Michael Dorn Talks Star Trek’s New Klingons; Marina Sirtis Explains Why She Doesn’t Watch ‘Discovery’

Earlier this week, we reported on some comments about the upcoming Jean-Luc Picard series made at Rose City Comic Con by Star Trek: The Next Generation actors Michael Dorn, Marina Sirtis, and Gates McFadden. The trio also talked about the current state of Trek, weighing in with some thoughts about Star Trek: Discovery as well.

Michael Dorn, Marina Sirtis and Gates McFadden in Portland, Oregon on September 7 (Photo: Rose City Comic Con)

Dorn happy he didn’t have to act with Discovery Klingon makeup

No single actor is more associated with Star Trek’s Klingons than Michael Dorn. He appeared as Worf, the first Klingon in Starfleet, in seven seasons of TNG, four seasons of Deep Space Nine, and four feature films. He even played an ancestor to Worf in Star Trek VI. It is fair to say he has clocked more hours in the makeup chair being transformed into a Klingon than any other person, so it is no surprise that when Dorn was asked what he thought of the look of Klingons in Star Trek: Discovery, he had some things to say.

Michael Dorn getting his makeup to play Col. Worf in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

Dorn started out diplomatically, providing some context to how Klingons have changed before:

In a general sense, in every iteration of Star Trek – outside of Next Generation and Deep Space Nine and all those Klingons – the producers were trying to make it their own and put their own stamp on the Klingons. So, they decided “We are going to do something different than everybody else.”…and I think that is what they came up with for Discovery. There is no rhyme or reason to it, or to any of the stuff, so I think it is just a matter that they want to put a stamp.

The actor then talked specifically about how he did not envy L’Rell actress Mary Chieffo and the time she had to spend being transformed into a Klingon for Discovery:

I am actually really glad that I am not in that makeup, because if you go online and look up YouTube of Mary Chieffo – just a wonderful, just a sweetheart, but what they do to that poor girl is mind-boggling. There are three makeup artists working the whole time on her…I mean, it’s okay. It’s just another iteration.

This prompted an exchange with Gates McFadden, where Dorn noted how the complex makeup could be limiting the actor’s performance:

Gates McFadden: It’s an incredible look and she is able to do incredible things when she is wearing it. It is different, though.

Michael Dorn: That is the problem. There is nothing of her, at all…Nothing. Just her eyeballs. That’s it.

Sirtis talks Discovery and how Star Trek should return to morality tales

Marina Sirtis, Star Trek: The Next Generation’s Deanna Troi, was on the same panel, and after the discussion about Klingon designs, she explained why she can’t really weigh in on the topic:

I have never watched it…I am going to explain why I don’t watch Discovery, before they all hate me. We were on the best Star Trek show. If CBS thinks I am going to pay to watch Star Trek, they are demented. I will wait until I go to England and watch it on Netflix, which I pay for anyway.

Although she hasn’t seen the show, Sirtis sparked speculation on when she visited the set while Jonathan Frakes was shooting the second episode of the second season of Discovery in May. The actress got the crowd laughing when she spoke briefly about why she can’t talk about her visit:

 When I went to visit Jonathan [Frakes] on the set of Discovery, I had to sign an NDA…I swear to god, we have to sign – Gates, don’t we have to sign so many NDAs, we feel like one of Trump’s mistresses.

Marina Sirtis visiting the set of Star Trek: Discovery in May (Twitter/Marina Sirtis)

Later in the panel, Sirtis spoke more about how she feels about all the Trek series that followed Star Trek: The Next Generation, saying:

I actually think that Star Trek got it right in our show and in the original show because the shows were about something. They weren’t just entertainment…They were little morality plays and that is what Star Trek lost after we were done. And it ought to go back to that.

Marina Sirtis and Michael Dorn in TNG’s “Ethics”

More from Rose City Comic Con

See our previous article where the trio of TNG actors talk about how they haven’t (yet) been asked to be part of the upcoming Jean-Luc Picard Star Trek show with Patrick Stewart.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

TOS and TNG were sometimes just entertainment, and the other series were all morality plays a lot of the time.

I hate it, when those actors who never watch Star Trek themselves and therefore can’t form a founded opinion just repeat the most common clichés, they think the majority of fandom will agree to.

Actually odradek most Trekkies agree with her. Look I defended Disco hard, then the comic came out tying it to Kelvin. Im tired of being lied to and having my favorites destroyed in front of me. I have an idea, if you want something new and different go write some NEW and DIFFERENT. You dont have to change things that have been loved for so long.

Ok what are you on about? There is a comic tying Discovery to the Kelvin universe? And even if so, how does that make her point valid??? No offense but your post doesn’t actually make any real sense or why you think she’s right.

Exactly. When was it tied to Kelvin?

It would have to be the Kelvin, which is a Prime ship built years before the Narada incursion.

I think he may be referring to a Disco comic that showed a Kelvin universe ship, maybe? I vaguely remember hearing something about that here. Regardless, if that’s the case then the Kelvin universe is tied to the movie Alien because the Star Trek: Countdown comic artist drew a secret Romulan ship identical to the Nostromo. Comic artists use creative license. It’s not canonical!

Haven’t the producers stated they want the Discovery novels and comics to work within the canon of the new show?

Yes, I think so. I think they also said “until it doesn’t”. Still it is clear that Discovery does not take place in the Kelvin timeline. The arrival of the Enterprise demonstrates that. Not the same ship.

“…then the comic came out tying it to Kelvin. Im tired of being lied to and having my favorites destroyed in front of me.”

THIS is what is wrong with Trek fandom. People wearing 50 year old canon like a mental straight-jacket. Let’s destroy anything new if it’s not a slavish shot-for-shot remake of a 1960’s TV show.

Just because a comic ties the Discovery series to the Kelvin timeline doesn’t make it official.
If you see it on the show, then, it is an official change.
I don think that you will ever see that on the show.

Utter nonsense. No comic book has ever linked DSC with the Kelvin timeline.

I agree! They were ALL morality plays. Sure some more than others but they all did it although I guess you can argue TOS and TNG did it the most.

I get that Marina is proud of the work she did, but she’s a little arrogant, I think. The other Treks all had morality plays. Hell, Enterprise was full of it.
She just thinks she’s the bomb…

Marina Sirtis isn’t a very pleasant person if you spend much time around her but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

She did come across a little arrogant. I get she is happy with her show. But to come out and say it like that… She essentially ripped the other shows and it was pretty obvious that not only did she not watch STD, but none of the other shows either. But like what Soren said, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. And I got a huge charge out of this… “If CBS thinks I am going to pay to watch Star Trek, they are demented.”

Tos was campy and full of 60s stereotypes and melodrama. And sexism. I’d worry if my kids were to watch it nowadays for the first time and it doesn’t feel a tad outdated to them.
The other series aren’t problem-free either, including the one she had worked into.
I love trek but our thing isn’t the single most perfect and most progressive and most deep and most spiritual thing of the fictional universe that some fans pretend it is. You see a message in the old stories if you dig for it and want to see it, same goes for modern treks that are simply more contemporary in themes and style.

Sirtis’ approach to discovery now sadly is the same passive aggressive ‘my thing is deep, their thing is just entertainment’ snobbish crap certain annoying trek fans are known for. She said the same thing about the reboot too a little while ago, on Twitter. Even without watching, she seems to think that anything that isn’t her series and tos is shallow crap.

“If CBS thinks I am going to pay to watch Star Trek, they are demented. I will wait until I go to England and watch it on Netflix, which I pay for anyway.”

Jesus, seriously Sirtis??

I have been on both sides of the fence when it comes to AA but even a multi-millionaire still refuse to pay an extra $6 a month to watch Star Trek??? This is kind of silly IMO.

I think that tells you the climb CBS has though when so many people are of the mindset it should be on Netflix or regular TV.

Well, at least it is safe to assume now Sirtis is not in the Picard show. :D Good News


Not necessarily. She mentions signing a nondisclosure agreement along with Gates McFadden. To my knowledge Gates has made no references to visiting Discovery. This could be a reference to the Picard show.

It’s possible William. But yes in general she makes it clear why actors have to constantly lie, ignore or dodge questions about future projects because they know how seriously studios take not spilling the beans. Even when they don’t sign them they are probably told over and over again not to leak something out to the public.

They clearly know things but they just can’t say. But you’re right, they may actually know they are part of the new show but have to dodge like crazy until a formal announcement happens so it’s easier to just lie and say no one has asked them because it shuts the conversation down. Once you say ‘they asked me about it’ then the internet just blows up lol. You only created endless questions and speculation. Or even if they truthfully say ‘I can’t comment’ then it would just feed into the exact same speculation everywhere so if you just lie and a straight up deny it then it gets people off your back.

It’s also why Sirtis probably said she thought the show was just a rumor before it was announced. They have to bottle up everything not to step on any official announcements.

Fun fact: my town did not have a UPN affiliate until 2001. So, in order to watch Sirtis reprise her role as Troi on Voyager, I had to pay for cable. What CBS is doing with Discovery is just another method of using Trek fans to propel a new method of distribution and cut out middle men. Not much use in getting angry now after four decades of it.

I certainly have my issues with AA as well but I don’t mind paying for Star Trek in general. As you said plenty of people pay for cable now and yes tons of people had to get cable to even watch Voyager back in the day. I understand AA is not a great service yet and yes I know a lot of Trek fans still resents they have to subscribe to it. And that’s probably why they are doing things like the Short Treks and adding Spock and Picard in future Trek shows, to get more on board, which is a good thing. But they have every right to put the show on their own service.

I just hate this mentality that somehow it’s wrong for CBS to create their own site for their own property. In fact you have to blame sites like Netflix in the first place. Less people are watching regular TV now because they rather just wait for it to appear on there or Amazon. CBS knows where the trend is going and adapting. AA still has a looooong way to go but I would still pay the $6 if that was literally the only thing on the channel. I would just cancel as soon as the season was done. ;)

You can be on a show, love that show, love your co-workers, love your fans, but still not be a fan yourself.

I don’t care she doesn’t like Discovery, lots of people don’t. I’m talking about the mentality that Star Trek in general should be free or it’s not worth anyone’s time. THAT’s basically what she is saying and why it’s irritating.

MOST shows people watch today and love are probably on a pay wall of some kind. I bet you if you ask anyone here to name ten of the shows they are currently watching, at least seven of them are on cable or a streaming site. Discovery isn’t any being treated differently than all of them.

Probably, but then how many simultaneous subscriptions is it to watch all the shows you want, let alone shows you ‘would’ watch otherwise? I didn’t get that she was saying it ‘should’ be free at all, and I just went back and re-read her quote. It’s obviously not worth it for her to stream separately.

How many cable channels are you willing to pay for? Do you have all of them or do you have a certain number that you feel is worth it?

No one is saying you have to get all of them. It’s like every other product, you pay for the ones you think is worth it, if it’s not, don’t get it. I currently have Netflix, Amazon and All Access because that’s all I personally want to pay for. And yes I probably should’ve dropped AA long ago lol.

But shouldn’t CBS be allowed to make a site to put its own properties on? Isn’t that how capitalism works? I’m not saying you SHOULD get AA, I’m saying they have the right to create one like everyone else is doing.

Maybe she didn’t say it should be free but what bothers me about her statement is she thinks it should just be on the site she already owns, which is ridiculous and yet so many people have that attitude about it now.

But it is amazing how many out there keep saying they are getting Discovery for ‘free’ because it’s on their Netflix. Its NOT free guys, you’re still paying for it.

Well, it is on a site she’s already subscribed to. If she wants to watch it at all, she’s perfectly fine waiting until she’s back where she has access to it with her subscription. And she already WAS in the best ST, from her fond recollective standpoint.

I’ve said elsewhere that I’m not streaming Short Treks until new STD is available. I expect I’ll like if not love those shorts when I see them, but I don’t need CBS to think they’ll pick up subscribers every time they post a ten-minute episode. Some undoubtedly will renew their subscriptions 10/04 instead of waiting until January, but that’s their business.

And really, “Meh, I’m not PAYING for ST” is just the latest form of knee-jerk backlash against what they’re doing. Before that it was “Trek is about moving forward, not backward.” And before that it was “B-b-b-b-but… but-but… but it doesn’t… it doesn’t… but-but it doen’t… it doesn’t… MOOOOOOOVE!!” And before THAT it was “Meh… It’s not Trek without Kirk, Spock and McCoy… meh… meh… meh… I said ‘meh’ already!” :p

What can you do. :shrug:

LOL well I don’t actually have much of a defense to that. Maybe that’s what Sirtis meant but it seemed more like a dig at AA. But maybe I’m over thinking it. I been accused of doing that before. ;)

And I don’t blame people for not wanting AA. I have also said, I think literally yesterday on another page here, I can understand both why people cancelled it after DIS ended and I don’t see many people signing up again early to watch the Short Treks which is obviously a desperate attempt to get people to sign up again. It’s pretty obvious the subs dropped like a stone once DIS was over and so now they are scrambling to keep the few subscribers they have and the rush to make more Star Trek, ie, the Picard show.

So I’m not really defending AA so much as I’m saying it does have the right to exist. But yes, it still needs to have better content to convince people to sign up, I agree.

But yes I do think as fans we do a lot of knee-jerk reactions, but hopefully not to the point this show gets cancelled because fans hate AA or not fond of how different it is from the other shows. But yes Trek fans can be a fickle bunch and I include myself in that.

AA’s a better bet for me right now than Amazon, even if Amazon does have better streaming quality. And I personally love how different STD is from other Treks. But I also prefer every version of ST to be as different as possible.

VOY is the show that offers the least to me, and I think most fans agree. I’ve tried to get into it three times before, and I’m even been trying again now. But it’s really easier to just go back and re-watch TNG an umpteenth time, when that’s essentially what VOY is anyway. I dislike sameness. STD makes so many right decisions, I’d hate for it to not pay off for CBS. I just hope with some executive stability this season (unlike S1) STD can start to realize its potential.

For all the backlash each new ST gets, I think fans still recognize FRESH when they see it. They’ve ‘generally’ come to recognize VOY wasn’t it — Even though VOY was the one show that didn’t have that immediate backlash. For all of STD’s S1 flaws, I think if fans unanimously praised STD right out of the box it would have been a really bad sign.

Whether STD works out for AA, I think it would still survive for a while even if AA didn’t. CBS’ list of other ST projects may become a lot shorter though if STD’s success remains in doubt.

@Sam — I can add CBSAA to my Amazon Prime subscription with the touch of a button. It’s no different than buying a PPV movie, except I get it for a month and watch a lot of other programming at the same time, and cancel it at the touch of a button if I don’t see anything of value I want to keep watching. If Sirtis is saying she never rents movies PPV, then maybe I’ll give her this. But if she does, then there’s really no excuse.

I’m not subscribed to Amazon Prime; I don’t care to speculate what her situation is, but she’s not a fan and it’s not a priority for her. I got friends who are fans and haven’t checked STD out. Seriously people, are you going to worry what all your other favorite ST cast members watch in their downtime too?

“But it is amazing how many out there keep saying they are getting Discovery for ‘free’ because it’s on their Netflix”

I haven’t heard anyone on THIS site say that. Nor have I encountered anyone elsewhere say that. Saying such a thing is like saying a show is “free” because it’s on a cable channel. No, it’s not. It might FEEL that way because it was added to a service you are already paying for. But make no mistake. You are still paying. That said, there are people who still think their tax refund is FREE money. No, it’s not! It’s YOUR money that you overpaid over the year. You essentially gave the government a zero interest loan.

No I don’t think I heard anyone here say that, but I have heard it in other places, mostly Reddit, which is where I usually read up on fan comments. Again not so much now but at the beginning I would bump into posts saying that a lot.

Here is one example I remembered reading and found again:

“Why do American viewers have to pay a monthly fee when everyone else gets it free via Netflix?”


But yeah there were certainly people with that viewpoint. Some really do seem to think Netflix is a free service which is bizarre.

““Why do American viewers have to pay a monthly fee when everyone else gets it free via Netflix?” ”

Holy crap! Unbelievable. Maybe whoever said that is on their parents account or is piggy backing on a friend’s account? (I do that with Netflix). :)

Ten shows? That’s got me thinking. I know Orville, Masterpiece Theater and Gunsmoke, and Comet’s scifi fare, are free on antenna. I own the Sarah Conner Chronicles on DVD (will someday get BG on DVD), so they are now free with each successive viewing. I do have a Roku box and Netflix, and Dish, from where the rest of my favorite shows come (including DS9, ST, TNG, Voy, Ent). I don’t want it to get any more complex (or expensive) than that.

Well I meant current shows, ie, airing new episodes like Orville.

+1 on that Sam

Yeah I have to agree with Tiger2. She refuses to pay $6 a month!!?? When I lived in the US, I cut the cord and got rid of my $175 Comcast bill, I loaded up on streaming services such as Hulu, Netflix including CBSAA. That is all thanks to the availability of those services plus the fact now you can get live sports by streaming as well and you can get local channels over the air. YES YOU HAVE TO PAY FOLKS but in the end it is far far cheaper than what I was paying for Comcast. Just my opinion but I don’t really see her issue but everyone has the right to their own opinion. Since I moved, I now have other options to watch, but I still keep my streaming services, although I did get rid of Hulu.

I think what bothered me is that she called the idea of paying for it ‘demented’, as if you are nuts if you are going to pay sit to ten measly dollars a month for something you say you love. ‘Wow, CBS charging fans money to watch Star Trek, it’s insanity!!!!’

MEANWHILE she’s sitting at a convention people probably paid $20+ to get in, probably charged multiple times that to get an autograph picture of her and no telling how much they spend for all the merchandise they sell at these places.

I mean most fans ALREADY pay a ridiculous amount of money on their favorite hobby. Some people pay thousands of year on merchandise which is nuts to me but it’s their money.

But now people lost their minds they are being asked to pay $6-10 a month for a brand new Trek show? Sirtis sound like CBS was cheating people and she has a following, many DO agree with her just reading some responses about it on Reddit.

And yeah streaming services in general is ridiculously cheap WHEN compared to cable which has gotten crazy. I still have cable but I’m thinking getting rid of some of it too. I have 500+ channels, I may watch about 20 of them regularly. Streaming still has a ways to go to replace cable (I’m a news junkie, so cable wins on that alone, but I don’t need to pay what I’m paying just for news alone).

I’ve heard of people paying $175-$200 a month for cable and I just don’t see how it can be that high. Mine has always hovered around $110 tops. I guess if you are paying that much and have no desire to cut back on whatever it is that is bringing your bill up so high then fine. But min’s not that much. And I have yet to find a streaming service that gets me what I get from cable. This is subjective of course but I still find people saying they pay $175 for cable to be perplexing.

I don’t think she was being entirely serious about it.

The funniest part of that statement is that she is paying for it anyway. She pays for Netflix, which is essentially paying to watch DSC.

This isn’t the 1990s anymore. Free stuff on tv isn’t a sustainable model for a successful tv show.

“She pays for Netflix, which is essentially paying to watch DSC.”

Which was her point. She wasn’t going to pay extra when she could just watch it when she is in England on Netflix. But I think the subtext there was she wouldn’t pay for it even if she DIDN’T have English Netflix.

You have to pay to watch Discovery in every country in the planet. Either you have to pay a cable bill to access the channel that airs the show (like Canada), a third party streaming service (like the UK), or CBS’ own streaming service (like AA in the USofA). Soon, the cheap version of All Access will be included in Amazon Prime’s subscription in the US, which is great, but that still means you have to pay to access the show.

In the UK by the way, they have ALWAYS had to paid to watch ANY Star Trek (even TOS), since they have to pay a license to watch regular TV.

If a 63 year old actress doesn’t want to accept that the TV business has evolved beyond the model that she experienced most of her life, that’s fine. Doesn’t mean she is right.

Imagine walking to her desk at a convention saying “wait, I paid 50 bucks to get in, and I ALSO have to pay 50 bucks more to get your autograph?? you are demented”

Don’t think you understood the comment. She said she wasn’t going to pay CBS to watch it when she could watch it in England on Netflix, which she is already paying for. It’s not a matter of being right or wrong. Such a thing is subjective. Some might be perfectly happy paying extra just for STD. Others, like Ms Sirtis, not so much.

I’ve been to events where autographs were there for a fee. I refused. But then, I wouldn’t stand in line for an autograph even it were free. But that’s just me.

“but even a multi-millionaire still refuse to pay an extra $6 a month to watch Star Trek??? ”

You might be surprised to discover that more often than not super rich people can often be amazingly cheap. Really.

I really like Discovery how it’s just Entertainment it’s Dark Edgy Gritty there lots of Action and War and so what if the Old Trekkies hate it they can go do something with themselves, This is the Direction Star Trek is going in I go all over youtube and tell this to people whether they like it or not that’s just a Hard Pill they have to Swallow.

We older Star Trek fans created the convention industry. We made Star Trek popular. That’s a pill you entitled millennials will have to swallow.
You screwed up Trek. We’re taking it back.

“You entitled millennials”? Really?

Stay classy, Mike.

I’m an Old Trekkie (past 60 y.o.), watched the original series the first time through, was at the convention in NYC in Feb ’75 (as a college student from Boston) when Gene Roddenberry announced the deal with Paramount for the first movie, … and I think Discovery is fantastic. It’s the Star Trek we couldn’t have 50 years ago because there was no budget and the technology wasn’t there, and all this morality play stuff was just made up as a Trekkie defense mechanism because we didn’t have great special effects like Star Wars.

I was at the same convention. That’s where the similarity ends. Believe it or not, some people value meaningful, timeless commentary on the human condition over the latest tech effects which become outdated in a few years anyway. Just not you.

“I really like Discovery how it’s just Entertainment it’s Dark Edgy Gritty there lots of Action and War and so what if the Old Trekkies hate it..”
Ron Moore wanted to do something like this with latter season Voyager. He was overruled, and in the end had to do it in Battlestar Galactica, from which, paradoxically, I think Discovery borrows a lot.

Impressive post in both grammar and content. And internally consistent. Much like Discovery, you are frenetic (have you ever seen a period used to end a sentence?) without substance.

Dorn’s not wrong about the makeup. Chieffo is the only actor who has managed to act through those brutal prosthetics and make an impression and a character. It probably helps that she doesn’t have as much Klingon dialogue to speak through those damned teeth.

Agreed. I’m really hoping the supposed changes in the Klingon make up next season makes it less cumbersome to actually emote and talk better. Oh and hair! ;)

I can definitely agree with you on the first point. (To the second, I’m ‘kinda’ just wait-and-see)

If they do decide to keep them bald I guess I will live. I just really liked the hair lol.

I would guess that at least in the Picard series, there’s a good chance of STD-style klingons with hair added. In which case, there will probably be some on future installments of STD as well.

I’m guessing the reason why they are changing the Klingons in DIS is to make it closer to more traditional Trek canon so it will fit the Picard show as well. May not be the case but it does sound like they are reacting to the backlash by fans who didn’t like the new version and wants something closer to the other shows.

I think they WILL keep the Discovery Klingons as well but maybe something closer the TNG/TOS film versions too.

Depends on what is meant by closer. Unfortunately if I were producing, my Supreme Court ruling (post-S1 STD) would be to regard the double nostrils, elongated heads, revised cranial foreheads and bone-armor as retroactive. They would be what was staring back at Picard and Worf from the Klingon high council, as those designs’ reuse in the forthcoming Picard series would imply. However there may be a way to achieve the SDT new look with less yogurt applied, plus hair added.

Yeah I don’t know obviously, just look a bit closer to the traditional look than they do now. At least more recognizable.

Tell that to actors who win oscars in double the makeup that Dorn ever wore…just sayin

There might be one or two but I cannot recall off the top of my head actors with heavy prosthetic make up winning any Oscars…

The last one was Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill I believe.

Haven’t seen it yet. I guess that was almost as heavy prosthetic as has been worn by Dorn and many guest actors on ST shows… Maybe. Anyone else?

Wasn’t John Hurt nominated for an Oscar in heavy prosthetic for “The Elephant Man”? But I don’t remember if he won for it.

Good call! I believe so. But the fact that we are having a tough time coming up with names ought to say something abut how rare it is. And the other thing is that more often than not acting oscars go along with movies that area honored in multiple categories just because the movie overall was deemed very good. So actors will ride the coattails of that to a nomination if the performance was decent enough.

You’re stil, here? Go home.



It’s too early to claim that STD is just entertainment, that it isn’t ‘about’ something or that it lacks moral substance or coherent themes. The only season so far in evidence was rushed into actual production with its planning only half finished, its primary writer/showrunner gone and no time to breathe, let alone regroup, while churning out 15 episodes.

Future seasons of STD will be the real test of what CBS Trek under Kurtzman has to offer.

Well, season 2 lost its showrunners after the first 5 episodes so there may be some regrouping as well. Who knows how far in they were in terms of writing/planning the season when that happened? Did Kurtzman change course creatively when he took over or did he “just” take over managing the writer’s room while keeping in place whatever plans they had had for the season?

I don’t know the details, would have to find the right shuttlepodcast to refresh. But if the writer’s room got a chance to regroup, it would be more than time seemingly allowed them with S1.

It’s not unreasonable to expect a little coherence after 15 hours of content.

The show is called Discovery, it’s up to the viewers to discover what the friggin show is actually about! Ha, ha!

She sounds like a TOS actor speaking on TNG when they first aired.

” Why should I PAY for something I enjoy ? All my favourite things should be FREE…That’s why I download music illegally because nobody should get money for making art…it should all be FREE. ”

Idiot mentality. You may have been ” on the best Trek show ” but you were the worst character by a long way.

I dont think thats what she is saying at all. She is commenting on how Disco is on netflix as long as you out of the USA. I would not pay for it either if it wasnt on netflix, partly because its terrible but mainly because I dont want to support that sort of double dipping cash grab.

Not nice. She didn’t even remotely say anything like that. She simply said that she’s already paying for Netflix in her home country, where you can watch it every where else in the world, so why should she have to pay for it while she’s in the states. That’s not idiot mentality, that’s called being smart with your money. You can’t tell me that you don’t look at your budget and decide what’s a good idea to spend your money on, even if it’s $6-10/month. Even actors have to watch their money.

No, she said: If they think I would pay for something Star Trek related, they are demented… wanna get my autograph for 60 bucks?

That’s not what she said. Her own words, “I will wait until I go to England and watch it on Netflix, which I pay for anyway.” Meaning, I already pay for a service that it is on, one that has other things I’ll watch. Why should I pay for a second one that has nothing else I’m interested in.” Which is a very valid and reasonable question.

Your reading comprehension is a bit off today, methinks.

You conveniently left out the sentence right before your quote where she literally said: “If CBS thinks I am going to pay to watch Star Trek, they are demented.” So it would seem that she doesn’t want to pay for Trek. She will watch it if she can get it “for free” on her Netflix.

Well, if she has watched any Star Trek series or film on any cable service, then she has already paid to watch Star Trek.

Yes it’s the first line that suggested to me too the idea paying extra for it is not worth it. Again maybe that’s not what she was really saying but that she personally doesn’t want to pay more since she has it on Netflix.

But reading it comes off like she’s offended that CBS has put it on AA and charging people for it. This is not about Discovery in general and I understand if people still don’t think the show itself is worth paying for. That’s a separate issue on to itself. I DO think it’s paying for personally even if I don’t love it yet but that’s me.

But the landscape is shifting and CBS hasn’t done one thing different than a lot of companies have done and doing now. People are actually thrilled and excited Disney is putting two new Marvel shows on their new streaming site. It’s weird how it’s not getting the same backlash AA and DIS got even though like CBS Disney has it’s own network (ABC) to put it on to watch it for free. Marvel fans aren’t writing how they are being cheated over it like a lot of Star Trek fans STILL feel about AA. They seem to feel the opposite like they hit the jackpot over it.

It’s perplexing.

If I were a Marvel fan I would be irritated that they have so many shows spanned out across so many services. And I would be annoyed that I’d be forced to pay for Disney just to get those two other shows.

All I can tell you from reading places with a lot of Marvel fans the complete opposite is happening and they seem to be overjoyed by it! But then again they have known for a long time now that a Marvel show was coming to the site and was always prepared for it unlike Star Trek fans that literally heard about a new Trek show the same time it was announced it is going to AA. So that probably was a difference among others.

In fact I still remember when I read the news about the new Trek show and it was coming to AA and I swear my first thought was ‘what the hell is All Access????’ lol.

That’s weird. Knowing it was coming wouldn’t take any of the sting out of it. It would just make it worse. I’d don’t read up on Marvel stuff or even know any big fans of the MU so I couldn’t tell you what the prevailing attitude towards all this is. I can only tell you what I personally would think if I were hugely into Marvel and I would be annoyed with it. In fact, I would prefer they do what DC is doing. Create a Marvel streaming service where ALL the Marvel stuff would be. Although to be fair even with the upcoming DC thing there is still the CW DC stuff out there…

You have to remember though, MOST MCU fans are young, they are mostly people under 30 so streaming is not a big deal in general. I’ve said this in the past I work on a college campus most don’t really question the idea of more streaming channels no more than my generation did when cable came around and it expanded more and more. It’s just a natural progression for most.

But I can see a future where Disney may stratify their content and you can pay different prices for different things like have an all Marvel channel or all animation channel. I think these things are coming sooner than we think. In ten years the way content is streamed and packaged will probably be very different from now as companies compete for as many consumers as possible.

Although I don’t think it would happen anytime soon or until Paramount and CBS is under one roof again I can even see a day they will launch an all Star Trek streaming site. If DC can do it with frankly a fourth of Star Trek’s content I don’t see why they can’t in the future, especially if they launch another five shows in the next ten years.

I wonder how long it will be before said younger people start getting annoyed with paying for “yet another” streaming service.

Given the attention span most have, less time than it did for cable. Amazon is already on this dilution track of additional tiers and fees. Then again they are the ones paying for pay to play and servers for each new game out there. And for the same old game repackaged over and over since 2004.

David and Matt. It is the English way of self deprecating humour.. She made herself look a little foolish for the sake of an audience laugh. She meant no insult, as I read it.

Agree with Dorn. I said a while ago on here I felt the new make up inhibits the performances of the Klingon actors, even to the extent they hve trouble speaking through the make up.

I was just getting my kids used to the changes in Klingons in Star Trek The Next Generation as opposed to the original series (which made sense mostly)

She is absolutely right in what she is saying. It was all those touching moments where morals and meaning were conveyed to the audience that made TNG into the phenomena it was. For whatever reason though after it the attitude has always been ‘we’re done with that now’. Bonkers!

How can she be right about a show she admits she has never seen??

I have though. Call it clairvoyance!

I call it BS

I feel a Marina Sirtis rant coming on :( Sirtis has basically become the older version of Troi from ‘Man of the People’…I assume she isn’t a nymphomaniac, but she’s the kinda loudmouth who would basically storm into a bar and start causing a scene by shouting, swearing and generally being obnoxious. I’ve seen a TNG convention panel from last year where she was clearly drunk, hogging the conversation entirely, and ranting and raving about various things while the rest of the cast were looking at each other and basically rolling their eyes. At one point Gates McFadden challenged her and they got into a bit of an argument.

The lady needs to learn some class and humility. She can’t blame her bad attitude on being a Brit either. I’m a Brit. She’s always shooting down the other Trek shows, (most notorious is her venom for ‘Deep Sleep Nine’) and is totally obnoxious about how she believes TNG is the ‘best show’…which is far from a fact and entirely up for debate. Sometimes she makes TNG sound like you needed a phD in philosophy to understand…it really wasn’t THAT deep. In retrospect, a lot of it’s ‘morality plays’ were tame and cack-handed compared to what TV often does these days. In fact, DS9 blew it out of the water in so many ways in terms of its uncompromising and nuanced exploration of values and morality, etc. Meh.

100% agree!!!!! Couldn’t have said it better and yes, she is obnoxious as hell in real life.

I wouldn’t necessarily say that her convention persona is how she is in real life. It’s an act, different from her role in Trek, but still an act.

While she is very loud and domineering at these events, I don’t think all of it is entirely sincere – something as a Brit I’m surprised you didn’t pick up on. There’s a huge amount of sarcasm in there.

Still, maybe you have to be a North Londoner like her and I to get used to the bolshy behaviour. *shrug*

While I don’t agree with her comments on which she is best, her overall point that Trek has increasingly become shallow is spot on. Since DS9 ended the franchise has had a lot less intellectual substance.

This is vile. Have some respect.

Yeah, I thought Michael Dorn wouldn’t be too happy or eager about the new Klingon makeup. So this begs the question if he is willing to return for the Picard show, would he want to wear the updated makeup? I personally don’t think so, or maybe the producers could find a middle ground by having a less cumbersome design made for Mr Dorn. I agree with his points about the necessity to give the actor the breathing room to act even with the makeup. I also agree with Marina Sirtis that Star Trek works best when its morality plays rather than shallow entertainment.

Since they’re already adding in new versions of Klingons for season two, my betting is that if Dorn shows up on the Picard show he’ll be a little more traditional in appearance.

They already said they are changing the Klingon looks. It may not be too radical but most people seem too think less heavy so the actors can do what Dorn is criticizing the show for and that is emote and speak through the make up.

And I don’t think DiS is shallow entertainment. It’s not great entertainment either lol but I don’t think its shallow. I think it really did try to present a POV of war and what people are willing to compromise to win it, it just wasn’t well executed IMO.

Another thread I tried to compare that angle to DS9 but everyone said I was wrong so maybe I am, but I do feel they wanted the war angle of the show to be a bit deep and a little more grey. It didn’t just feel like a superficial action show, at least IMO.

Well, I didn’t see anything particularly deep in terms of messages in the first season, perhaps a little about PTSD, but still it wasn’t very clear. This doesn’t mean the second season wouldn’t become more deeper in terms of the story-line. I think what many people are refusing to admit is the fact that most entertainment these days are bordering on the shallow to keep the attention of the impatient “social media” generation. Perhaps this is necessary, but I still prefer a good slow burn story in the vein of Star Trek The Motion Picture, which is still one of my favorite Trek films despite all its faults.

Fair enough!

I disagree. I found STD to be shallow in their attempts to “hold a mirror up” so to speak. I mean, their main moral in the end was “Genocide is bad”. Hard to get less shallow than that. There were other things in the run of the show that rang so hollow they bordered on ignorance.

I am seriously doubting they would use the STD Klingons for the Picard show if Klingons are to be involved.

@alphantrion — well for starters, we don’t know that we’re not going to see makeup a little more in line with the TNG Klingons with the introduction of another Klingon House we didn’t see the first season. That said, there’s no way Worf would ever look like he did in TNG. Because he’s an established character plated by the same actor, I would expect a custom design that provides more of a connection to his TNG likeness than DSC, but it would have to be updated to match Discovery. They’re not just going to throw 1980s hair-metal band makeup into the mix, even if they were a different house. Would he agree to wear modified makeup? I think he would — Dorn really wants to get back into the makeup chair judging by the way he’s been talking over the last few years. He’s not going to care if it’s not the exact same makeup he was wearing 30 years ago.

I think as long as they do something that is between DIS and TNG most people would be fine with. I don’t think they could ever get away with a full on DIS looking Klingon. At the very least he has to have hair lol. But yes I agree his features may be a bit heavier than what he had during the shows.

But Dorn is generally right, the problem a lot of people have with the DIS Klingons is that they can’t emote like the old ones. They sound and look stiff in all that make up.

“Michael Dorn getting his makeup to play Col. Worf in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country”

First Star Trek VI is an original series movie. Michael Dorn was never in this film. Secondly, His character was lieutenant Worf not colonel Worf.

Haha so true although Dorn may have had a cameo in the Klingon court tribunal!! I have noticed the quality of writing and the editing of some stories on this site has dropped over the past few months. It is still a great place for Trek fans to visit but you really need to ignore some of the outlandish errors and editing such as the placement of certain unflattering stills of some of the actors – for what I assume is for comic purposes.

Colonel Worf was a cameo of Dorn on star trek 6.

You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. He played Mogh, father of Worf, in ST VI. Did you even see the movie?

He played Colonel Worf, who I think was supposed to be Mogh’s father.

Yes he was, he was the lawyer that defended kirk, Spock and McCoy.

Watch the tribunal scene again and listen to the voice of the lawyer that defended Kirk and Bones. That was Michael Dorn (the voice is a dead giveaway) in a cameo appearance as a nod to TNG which was going strong during the production of Star Trek 6.

Sorry Bob, you are wrong, you need to watch Star Trek VI. Michael Dorn is in it.

God, if only you knew how ridiculous this “I’m trying to be clever” post is. LOL

Apart from all what is said, he was also in the final scene on Khitomer, and in the special edition is the one that says “This is not Klingon Blood”, where they uncover the mask and reveal Colonel West, played by fellow DS9’er Rene Auberjonois.

Bob I’m not trying to pile on, but here is the scene in question where Dorn plays Colonel Worf and is introduced in TUC.


It’s a great character connection to both shows.

Love the new Klingon makeup. Don’t care much for the new Klingon characters or storylines. L’Rell made an impression but was hoping, alas, for more. And Marina makes me lol

Paying to watch Trek means I’m demented? Marina, kindly cough up the cash I paid to watch the TNG movies, please. Still cashing your Trek royalty checks, courtesy of people paying to watch your Trek? I also trust you’ll underwrite all future marketing so fans don’t have to pay for TNG Blue Rays, as well. Ironic, as that auditorium where you made those comments was full of fans who paid to have you tell them they are nuts. Get a clue, woman.

Trek as morality plays? Are we watching the same show?

Of course you are demented. No sane person would pay money to watch that SJW trash.

I like my former cast like I like my coffee… Bitter.

How are they this clueless about Discovery in the information age?

Not sure what shows Sirtis has been watching since TNG. Voyager was all about the morality plays, and DS9 went so deep into politics, religion, clash of civilizations, war, love. It’s silly to claim TNG was the only high point. All the shows have had their hits and misses.

Marina Sirtis cracks me up. She knows she’ll tick people off and knows that fans tend to be predictable in their reactions when they defend their favorite aspects of Star Trek.

Fans know their Star Trek but Star Trek actors know their fans.

I don’t care if she thinks TNG is the best show. Yeah its the show she was on and what made her famous. I see nothing wrong in taking pride in that, especially since it’s probably the most popular one even now. It’s probably the show a lot of people think of first when they think of Star Trek who were never TOS fans.

But I DO think she is wrong when she said the others didn’t have morality plays like TOS and TNG. I mean all these shows, minus Discovery, had around 100+ episodes, is she SERIOUSLY suggesting they didn’t have those stories at all? Voyager had tons of them IMO. DS9 became infamous because exactly how those issues were dealt with during war time. Is she really saying DS9 had nothing to say?? Has she never watched it? That shows feels the most relevant today than all the shows did. And it kind of feels like a slap in the face to Michael Dorn who was on DS9 and had probably better stories on that show as Worf than he did on TNG (but was great in both).

She can say she thinks TNG was the best or even that it did those stories better but to suggest the others never did them just sounds more ignorant IMO.

But she is right…

The full panel audio/video is here; youtube dot com slash watch?v=H1RzzMXA-A8 Check out my question of which sets are and aren’t built all the time. Turns out the Holodeck set really isn’t a giant cube! And, 1 question was asked by someone who helped make the Star Trek: Generations video game

Also, I hired to make a realistic sculpted cake of Riker 4 them! twitter dot com slash Marina_Sirtis/status/1038947545441923072

I don’t think those are Klingons in Discovery, I think they are “Klingons” and there will be a big reveal in second season (or maybe later). Maybe along the lines of Future Imperfect?

No idea what you’re trying to say here? Are you suggesting it’s some kind of alternate timeline Klingons?? I’m really lost.

But yes they ARE Klingons….and it’s a long story. ;)

No argument all of the other shows were better that STD but its funny to hear her shit on all of the other shows but hers and the original

Has anybody thought about how star trek Enterprise, the series sets it all up when on Klingons loose The Ridges because of the genetic experimentation resulting in a need 4 cosmetic surgery these new Klingons can be interpreted as a generation of cosmetic surgery influence

This headline is absolutely ridiculous. Marina Sirtis didn’t say she “doesn’t watch Discovery”. She said “I haven’t watched it yet, and will once I get back to the UK”.

Enough with the clickbait headlines already!!!

Agreed. The diversity headlines typically seem to stir some folks up too — and usually, they’re just referring to a one-off comment.

I am convinced that those who write and run this site know full well what will happen the moment that they post something in regards to the diversity on display in DSC. The fact they do nothing to prevent the vileness is damning.

If an old man is brought back so should the older women. It is their role that matters.

What???? Its like some people never read the articles

That’s pretty funny.

Jonathon Frakes has just given up on personal appearance completely. Marina Sirtis and Gate McFadden look great.


Wait, what? There’s Klingons in Discovery?

That got a laugh from me this morning.

Damn. So many people bothered by what Sirtis said. She hasn’t seen the show and stated her opinions and what she thinks the previous treks started to lack after TNG.
In my opinion the show was good but with things that really bothered me. The main things that ruined the series was the way the Klingons look. They look so different that they can be a new species in the star trek universe. The other thing is the character Michael being Spock’s adopted sister. No where is she ever mentioned or brought up in the series or the movie. Plus Spock’s father shows more love to her than he ever did to his actual son. This would have been fine if she was raised by another Vulcan family. However the creators of this new series are willing to change anything to draw in a new fanbase.

But all people are doing is disagreeing with here opinion! She clearly haven’t watched much of the other shows if she is saying they didn’t do morality plays.

As for Discovery, I think a LOT of people agree with you about those issues and why a lot of old fans are having problems getting on board with it. But Sirtis never mentioned those things, she only said she didn’t want to pay for AA to watch it basically.

But if she did say those things I would agree with her although most Trek actors rarely say how they truly feel about the other shows to stay diplomatic.

Exactly right, Emrys.

Emrys, I felt the same way. While it is plausible Spock had an adoptive sister the better way to go creatively was to have her be adopted by another Vulcan family. Then they would have more creative room with her adoptive parents and potential step-siblings. But, alas, we all know the one and only one reason why they put her in Spock’s family was to create a physical link to TOS they could exploit.

And it’s funny, I thought the idea of human raised by Vulcans was interesting and yet they did NOTHING with it!

I Agree. But I have no problem with Sirtis’ opinion. She has the right to think what she wants. It’s her big obnoxious mouth I have a problem with. She is just looking to stir the pot to get attention, and this is one thing I can’t stand. Another is elevators that take for ever to arrive but that’s just because I’m ornery…

@Emrys — so many moments in TOS that make the reveal of Michael’s previously unknown connection consistent with Spock’s private nature. So that’s not really an issue that she was never mentioned previously. As for what DISC did with the story I absolutely loved. For me, it added another dimension to the relationship between Spock and Sarek that was not only compelling, but very clever. Clearly you don’t agree, but to each his own. I’m glad they did it myself.

Obviously Sirtis doesn’t realize Desilu produced Star Trek to help sell color televisions. She seems like fun, but I wouldn’t trust her with my dog.

Jefferies Tuber,

Sirtis isn’t the one with the realization problem.

You obviously don’t realize Desilu was always in the television series production business for the gamble that they’d get enough episodes made in a few productions to turn profits in rerun syndication. Their customer, NBC, was the one interested in purchasing STAR TREK episodes to move their parent company’s RCA color sets.

Are you seriously restating my post as though it’s your insight? Obviously NBC was the distributor, but Desilu had to take the risk and finance the production of the show in color. The point is simply that both shows were used to sell a new business model, based on new technology. If 1960s viewers didn’t spend the equivalent of $1000 in 1966, they had to watch it in black and white. DSC is selling 15h of Trek for less than the price of a movie ticket and large soda.

We should be thrilled DSC in on CBSAA… because CBS’s advertiser-based broadcast shows are completely worthless.

I was about to write, “who cares if Marina Sirtis watches Discovery,” when I read her explanation. Bravo on that. But yes, I agree with those that say she sounds a little too arrogant over TNG.

Sorry, Marina….DS9 was the best Star Trek series. Not Next Generation.


I still say TOS was the best Trek series. Followed by DS9. I will say I will give the edge to TNG vs. Voy simply because TNG brought Trek back to TV in a big way. But I found the other shows and other characters to be improvements over TNG.

TOS is my third favorite after DS9 and TNG. Although I generally love them all minus Discovery but yeah it’s early. But I think in terms of episode count of how many I truly like DS9 and TNG is definitely the highest and why they are my top ones.

Again I love TOS but if I’m being honest only half of those episodes I can say I love. The other half is average to god awful.

Funny. When I compare the ratio of good to bad episodes from TOS compared to TNG TOS wins in a landslide. Sure, part of that is the number of episodes. TNG had a lot more than TOS. But there are still way more really good TOS episodes than TNG episodes. I can pretty much count on two hands (probably not using all fingers either) the number of memorable episodes TNG had. And that is counting BOBW as one episode! The vast majority of TNG eps were mediocre to bad while the opposite was true of TOS. Sure, they had a handful of REAL dog episodes, sure. But not that many at all.

Truth be told, the only episode of TNG I have seen more than twice is The Best of Both Worlds. I have that merged BD of it. After that, there are a few eps I’ve seen perhaps two or three times. The rest I’ve only seen the one time back when they aired. I suppose it might be time to do a TNG rewatch just to reacquaint myself with it. I do watch TVH once every decade to see if my opinion of it has changed. (It hasn’t) I guess it is time to give TNG that 2nd viewing. Perhaps when I finish up my current rewatch of Voyager. Just finished S5. I have to say it is better than I recall.

Well its all subjective end of the day. I honestly like more Trek stories than I hate and I can say that about every show. I been doing a lot of TNG rewatches lately since they announced the Picard show and I forgot just how great a lot of those episodes were. The show is definitely more dated today but the the stories still translate like they did before. But that’s the thing most Trek stories seems to be better than I remember them. Not all obviously but most still holds up fairly well and I think WHY so many of us are still so invested in the franchise even when there was no new show for over a decade. We have 700+ episodes we can happily rewatch again and again.

You can try and rewatch TNG but it sounds like it’s really just not your thing reading your posts the last year or so. But you may like some of it more than you did originally….or hate it more lol.

You never know. The vast majority of episodes I’ve only seen once. What I have left are just feelings that are not very specific. I only recall the episode titles of a handful and not many more when I get the synopsis. So it might indeed be time to revisit. I plan to when I finish up Voyager. What I recall was being a little underwhelmed with the pilot, Encounter at Farpoint. And I recall there being a stretch of eps where Picard did the obviously wrong thing in the teaser that led to the dramatics later in the episode. Of course, if he didn’t we have no show!

Well in that case, yeah, give it another chance then! Maybe you will enjoy them more. All I can tell you is I been rewatching TONS of Star Trek lately and it’s been a lot of fun watching most, especially TNG. I just rewatched the episode Ensign Ro yesterday and I forgot how cool that character was. And funny enough I read she was introduced on the show because the writers knew the other characters came off a little bland which me and you discussed a few days ago in a thread somewhere. But she is great and now I’m thinking of rewatching all her episodes now.

But TNG has so many episodes it’s easy to find a lot of great ones. I would at least go online and follow any of the ‘best of’ lists out there. There are tons around. No need to watch the truly bad ones lol. But if you still don’t like most of them, you gave it a fair chance! All anyone can do.

I been picking and choosing a lot of episodes from all the shows, but mostly TNG, ENT and VOY lately. I actually just watched an ENT episode I never seen before lol. Somehow I managed to missed it oddly, Horizon. I REALLY wish that show debut a few years later than it did, it probably would’ve gotten much better fanfare. And it is amazing how many people who watch for the first time today seem to truly love it now.

I believe that the intent of Ensign Ro was to have her be the Bejoran on DS9 instead of Kira. But the actress didn’t want to or couldn’t do it.

I agree I really wish Enterprise had not come on immediately after VOY. I still think it would have been received a lot better with even a one year gap.

I remember that too. It seem like it was that episode that made them decide on the entire direction of DS9, so it would’ve made sense she was part of it. I don’t regret she turned it down since Nana Visitor turned out to be amazing but it would’ve been nice if Roe at least guest starred on the show, especially after she became a Maquis. Even a recurring character. Oh well.

Honestly I really regret I stopped watching Enterprise as soon as I did. That show is not perfect but has some really great episodes. It’s amazing how many times I find myself watching it again and again and I’m the guy that hates prequels. ;)

I kind of wish we got a fifth season of ENT instead of DIS. Not that I don’t want DIS to exist, just that there was so much more they could’ve done with that show. Again, another missed opportunity I guess.

I agree that Enterprise was actually a good idea just at the wrong time. As far as prequels go, this was set sufficiently before TOS that there was a lot of room to do things. Early Star Feet. No UFP. No Prime Directive. Rules being made up as they go so to speak. Regardless of what some fans and/or producers have said, from this side of the screen franchise fatigue certainly did exist. I’m as huge a fan as anyone and even I was thinking they should give Trek a break for a year or two after Voyager. But UPN had other concerns I guess.

DS9 is poorly written, poorly acted, and defies all of the principles that made Trek great. Holocaust as happy ending? Becoming a local god? The whole show sucks from beginning – to mid-show reboot as war show – to the very end. Least streamed show in Trek.

I don’t think DS9 the least streamed show in Trek though. I think that still falls to Enterprise. At least based on the polls out there, it seems like it’s the second or third most watched show these days. Star Trek.com it was voted the second binged show behind TNG.


And it had higher ratings than Voyager as well.

We’ll have to agree to disagree about the rest though but I respect your opinion!

Sirtis is what they call here in the UK, gobby. Big mouth actioned before brain in gear. you were a poor actress who is living off one big TV gig and living off the money of the fans that support the franchise.
I know you read this site, so I hope you read this message.

Imagine DIS Klingons if they instead looked like TOS Klingons, but instead of played by white actors in blackface and Fu Manchu makeup like it was done in the 1960’s it was black actors with Fu Manchu makeup like it was done in Enterprise.

What would make VoQ stand out in a room full of black men and women with Fu Manchu makeup?

In the current version, he stood out because he was albino. Let us stick with that and say that what makes him stand out is that he is either albino (which is very white) or just plainly white, but with Fu Manchu makeup, like the two white actors who played this type of Klingon in Enterprise.

For one thing, the actor who currently plays VoQ could not play that role since he is neither albino nor white. For another, there would be nothing to differentiate albino/white VoQ with Fu Manchu makeup from Tyler since the latter would just be the former but without the mustache and goatee.

People like Michael who interacted with VoQ before meeting Tyler would instantly recognize him since the only thing that would make him different would be the lack of facial hair and/or a different style of facial hair.

Now imagine DIS Klingons if they instead looked like TMP/TNG Klingons. They’d have head ridges and long hair, but the VoQ problem would remain.

He would still need to be played by an albino/white man, and Michael would still be able to figure out he is Tyler since without the head ridges they look the same, similar to when B’ELanna was split into her human half and her Klingon half in Voyager, or like when Janeway was turned into a Klingon.

In both instances, the Klingon version of these women was not that dissimilar from their human half, and easy for anyone who saw them to recognize them.

Some have argued that the Klingon make up change was driven by a desire to keep the Tyler Voq thing a secret. Had the same actor been just given cranial ridges he would have been recognized nearly instantly. Of course, there are two ways around that. One, get another actor to play one and not the other. Next, don’t do the silly Voq/Tyler thing to begin with because it was creatively bankrupt to do so.

I don’t believe the hypothesis that Klingons were only changed to keep the Tyler/Voq thing a secret. It’s too big a change to do just for a plot twist. By all accounts, redesigning the Klingons was one of Fuller’s ideas. It was probably there from the very inception of the show. On the other, Shazad Latif was first announced by CBS to be playing a Klingon on the show before they later released a new statement saying he would be playing a Starfleet officer. Of course, it’s just speculation but I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole Tyler/Voq twist was only developed after that first announcement had been made.

I think you are right on this DIGINON.

It sounds like Fuller had an idea to radically redesign all the alien characters to put his own stamp on it, but he cited the Klingons specifically. I don’t think the Tyler/Voq story line was his idea. It does sound like it came from the new show runners like the Lorca twist.

Now they may have changed the Klingon design even more but I have a feeling those designs came directly from Fuller just to be different like a lot of things on that show.

Yeah, but then they didn’t drastically change the designs of the Andorians or the Tellarites, which gets me to think that the Klingon redesign was the main aspect of Bryan Fuller’s era so to speak and when he was gone the designs of the other aliens were kept relatively close.

I don’t know. I was just repeating said hypothesis. But it did make sense to me.

Wow, for once I agree with everything Marina said especially with Discovery being a complete waste of money.

She didn’t say it’s a complete waste of money, she just said she didn’t want to pay for a Star Trek show with AA since she had Netflix.

But sadly I DO think why hardly no one is watching Discovery in America because of this very attitude.

In her quote, Marina Sirtis is absolutely right.

I think not liking things and expressing a bit of criticism is fair (as long as you criticize stuff you have watched) . .but old trek actors should balance it a bit and choose their words carefully if they don’t want to come across as the cliché of the old actors who are just envious of the new things they aren’t part of and thus dislike them on principle.

In general, there seems to be a belief that trek is ‘over’ with this or that show, as if there is nothing more to say and nothing to do better compared to the ‘flawless’ past. No future. This is a very closed-minded and partial way to see things.

Riiiiiiight…DS9 wasn’t “about something”