupid men. Examples?

If you consider it realistic that a man can fight a klingon and win then it follows that a woman can as well. Physical strength is not the only requirement to be good at fighting.

“white mean”

Back in college psych 101 that’s what we called a Freudian slip.

The Solo movie is tanking badly this weekend. This should be big news but it won’t be talked about much for some strange reason.

I don’t think Disney would want too much focus on that. They will try to find a silver lining.

Think of all the movies you’ve enjoyed over the decades. When you think of them, do you ever think of the money they made? Or didn’t make? Probably not. So unless you’re an investor in the companies making the movies, why should anyone care about box office?

People discuss BO all the time now. Its just part of the discussion but no it shouldn’t affect if you like it or not.

It IS big news. Every movie and BO site is discussing it to death. Go on Youtube, they are basically mourning the death of the franchise over it and calling for Kathleen Kennedy to step down.

But man I have to say I NEVER thought I would see SW in this position. I remember when Beyond made a whopping $340 million at the BO and I just kept thinking Star Wars would never be in this position….and now it is. Crazy.

Disney just got too greedy, they should have bit the bullet and taken Solo to December like the previous Sequel trilogy films. They wanted to see if they could use the Marvel model on Star Wars, well apparently they can’t. Star Wars is better in smaller doses.

It is possible that the production issues they had contributed to the sub par production. But Last Jedi, while liked by critics, did not do nearly the BO that its predecessor did. Which to me is kinda disappointing. The movie that was a near carbon copy of the original did better than the one was a little more original.

Goes to show why they try to do every Trek movie as a clone of The Wrath of Khan, in Hollywood unfortunately originality doesn’t get you anywhere, you have to do what has come before to succeed. In fact this is the main reason why I think CBS and producers didn’t went to new territories for a more original series and had to go the prequel route again.

Dishonestly, yes, you are completely right.

I think Gretchen Berg could save the Earth if that probe shows up early…

I feel bad I actually laughed at that.

Not cool pal, I may not like Discovery too much, but I don’t go around personally insulting the producers. You need to be ashamed of yourself.

Final warning for trolling 0dkinWood. Comment thread closed.

“Cementing canon”. You mean, “concrete galoshes”?

Sometimes I hate it that I’m such a Star Trek fan.

I can’t stand reading people’s rediculous comments.

This is the bottom line….and it is truth: Discovery is just as canon as every other Star Trek series. Holograms or none, that changes nothing.

So many things could be said to reconcile it quite easily, but it’s just that it seems like nobody is able to buy into it.

What is so hard about it? It’s a work of fiction!! Riker once told an alien that humans don’t “enslave animals for food purposes.” In other words, he meant that they don’t eat meat. Now if we were to take that literally that would make no sense, because even Riker ate meat on multiple occasions.

More likely he was just talking dog do-do. Oh, and by the way. The holograms in Discovery are nothing compared to their TNG counterparts. Technology evolves…it wouldn’t make sense if that tech didn’t exist at that time. Sure it wasn’t shown in TOS, but it was shown in TAS.

And even if you don’t think TAS is canon (and by the way it is, it’s been said since like 2006 or 7) you still can’t deny that the type of holotech shown in TNG would have to have had a beginning. It wasn’t something that was just all the sudden advanced enough that a hologram would be indistinguishable from a real person. Come on people get real…or even better, get unreal! Because it’s not real it’s just a show and even if you don’t buy the suspension of disbelief cards they may be playing, you have forgiven the franchise before haven’t you?

As was mentioned, the Klingons looked totally different in TMP from their appearances in TOS. That was something that took decades for the franchise to explain. Just give it a chance…that’s all I have to say.

It makes plenty of sense … it is all the later eps (mainly Jeri Taylor ones, she seems to have an obsession with putting non-vegan food into her scripts) contradicting the initial statement that doesn’t track, given the simple efficiency of not wasting all the water that goes into raising animal life, and that doesn’t EVEN get into the ethical situation.

It makes no sense because of episodes like that. And your issue with Jeri Taylor stories isn’t an issue either, since those episodes are just as canon as your “vegan” story.

You invalidate the premise by overwriting what went previously. When that is clearly a wrong call, like Spock smiling, that’s cool. When it invalidates the ethical aspect of the whole universe, that’s bad.

I wasn’t suggesting that eating meat is not some sort of animal cruelty at all.

Believe it or not I personally could never slaughter a cow. That doesn’t stop me from eating a triple-jalapeno bacon cheesburger now and then though.

All I was saying is that it’s all canon, whether its’ bad or not. And quite frankly, if you want my opinion on Riker’s comment. He was simply talking down to them…they were a race of canine humanoids…he probably didn’t see them as anything more than dogs.

Riker was a jerk…and arrogant. I think that the racism would have been a bit more offensive than eating meat. But that just depends on your perspective.

TNG had a tendency…especially in the first season to portray Federation citizens as condescending toward other races that weren’t as “developed” as them.

Just because the Federation presents itself as an all-inclusive/tolerant society doesn’t mean it always behaves in that manner. In fact many Federation citizens preach their values…but they don’t live up to their preaching. They don’t tolerate Ferengi or even Klingon customs all the time.

Anyway, I’m not trying to say there’s anything wrong with your view on animal rights or whatever, I’m simply saying that within the Federation…it’s not like that. Aside from just one line in one episode, unless I’m mistaken.


“TNG had a tendency…especially in the first season to portray Federation citizens as condescending toward other races that weren’t as “developed” as them.”

That is the impression I got from TNG as well. They TALKED a great deal about “respecting” all cultures and societies. But it was made VERY clear when they disapproved of a culture. They often came across quite judgey and arrogant and like the STD producers looked like they figuratively patted themselves on their backs when they went along with an alien practice or law they personally frowned upon. In TNG, humans were the greatest creatures in the galaxy and all others should strive towards us. It was a theme that repeated itself too often for my taste. Strangely, I never got that impression from DS9, VOY or Ent. Only TNG.

I honestly think TNG’s elitist thing is largely due to Stewart’s imperialist Picard. Not a huge fan of his portrayal, except for occasional eps like end of Q WHO.

I got the feeling that it was something that came from Roddenberry himself. They continued the attitude on TNG but it did not migrate to the other shows since, obviously, he had zero input in.

Just checking this thread was really closed, as I wanted to add something… Oh well, if this doesn’t show, then I’ll have to wait until the next relevant topic.

Because my above comment showed soon after the thread was locked, I then tried to edit it – unfortunately once I’d typed out several things I wanted to add here, it turned out that the site wouldn’t let an edited version of my post after all. So even if this short follow-up shows up, I’m not going to take the risk in typing it all out again in case it doesn’t go through again, and will just wait until another topic which focuses on the DISCO show again.

Who are you conversing worth here?

Just call it a reboot and be done. As for Spock, I’m betting that we will not see a new Spock actor (outside of as a kid in a flashback) in these early episodes. I think this writing staff will milk it, and we’ll get a season ending cliffhanger where we might see Spock… might get a tease and they punt until the start of Season 3. This show is about surprises.. substance, not so much.

Is it just me or have they completely redesigned the Enterprise interior, if the entrance to Spock’s quarters is any indication.

Looks like they keep forgetting Enterprise is the size of a aircraft carrier, not a star destroyer. Remember when the Galaxy Class was the biggest ship, and Scotty felt out of place being in crew quarters in ‘Relics’.

Has scale become an issue after Abrams?