Spock Speaks In New ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Season 2 Ad

Last night, CBS aired a new TV ad for Star Trek: Discovery Season 2. In the spot, we get a look at some never-before-seen footage, including a couple of scenes with Mr. Spock.

EDIT:

Higher quality official version from CBS is now available for those in the USA

The ad hints at a lot of action in Season 2 and opens with a dramatic visual of a sharp asteroid ripping through Discovery’s outer hull. We then see Captain Pike and Michael Burnham, each in separate worker bee-like vehicles, and we hear Pike report to Discovery that he is “in total freefall” as alarms are blaring. Title cards that punctuate the action read: “ON JANUARY 17TH… DISCOVER… A WHOLE NEW TREK”

The ad finishes with a bit of levity. We see a bearded Spock, with a slight grin on his face. Pike asks, “Spock, is that a smile I see on your face?” Spock succinctly replies, “Yes.”

Star Trek: Discovery returns to CBS All Access January 17, 2019. Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news at TrekMovie.com.

264
Leave a Reply

32 Comment threads
232 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
72 Comment authors
newest oldest
CmdrR

Just no.
That last bit looks like something the WB cooked up.
Sorry, I want to give ‘Discovery’ every chance. It has many positives, but the producers keep making very odd decisions.

Tiger2

What did you not like about the last scene? I thought it was great. And we all knew they were going to make the ‘smile’ from the Cage a big deal. I think its completely unnecessary but welcome to prequels. And I still have a feeling this Spock is going to be very popular with fans….but I been proven wrong before lol.

Trek Fan1973

It’s still confusing though. Didn’t the events from The Cage already happen at this point in the timeline? Pike would have seen Spock smile then but he makes a big deal of the smirk/smile here. Guess we will have to wait and see how this all plays out.

Afterburn

Context is key. Maybe following the Cage he vowed to be less human, and Pike is chiding him about his very slight smirk, knowing this.

Again, reading all the reactions on this page I’d say mountain out of molehill.

JAGT

Yeah, or maybe it’s just shortly before Spock realizes that the “red angels” gave his brother Sybok some really crappy ideas concerning religion…

Tiger2

Man I REALLY hope we at least get a reference to Sybok next season. He’s part of the family like the rest of them and it seems like now would be the perfect time to do it.

alphantrion

I always thought Travis Fimmel from Vikings would make an excellent younger Sybok.

ML31

I’m with you, Tiger. This upcoming season with Michael, Spock and Sarek just screams for a Sybok reference. Just one at least! That would almost be worth my subscription cost. ;)

Afterburn

Im continually surprised that anyone ever wants a Sybok reference.

Tiger2

Well because its canon. It would make sense to at least acknowledge he had a brother lol.

Afterburn

That’s all well and good, but people WANT to hear about Sybok? Yikes.

Sam

The Vulcan masters already missed a perfect opportunity to shove Sybok in Sarek’s face in ‘Lethe’, being as how they were making light of Sarek’s other ‘experiments’ at the time. It’s probably safe to assume STV remains secondary (never referenced again) canon as it has pretty much always been.

ML31

That was a missed opportunity, you are right. Although I do feel it would be disingenuous to ignore him considering that adding Micheal to the family was a similar add.

Tiger2

True, but we also know they are going back to Talos IV next season too, so it may all be connected. Trust me, I don’t personally care but if its a real story line behind it I will be curious in what they do with it.

Marja

Tiger, They’re going back to Talos IV next season??

Tiger2

Yes! Alex Kurtzman said it in interview to TM themselves during the NYCC! It’s very brief but he says it here:

https://trekmovie.com/2018/10/15/interview-star-trek-discovery-producers-talk-planets-canon-and-why-season-2-needs-spock/

Stan

Kurtzman said “Talos”. He didn’t say “Talos IV”. Slight difference but it could be substantial.

Kirk Unit

Maybe he’s just making a joke, like Kirk often did.

It’ll all come down to context. That is such a very small sliver to pass judgment over. Let’s watch and see.

Rob Eisan

Oh brother 🙄

SHiiNZoN

I really don’t really know how to reply to this comment. What’s odd?

Shawn

To me the new actor playing spock. He looks nothing like the spock we know. SMH

PEB

Shawn is it because he’s hairy here or because he isn’t Leonard Nimoy because I never really felt like Quinto looked like Nimoy either. We have to just separate the familiar from what currently is.

Afterburn

Funny enough, I think he feels more consistently like Nimoy’s Spock than Quinto did, even though arguably Quinto looked a bit more like Nimoy than Peck does.

I think it has to do with how Peck carries himself. His “coldness” feels less stagey and forced than Quinto’s did. More authentic. He has sharper features– Quinto felt a bit doughy.

In the end, I tend to view Quinto’s version of Spock as no different than I would view Moore’s Bond. Same character, different actor– different interpretation. I’m glad neither actor tried to simply imitate him.

Tiger2

I agree with this. I think he feels more closer to Nimoy than Quinto does and thats based on literally just a few words and appearance. Like you I don’t really see Quinto that close to Nimoy’s but I accept its in a different universe so it doesn’t have to be I guess.

JAGT

Peck also has a fairly deep voice – deeper than Quinto’s. And even though he doesn’t quite sound like Nimoy, there’s still a chance he does a good Spock-voice without drifting into a robotic monotone.

You comment is spot on,and the Bond films ,nobody seems to get upset about it.Nobody will ever replace Nimoy and I thought Quinto looks a lot like Nimoy.When you do original series actors or any rebooted series you always run into fans that bitch about it. The studio sees something in these people.

Who cares

We saw Spock smile several times at that age, The Cage, Amok Time, and more. Nothing unusual about it. By this point in time he had even already had a human girlfriend on Earth.

Inquiring minds

“By this point in time he had even already had a human girlfriend on Earth.”

Huh? Who?

Leila Kalomi

ML31

I sorta got the impression that that was about as one sided as a relationship could get.

Who cares

Then you didn’t pay attention ML. Spock himself stated how deeply he cared for her. He flatly said that the only way he could bear to cause her strong enough emotions to break the spores hold on her was to lie to her that he never cared for her.

ML31

Huh? It was made perfectly clear he never allowed himself to show any kind of feeling for her. Hence, one sided. The only reason he showed it on Beta Omicrux IV (or whatever it was) was because of the spore effect on him. What broke the spores hold was Kirk’s taunting to make him mad.

Who cares

His end of episode conversation with Kirk blatantly says otherwise.

ML31

I’ll double check later regarding his affair with Leila but it was certainly Kirk’s taunting that purged the spores. 100%.

Danpaine

Just watched the episode last night. Nimoy really knocked it out of the park with that one. Masterful acting by him in This Side of Paradise. (And Leila herself said “we couldn’t have anything on Earth or anywhere else, but we can here.”) Seems to me she made it clear to him six years before she was in love with him, but they were never a couple.

ML31

I haven’t checked it yet but that was my impression as well. It was pretty one sided because Spock would not allow himself to be involved with her.

Michael Hall

Call him crazy, but he rejected Leila Kalomi.

PEB

Hey if Spock can smile and even laugh in the pilot episode of TOS and then give a condescending smile in the first episode with Kirk when they restarted, I have no problem with it here. OG Trek did it first so it’s canon whether fans like it or not.

Chingatchkook

You are wrong, of course. This looks great.

like what?

Mike Stanislawski

Never a good sign when a Vulcan smiles…

Luke Montgomery

Spock smiles in the Cage/Menagerie. Was that a bad sign?

Sebi

Not only in the Cage. I also remember two additional occasions. Amok Time and TMP….

odradek

Also in This Side of Paradise and maybe in All our Yesterdays. And yes it was a bad sigh in those cases.

JAGT

He also smiled at the very beginning of Where No Man Has Gone Before, when scoffing at Kirk’s “human emotions”. Wasn’t exactly a bad sign there, but still, compared to the way the character would be written for the rest of the series, he was a real dick in that episode.

Troy Boyle

Also Charlie X. He smiles during Uhura’s song in the rec room.

HubcapDave

There’s a video on YouTube about three minute long that showcases every smile/smirk Spock does. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtMs9nJS0YI

odradek

Of course Spock’s smile there foreshadows the abduction of Pike.

I'm Dead Jim

Didn’t Spock also smile or at least smirk in Mudd’s Women? How dare he violate canon that way! (smirk)

ML31

Yeah… How dare the writers and producers and even the actor himself not have the clairvoyance to see what the character was destined to become down the line!

Afterburn

Odd thing about everyone’s criticism is that he’s not smiling. It’s barely a smirk. More reminiscent of Data. Putting aside that he’s half human, Vulcan’s have emotions and often make emotional expressions, they are not robots. For goodness sakes, Mark Lenard smiled more than Peck does here.

Tiger2

Obviously people are just going on what Pike says in the clip. That and the fact Pike might be reacting to a scene from before where he smiled bigger. I’m guessing they will show him looking a lot more emotional on the show overall.

As far as your other point, you’re completely right. He is half human, Vulcans DO have emotions, Spock has smiled in the past and we have seen other full blooded Vulcans display emotions at times, from Saavik to T’pol and yet here we are anyway. ;D

And holy christ I can not believe this is the conversations we have here sometimes lol. How much a guy is smiling, I need to find a cooler hobby. Too late sadly.

Phil

How about when Spock makes perv’ey cracks at Yeoman Rand after she was attacked by evil Kirk. Is that better?

Luke Montgomery

Looks awesome! Can’t wait for this season and Spock.

Vulcan Soul

Can’t wait to find out what big historical scene these auteurs are going to compose out of that odd pimple Spock sported in TOS episode 3×19 nearly 50 years ago… this IS the age of DISCOVERY folks!!

Locutus

I was pretty reticent about recasting Spock; however, I am much more optimistic given the choice and what (little) we have seen thus far.

GarySeven

Nonstop explosions and yelling, followed by Spock smiling. Why not make the next Star Trek series about Hungarian women tap dancing? That would be closer to Gene’s vision than this stupid crap.

ML31

And season 1 WAS Gene’s vision?

Personally, I think it is foolish to slavishly adhere to “Gene’s vision”. Thank you Gene for dreaming up the premise but a lot of the rest of your vision just doesn’t work.

Ricky

Agreed

Tiger2

I will never get the the obsessed view to ‘Gene’s vision’? Isn’t that what got us the first two seasons of TNG that so many fans say they hated? Isn’t that why they went the complete opposite way from TMP, which was also his vision, to TWOK?

Most of Star Trek people love Roddenberry had little to do with. Will never understand why he is still viewed like some grand visionary with some fans, especially if he kept complete control of both the movies and TNG Star Trek probably would’ve died in the 80s.

ML31

” …if (GR) kept complete control of both the movies and TNG Star Trek probably would’ve died in the 80s.”

100% agreed.

GarySeven

I don’t have any expectation of having the slightest impact on all the people who disagreed with my comment, and that’s fine. But I’m hoping for those who may be open to thinking differently to say the following: There are many people still left who think that the soul of Star Trek is about such things as the emphasis on the maturation of humanity to the point where we can settle our differences with mutual understanding, communication, peace, and tolerance. There are still many people who believe the essence of Star Trek, the thing that makes it special and unique, is its focus on thoughtful discussion of moral issues instead of constant action , fighting, and explosions. There are people who believe Star Trek is really about bringing light onto darkness, and generating more light than heat. People like Star Trek for different reasons. It just seems to me that if you want darkness, action, fighting, you can turn to any other dystopian science fiction that is trending these days. Statements about how now it’s time to change are fine, but it should be acknowledged that his can be a rationalization used to justify a rejection of what some people value about Star Trek. You might not mind this rejection, and you are allowed your preferences. But I hope you respect that some people want to preserve what they see as the core philosophy of Trek. One last point, that I see used so often on this board, and in our society in general. Here’s some comments in response to my post: “Gene’s only vision was money and women. There was never anything deeper.” and: I would say that this is an ad hominem statement. “Ad hominem” is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand… Read more »

Commander K

“Gene’s vision” LOL, give me a break! This is someone else’s time to make it the way they see it. And anyway a lot of his “visions” were awful

Tiger2

Agreed!

Who cares

Gene’s only vision was money and women. There was never anything deeper.

Calastir

You must be trolling. Gene presented us a vision of a future without hunger, without greed, and where every child could read.

Ad Astra Per Aspera

And he presented that vision to make a profit off of it. Let’s not pretend that he wasn’t in it for the money.

Disinvited

Ad Astra Per Aspera,

And let’s not pretend that there was anyone involved in getting Trek’s first incarnation on the air that wasn’t motivated by it. But there were plenty wrong, at the time, about it’s potential to make money. Paramount, for one, stood out in its belief that STAR TREK was a money pit that needed to be put out of its misery in favor of concentrating financial resource investment on the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE series. Fortunately Bludhorn, the man that bought their financially troubled company, didn’t buy their arguments and ordered them to takeover running the show and continue producing the episodes.

People swallow the Paramount retcon that they “saved” STAR TREK back then making the risky investment in it. No they didn’t. Gulf Western’s Bludhorn and his wife did.

Afterburn

Point me to the smile, I don’t see it.

HubcapDave

“Gene’s vision”….Oy, if I had a nickel for every time someone claimed to speak for Roddenberry!

Boo

I fail to see what is the problem here. It’s a trailer, trailers these days are almost always cut to be exciting and action packed. That’s just the viewing habits of today’s audience. And so what if Spock smiles? He smiled in the original Trek pilot so why is it such a fuss? And this whole “Gene’s vision” is just getting ridiculous – you do realize that Gene Roddenberry didn’t like Wrath of Khan which fandom holds up like some sacred treasure.

DJT

Underwhelming. Action is a dime a dozen nowadays. Third rate Spock. Give me something I care about. No stunts. Give me something intelligent that speaks to my mind.

MysticalDigtial

Gotta open your mind first. Season 1 had a bunch of great content regarding ethics and ptsd and Michael’s struggle with burgeoning emotion and humanity. I suspect season 2 will be just as good.

That’s a low bar. I don’t recall any great content about ethics. I don’t recall ANY content about ethics, actually; I recall a bunch of confused character dynamics and a general failure to consider any other Trek in anything but a lip-service manner.

Ad Astra Per Aspera

You clearly gave no intention of giving the show even the slightest chance. If you bothered to *really* watch the show you’d have seen a story about remaining true to oneself in times if desperation and darkness. Michael casts aside her ethics in Episodes 1 & 2, pays the price and rehabilitated herself to the point where she directly intervenes when Admiral Cornwall is about to action genocide to end a war. Michael struggles in the Mirror Universe on so many levels because she has to fit in while desperately trying not to give in to her darker impulses.

ML31

The only ethics that they dealt with were hardly moral dilemmas. There was the bit with the tartagrade and then the message of ‘genocide is bad, m’kay’? Both were right out of the Let That be Your Last Battlefield playbook. I guess I shouldn’t have expected better. My fault.

Max

“The only ethics that they dealt with were hardly moral dilemmas. ”

In your opinion.

ML31

Well I guess to a few the decision on whether to wipe out an entire population or not might be a moral dilemma. But to most, I would hope, such a decision would be a no brainer. So to be honest, I really can’t classify such a thing as a “dilemma.”

Afterburn

There were about a half dozen episodes that involved some pretty good moral, ethical, and personal character dilemmas. Critics of the action and FX tend to not see them because ironically, they’re the ones most easily distracted by shiny things like a toddler.

ML31

There were some. But precocious few. So few that nearly no one is able to recall more than two of them. And that’s because those were hardly of the subtle variety. There really was no character dilemma at all. What there might have been was briefly dealt with off screen. And your points might be taken a little more seriously without the antagonizing editorial. What such comments do is undercut any validity the words may have had.

Afterburn

I am well aware of the validity of my own statements, I’m tired of being told that people who like DSC “don’t know what Trek really is about” when people who think there’s no thoughtful storytelling just willfully refuse to see it. So if I feel like chiding others likewise, I’m certainly entitled.

I can point to more than a half dozen episodes of DSC with good lesson and dillemas in them. Which is more than most seasons of past shows percentage-wise; not every episode or movie of Trek has had them (in fact I’d say most didn’t). Sometimes it was just action schlock (First Contact, Starship Mine), sometimes it was a just a character story (Data’s Day, Galaxy’s Child) and sometimes just a mind bending gimmick (Cause & Effect, Frame of Mind). I would say moral-and-ethical-dilemma-heavy episodes account for MAYBE 25-30% of Trek, though they are typically a hallmark of the best the franchise has to offer.

*I use TNG examples because it is both the most beloved series in fandom and pop culture, as well as the series I am most intimately familiar with on an episode-to-episode basis

ML31

I have no doubt you believe in the validity of your statements, Afterburn. What you seem to have not understood was that when you talk down to and insult people who do not share your take on things… To OTHER PEOPLE it undercuts the validity of your comment.

You might think there are a half dozen “good” lesson and moral dilemma episodes in STD. I would challenge that. There were a couple that contained such dilemmas but none of them were “good”. And yes, that is subjective.

I understand your use of TNG is because of familiarity. But I have more familiarity with TOS. There really weren’t a lot of true “moral dilemmas” for Kirk to deal with. But the show was often (not always) at its best when he had them. That was something that was lacking in STD. There was literally NONE of that. (from a good drama standpoint, that is) Granted, part of that was due to the serialization of the entire series. Stand alone episodes are more conducive for such things.

Afterburn

Your willful denial of the moral issues in DSC is astonishing. The entire storyline of the tardigrade culminated with a moral dilemma, and that’s just one minor example. “The Vulcan Hello” was another one.

ML31

The tartagrade thing was one of the two obvious ones. And that one was presented in a very one sided way. It was not very good drama at all. The Vulcan Hello was nothing of the sort. That was just, ‘my way is better than yours’.

Afterburn

@ML31 I’m sorry if you can’t see the moral dilemmas in these episodes but it’s not my job to point them out to you. If you don’t see them, or don’t wish to, that’s on you. Stop watching and move along if the show is not to your liking, but don’t say it doesn’t have what you’re looking for when it’s there plain as day.

ML31

Good Trek drama comes from when there really is no right answer to a situation. There was none of that in STD. When they had an issue it was pretty obvious what the way to would be. But it seems you aren’t reading me correctly. They had some. They just weren’t good drama for the above reasons. I never asked you to point such issues out to me. Not sure why you felt it was asked of you. I just said they weren’t good. Nothing more. Again, please stop telling fans to stop being fans. It’s not going to happen. I will watch whatever incarnations of Trek I can get my hands on hoping they will be good. If they aren’t I just won’t watch them again. Like with TVH or STD. It’s your job to tell people what kind of fans they should be.

Ad Astra Per Aspera

Starfleet Command considering using genocide as a legitimate tactic to end a war was another one.

And let’s not forget Michael’s grand speech at the conclusion of the season. That was Star Trek values through and through

Political scientist

It was not a no-brainer in the closing days of WWII.

ML31

Political Scientist, not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that the American and allied leaders wanted to commit genocide on the Japanese people?

Who cares

@ML
He is saying that they chose to do so. They failed the moral dilemma that you called a “no brainer”.

ML31

The allies chose genocide? What history book did THAT come from? I ask because that is not how any rendition of the events has been told. Is that the Japanese side of things taught there?

Who cares

@ML

Thats facts, they had a choice. Drop the bomb or don’t, nothing compelled them to drop it, and every history book I have ever read makes specific mention of the long agonizing debate in the senate about the choice to do so. I don’t know where you learned history but they failed you.

ML31

Dropping two atomic bombs hardly is classified as “genocide.” That seems to be where we are hung up. History has not failed me so much as English has failed you. Learn the definition of words before arguing about them.

Boo

History seemed to have whitewashed to you that the decision to drop the atomic bombs was a choice made because they wanted to see what the weapon would do. It was unnecessary, it didn’t have to happen, when America military leaders during that time have spoken to that fact. Japan was going to surrender, the bombs were unnecessary and were used to target civilians. Do more research, learn your history instead of what you want to hear

ML31

Well.. The fact of the matter is that had they not been used there would have been an allied invasion of Japan. Which would have cost how many more young American lives? We found out during the occupation for sure what intelligence suggested… That Japan was going to fight to the bitter end to the point where civilians were being told to fashion weapons from rocks and sticks to fend off invaders had it come to that. Japan was not going to surrender before an actual invasion. One bomb was dropped. They STILL didn’t surrender. Not until the 2nd one was. And yes, scientists did want to learn more. But the decision was a strategic military one. Not a scientific one. You are the one that needs to learn your history. Not what you wish was the case. Believe me… All records indicate that Truman struggled with the decision but in the end sided with saving American lives.

El Chup

lol

Ian

The PTSD exploration included a tasteless scene played off as a rape for weeks, I can’t say I’m in love with their choices.

MysticalDigtial

As a abuse survivor, I found it refreshing to have that trauma addressed, even in the ‘enlightened’ culture of the Federation and actually have Ash find some peace before the twist comes. It’s something that has barely been discussed well in the franchise, and sometimes downright terribly done as with T’Pol.

Danpaine

Seems I watched a different season one.

ML31

Me too. I didn’t see any of that. Wish I did.

Afterburn

It would help if you paid attention instead of typing angry comments on TrekMovie while the show is on.

ML31

HMM… So anyone who didn’t see what Afterburn sees did not pay attention. How very IDIC of you.

It seems you are one of those who chooses to see anger everywhere including where it doesn’t exist. I am sorry you have such a gloomy view of things. I truly am.

Afterburn

It very much does appear that you are obstinately ignoring the content, I’m very sorry to say. There is so much classic Trek principle within DSC that it saddens me when fans can’t appreciate it.

ML31

I guess this supports the theory that people see what they want to see. In the interest of fairness perhaps I missed it because the show was so very bad that it’s low quality distracted me from the attempts to be Trek-like?

Look, I am not saddened when someone doesn’t like something I do. Everyone has their own likes and dislikes. It’s really not a big deal. I am sorry it affects you so much that your opinion is not shared by others.

MysticalDigtial

The thing I don’t get is the low quality line, it is without a doubt the best the franchise has even been production wise, and the actors are all really nicely cast and do great work. The stories I will admit are more in the eye of the beholder, but none in Discovery were as bad as stuff like Threshold, and it was less ‘morality play preachy’ than stuff like The Drumhead (which is a great episode, do not get me wrong, but man does it beat you on the head). It struck a great balance all things considered.

I think the problem is people get hung up on their nostalgia. You can’t have the past back, but you can relish what it gave you while still finding the good in the new. Take joy int he different takes of Star Trek, rather than asking everything be the same as before.

ML31

Low quality in terms of writing and plotting. The production itself is very well done. It does indeed LOOK great. The problem there is that it doesn’t look like Star Trek set 10 years before TOS in any way shape or form. In fact, it looks like Star Trek set 25 years post Nemesis or Star Trek of the KU. But larger than that, the main character is pretty darn boring and the big plot twists were groan inducing. There was nothing clever or surprising in the writing and story. Hence the “low quality” comments.

Afterburn

I am not saddened by your dislike, I am saddened you can’t see the things that make DSC wonderful, the things you’re looking for.

And yes, fans see what they want to see, and don’t see what they don’t want to.

ML31

Just check out my above post. I really do think STD is a top notch production. They did a wonderful job there. If it were set in the KU or post Nemesis it would be a fantastic fit. Praise where praise is due. Sadly, much of the rest of it is well below par. I would argue that in this case someone doesn’t see what they don’t want to. I desperately want Trek to be GOOD. Just because I am a fan I am not going to say it’s great just because it has the Star Trek label on it. I am being honest. Discovery’s first season was abysmally terrible. One good episode in the lot. None of the others came close to it. And that writer jumped ship. I am simply calling it as I see it. When my team sucks, I won’t sugar coat it. I will say my team sucks. If a new Trek show is bad, I will say it’s bad. I don’t want either to be bad. But that is the way I see it. You loved it. I’m not sitting here telling you you should have hated it. Continue singing it’s praises. I, and many others, do not share that view. Accept it.

Afterburn

If I’m being honest I find most of the writing on TOS to be abysmally terrible, ham-fisted at best, and nearly unwatchable. I find DSC to be well crafted, smartly written most of the time, if not as finely executed as it could be.

Tiger2

TOS was made in a different time though. I don’t disagree that much, TOS had just as many bad stories as it did good like all the others did. It just had a lot less episodes than the other shows overall so you don’t have to trudge through as many. And being the original it has stronger nostalgia to it; but it was a show very set in its time.

Everyone will have their own individual taste, there is nothing wrong with that. If you think TOS sucks, fine! But dude, you STILL watched it right? You’ve seen every episode, right? My guess more than once. So why is it not OK for people to complain about Discovery?

This is what gets frustrating about these discussions. Over and over we hear “if you don’t like the show, don’t watch it” even though these people didn’t take their OWN advice when the other shows were on and they sat through TNG, DS9, VOY, etc apparently hating every second of it, but managed to get through 100+ episodes just the same.

Thats how fandom works, people simply can hate a show but still watch because deep down they still want to like it and are fans. In time maybe more will with Discovery. None of it is personal, Trek fandom is simply not a monolith.

ML31

Yeah. My pet peeve is the foolish “If you hate it don’t watch it” argument. That just makes no sense to a fan. For me, I’ll watch whatever Trek that comes out. Even if I am not thrilled with the set up. If that show or movie is bad, I just won’t watch it again. I can promise you, it is highly unlikely I will ever see one minute of the first season ever again. But I will be back for season 2. Why? Because I’m a fan. I wouldn’t do that for just any brand. The Marvel movies have started peetering out for me. I’m likely going to be skipping most of them in their theatrical runs. There are TV shows where I watched the first season and bailed. Others were so bad I watch 4 or 5 episodes and bailed. But not for Star Trek.

For Trek, I might revisit it years down the line. I will watch the abysmal The Voyage Home every decade or so. Hoping I might see it in a new light. I’ve done that twice. It’s still terrible. It’s been over 20 years since I’ve seen more than 5 episodes of TNG more than once. I’m probably going to rewatch that show sometime soon just to see it through older eyes. At the time, I didn’t think it worth repeated viewings.

odradek

Little early to call him third rate. He is a a third generation Peck, that gives me confidence.

El Chup

Word

khambattafan

That’s a tad unfair. Yes, Discovery spent 11 or so hours flailing about, but then it ended with 20 minutes of telling us that 1) genocide is bad, 2) instead of doing genocide, you should trust a doomsday device with a rapist (?) whom you barely know. Why? Because we are Starfleet. That is why.

ML31

LOL, khambattafan. Thanks for the laugh.

Tiger2

I will never stop saying it, that finale and its ‘message’ was plain awful.

ML31

But but…. It was so… Woke!

Jefferies Tuber

There was no rape. L’Rell was always having sex with Voq. The Ash programming in Voq was always an illusion, until Voq was purged.

Anyone who thinks this trailer is “all action” should watch the TWOK trailer from 1982…

Max

Or the original teaser trailer to First Contact.

Support Your Local Salt Vampire

Or the original trailer for Generations.

Sam

Or even the final trailer to First Contact. Or any other ST trailer for that matter. Or perhaps any movie trailer, period.

What about the original pre-Farpoint TNG series “countdown” promos? (“In… six… days… the… 24th… century… begins.”) Not a lot of dialogue there. The title card used to EXPLODE onto screens in front of that hyperspace starfied… before they changed it out with that silver streamlined wipe at the end of re-run hiatus.

Tiger2

I never understand why people are so bothered by seeing action in Discovery trailers since A. they ALL had action and B. the franchise is an action adventure show. TNG probably had the least action out of all of them but it still had plenty of action. DS9 clearly the most, especially once the Dominion war starts and why people seem to love it. I can be hard on Discovery but that always seem like the weirdest critique to have. Its an action franchise, it just doesn’t need action all the time to tell its stories.

That’s why Trek is great, it can be lots of fist fights and explosions in one story then people just talking in a room trying to solve a dilemma in the next.

ML31

Tiger… I don’t like that it seems that needed to be said. But it did.

Tiger2

Its such a weird hang up! Every other episode on TOS Kirk was either karate chopping someone or the ship was getting into a space battle. Every single film minus TMP and TVH had at least one big space battle. And all shown in the trailers.

DIS doesn’t have any more or less action than the later shows. And showing it in the trailers make sense as they all did.

Sam

I think everyone on this thread is in agreement.

Jimmy Norris

Can’t wait for this. Season 1 was great.

Luke Montgomery

Agreed. This looks awesome.

Mark Calcagno

I’m also pretty sure the content they’ve been showing is only from the first two episodes or so. That leaves me even more excited!

Roykirk

Assuming it’s the asteroid collision she is talking about with “Starboard Impact!” um, that looks like the dead center of the ship. Not starboard.

This looks pretty good to me, surprisingly. I was annoyed by the shot of Burnham running in a straight line away from the crashing ship; has she never seen “Prometheus”?!?

Otherwise, though, it looks fine. The smiling-Spock thing is probably a sign that they’re trying to explain the fact that he smiles in “The Cage,” a thing nobody, anywhere, any time EVER needed an explanation for. But Peck himself seems promising.

ML31

“The smiling-Spock thing is probably a sign that they’re trying to explain the fact that he smiles in “The Cage,” a thing nobody, anywhere, any time EVER needed an explanation for. ”

I believe that is 100% spot on. And it is a worry for me. The desire to explain away something that had no need to be explained away beyond, “it was a pilot episode no one was expected to see and we had no idea what exactly the Spock character would become.”

Michael Hall

@Bryant Burnett:

Actually, back in the early ’70s two of the original “fanzines,” TREK and ENTERPRISE INCIDENTS, ran big articles that discussed the smile’s inclusion in “The Menagerie” and attempted rationales for it, so it’s not like there has never been any fan interest in the topic. Not to say that it was necessary for the DSC producers to address the issue at all, but if they came up with something that was fun and inventive and addresses the canon in an interesting, unexpected way — a big if, I’ll grant — why not?

Danpaine

I believe Nimoy himself indicated the smile occurred in the pilot because he himself hadn’t ironed out how the character of Spock should act yet, and that he thought Hunters’ portrayal of Pike so stoic, he felt added levity was needed. Once Shatner came on-board with a personality so much more front-and-center than Hunters, Nimoy felt he could play Spock more reserved. He also said on Twitter shortly before his death that the director made him smile. Just repeating what I’ve read, not making any claims of my own. Anyway I agree, no one needs an explanation to this well-worn 50-plus year old question.

Michael Hall

That’s the “real” explanation for the smile, not to be confused with the in-universe one. And, no disrespect intended, but why do you take it upon yourself to state that “no one” needs an explanation for the discrepancy? I don’t, in particular, but maybe some fans might feel differently?

Tiger2

I guess what he means is if this was a serious issue more people would’ve demanded it from the start. Maybe some did but my guess is the overwhelming majority never cared and hence why it was never explored through TOS entire run, even when people have pointed out countless times he smiled on the show including when he wasn’t forced to do it. Data also smiled in Encounter at Farpoint and we never saw him do it again, no one seem to demand why? Most do understand the character was new and as it went on they simply got a better reading on him.

Michael Hall

Maybe, but it’s really not up to you, or him (or me) to decide what constitutes a “serious issue” in a fandom in which, by definition, there are NO serious issues. (Personally, I think it’s an interesting hypothetical as to why Spock acted so out-of-character in the first pilot, but I don’t feel even all interesting questions need be answered, the mystery being part of the fun.)

Tiger2

LOL no one said its up to any of us. He’s just stating his opinion like we all do here. But in this case he’s simply saying it never seem to had been a big deal to ANYONE, including people like Roddenberry and Nimoy who never even bothered to give an off camera explanation about it. Because even in their minds, it was just a production issue, not a story one because that’s all it was. Same reason why Klingons looked different in TOS vs the movies and other shows. But we got an unneeded explanation for that too.

Look end of the day they can do what they want obviously. Most will watch regardless. No I don’t think its necessary at all like many seem to feel, then again it’s not the end of the world either. Maybe it will give us a nice insight into the character or it will just feel like a big shrug. Whatever, hopefully the story itself will be interesting enough at least.

Michael Hall

Stating what you feel is important, or not important, is fine. Stating such on behalf of other people, not so much.

(And yes, in 1979 Roddenberry brushed-off the new Klingon make-up’s inconsistency with what had gone before as no big deal, an obvious upgrade that would have been done on the series if budgets had permitted. Lots of fans, as ready to jump on canon concerns as some are today, were not so quick to agree, though.)

Tiger2

I think you’re taking his statement way too much to heart. I agree with him, no one NEEDS to know because there was nothing TO know. It was simply a production issue which has been explained by Nimoy himself.

This is where fan obsession gets ridiculous. It was never a story or character issue, it was based off of an unaired pilot and whose character was changed in the next one. And yet here we are talking about it over 50 years later as if it was suppose to be some important moment for Spock when we already know it wasn’t. This is why we Trek fans get the reputation we do.

If they at least alluded to it in TOS to make it slightly canon even that would’ve made it more relevant. No one ever did for a reason.

ML31

” it was based off of an unaired pilot ” That no one ever felt would be seen by anyone other than network people. I think that add ought to hammer the point home.

I agree… If they take it and do something interesting with it, fine. They can do what they wish. If they are successful I will honestly be surprised. I suspect it will be more like the Klingon explanation from Enterprise. OK. The answer to a question I and many other fans weren’t asking. But it didn’t suck. So moving on….

Danpaine

I’m not going to throw any more wood on this bonfire, but thank you, Tiger. You get what I was saying.

Michael Hall

And again, it’s not for you to decide what anyone else needs to know, or does not need to know. If you wish, for yourself, to put all canon discrepancies based on real-life production issues into the “no need to know” category, then fine. But by that standard, no one needs to know why Discovery looks like a sequel to NEMESIS, rather than a prequel to TOS. You can’t have it both ways.

The smile did not just appear in an “unaired pilot.” The moment is included in “The Menagerie,” which was aired. The reason that it happened was because the producers were, in Roddenberry’s own description, trying to produce half of an SF feature film on a limited budget, 26 times a year. The demands on the editors of “The Menagerie” were so intense that the film was barely delivered on time for the network to air it (and the exhausted lead editor quit shortly thereafter). It’s no wonder that the smile was inadvertently left in, while some interesting character moments like Pike’s extended conversation with Vina on Earth, or the revelation that his first officer harbored fantasies about him, were cut. The reason that the discrepancy in Spock’s behavior was never addressed on the show was the same reason a hundred other canon discrepancies were never addressed: because the producers didn’t have the time, or the inclination, or the ability to go back and deal with their mistakes when each show presented its own list of challenges. That doesn’t mean such discrepancies don’t beg explanation, or aren’t important to some fans.

Danpaine

“And again, it’s not for you to decide what anyone else needs to know, or does not need to know.”

Thanks, Michael, for clearing that up for me. I NEVER said it WAS, and I was simply agreeing with someone ELSE’S COMMENT.

Good Lord.

Michael Hall

Good Lord, indeed. Bryant Burnette, Tiger 2 and yourself all agreed with each other that Spock smiling in “The Menagerie” was an unimportant, understandable lapse that “no one” cared about, or needed to see explained by DSC revisiting the issue. I found that to be rather presumptuous, and without casting aspersions on any of you personally, I took exception. Is that not allowed?

Tiger2

Yes it was in the Mangerie and yet no one STILL cared to explain it, because it wasn’t seen as issue. No one thought it needed to be part of some huge story line, it was just a moment where Spock smiled, because as said several times, he smiled at OTHER times in the show itself! Its not the only time the guy smiled, probably just the biggest.

I’ll say again though, no one said its the end of the world that they are covering it. I’ve said it several times it’s fine. But no one is losing sleep over it if they never covered it. It’s been 50 years, no one but hardcore fans care and truthfully I don’t think they even care that much as this thread has shown. But they brought Spock back so they have to find some new angle with the guy I guess. Lord knows everything else has been covered.

As far as DIS, I said countless times I ACCEPT it looks advanced for its period. I simply think it was stupid to have the ship this advanced in the 23rd century but never ONCE said I’m looking for an ‘explanation’ why because I KNOW why. But not shocked people hate it lol. But the damage id done now, so you either accept it or don’t.

ML31

You know what? I think I now want an entire series devoted to why Mitchel put an ‘R’ on Kirk’s tombstone in that 2nd pilot. That needs to be explained!!

lol!

Michael Hall

How do you know that the producers didn’t see it as an issue? Did you ask? If you’re making that assumption based on the fact that they didn’t end up addressing it — well, I covered that.

It’s a good thing, I guess, that you’re willing to accept that DSC is a visual reboot and don’t require an explanation for why it looks like a show produced in 2018 as opposed to 1968 (though for some reason you then backpedal and call the decision to make the ship look advanced ‘stupid.’) But I read these forums, as I assume you do, and plenty have insisted on just such an ‘alt-universe’ explanation if they’re ever going to accept the show.

Tiger2

Because no one ever said it WAS an issue lol. Nimoy said what it was, end of story. As you personally said they left it in the Menagerie and YET no one ever hinted it was a big deal. Michael, I get your point, but lets face it the ONLY reason this is even talked about now because someone on Discovery thought it would be an interesting angle for the character. Fine, but if they DIDN’T go that direction I doubt anyone would seriously care.

As for DIS, yes it IS stupid IMO, but YES its also 2018, so I get that. And far as the ‘stupid’ line I have said this over and over again so I’ll say it yet again: The problem is you can’t call something a ‘prequel’ to a show then ignore the aesthetics or design of the show and just expect fans to accept it. Especially just a decade before it.

But then this is when I also say (countless times) the best way to resolve it was to simply call it a reboot! That has been the same suggestion for a year now. OK, you think TOS looks too outdated but you want to keep it in that period, fine, just say its a reboot and do what you want. So I’m not ‘backpeddling’, I understand why they did it. I accept why they did it. But its also a fickle fan base so what did they think was going to happen???

Funny thing is I been accused of repeating myself over and over again and this is why, because not everyone reads or remembers everything that is said, but yes this has been my position for a year now.

ML31

I’m going to use this as an opportunity to repeat myself again. I still think their best move was to just call the show a reboot. Even though they refer to the Abrams films as an alternate I still kinda see them more of a reboot as well. And THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

Tiger2

Actually I also read that’s why he smiled in the pilot because that’s simply what the director told him to do, so he did. You’re right, the character just wasn’t ironed out by then. Again, sadly this is just silly character minutiae taken at extreme measures. No one ‘needs’ a reason why he smiled, or they would’ve EXPLAIN IT decades ago already, including on TOS itself.

It feels ridiculous they feel they have to do it but I guess to be fair they want to feel like there is a reason they are bringing Spock back (besides the obvious) and looking for an angle to do it with. So I have no problems with it, I just don’t care one way or the other. Maybe the story will make me care though.

Trek in a Cafe

If Spock didn’t smile in The Cage, he’d never be in this prequel. It was a prerequisite. So let’s enjoy it!

Tiger2

Well I don’t know about that? He now has a sister who happens to be the star of said prequel show, they didn’t need any real excuse to bring him on because Burnham is that excuse.

But since its clear his story will be the driving force of the season sadly then yes it makes sense they give him a personal character arc to go with whatever is happening in the story. I hope I do enjoy it.

MysticalDigtial

“The smiling-Spock thing is probably a sign that they’re trying to explain the fact that he smiles in “The Cage,” a thing nobody, anywhere, any time EVER needed an explanation for. ”

Seriously? This is the Trek fandom, they get themselves bent out of shape if things aren’t explained in every detail apparently. Much of this fandom is why we are chained to a canon that is seriously outdated.

Michael Hall

Many of the same people who can’t get over the fact that DSC doesn’t visually look more primitive than a show produced fifty years ago will also insist that “no one cares” about why Spock smiled in the first pilot. I have no opinions on why that happens to be the case, but it certainly is interesting.

Tiger2

Agreed!

HubcapDave

” The smiling-Spock thing is probably a sign that they’re trying to explain the fact that he smiles in “The Cage,” a thing nobody, anywhere, any time EVER needed an explanation for.”

No need to explain something that Spock apparently does A LOT! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtMs9nJS0YI

Tiger2

Wow GREAT video! Yeah the guy did smile a lot lol. A lot of it was more subtle but he clearly was showing emotion. Obviously some of that could just be Nimoy slipping a bit but either way its on record the guy smiles, especially since he’s half human, so move on.

Calastir

I’m not smiling, Spock.

Thomas W.

Spock smiles several times in the series and in the movies. He is half human.

Mark Calcagno

Especially early on, where this show takes place.

Legate Damar

Looks good

Mariano

I want my shields back!

AJinMoscow

All good…

Kevin Bleasdale

Spock smiles throughout the TOS and especially the Cage. All of cancon shows that Spock during this time period was not yet purged of all his emotions till his attempt in TMP. You moan about action sequences and explosions. Regardless of Genes vision. If Gene made Star Trek today where there was the ease of this technology available there would be more action shots. The truth be told… it’s what the public other then rediculous Star Trek purists want.

Sam

It’s what ST purists want too. The “darkest” movies are frequently ranked as the most popular. And a couple of them almost deserve such placement.

Trek in a Cafe

Are we sure that is Discovery taking the hit? I think that’s some fancy editing…

Sid

Gimmick TV.

Afterburn

Gimmick comment.

Danpaine

At about 16 seconds in, that one crew member looks a bit like a Sleestack from Land Of The Lost.

I wonder at the need and/or wisdom at bringing the iconic Spock character into this show at all (or any other Trek show, ever again), but that ship has obviously sailed. The casting of Peck seems appropriate from the little we’ve seen. Yay, prequels.

Mark Calcagno

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: this show, as much as I like it, would have been much better as a 25th or 26th century show. I feel the only reason they put it back in the 23rd was so they could set up this as season 2, but unfortunately we know that whatever the stakes are in this season, everything will be fine.

Again, love the show, but prequels need to stop.

Danpaine

Agreed, Mark. I’ve said on other threads, if DSC was set post-NEM or even post-TUC, most of my problems with the show would disappear. And right, where’s the tension? We know where Spock and Pike eventually wind up. Trying to stay positive, though.

ML31

Yep. The show would have worked much better post Nemesis or even possibly as a KU show. I honestly think they had no intention to bring in Spock and Pike, at least THIS soon but the low subscriber rate changed all that. And besides, I think setting the show when they did was sort of a safety net for them to bring in familiar characters if they felt they needed to. Looks like CBS felt they needed to. Quickly.

Corinthian7

How do we know this? I wasn’t aware that any of the Discovery crew had been referenced in Trek prior to season one and last time I checked season one was set before season 2.

Mark Calcagno

Because whatever threat or opportunities the Red Angel(s) bring to the Discovery, we know the Federation and Starfleet exist in a very similar state 10 years later, and even 90 years later.

Prequels tend to answer questions I’ve never asked. Star Wars, Enterprise, Fantastic Beasts, all exist to build on franchises that don’t want to move forward for a strange reason, and if the threats aren’t real, then the drama gets muted.

Again, I LOVE Disco. I just have that complaint that keeps rearing its head.

Corinthian7

That’s exactly the kind of mentality that results in almost every Star Trek movie focusing on some maniac out to destroy the federation. That’s ridiculous, the show is about the crew and the majority of those characters have not been referenced in the previous canon. It’s like watching Saving Private Ryan and complaining that there was no dramatic tension because you already knew that Hitler lost.

Mark Calcagno

Star Trek doesn’t have to be revenge-seeking maniac OR prequel. There are plenty of other stories to tell.

Corinthian7

I never said it had to be a prequel Mark, I was disagreeing with your assertion that the stakes are undermined by the fact it is a prequel or that this would even matter. Star Trek has been pressing the reset button at the end of every episode for decades.

Mark Calcagno

But the dramatic tension in the season finale of Disco wasn’t character drama, it was whether or not Earth and Qonos was going to survive the day. Unlike Saving Private Ryan, where it’s entirely a personal struggle following characters you love and don’t know the fates of, we know that Earth and Qonos survive the finale, so none of the drama amounted to anything.

If Tilly or Michael or any of the crew were in danger, I would have had a different opinion, but because they made the stakes higher, the drama was lessened, as we already knew both would be fine.

Corinthian7

To be fair Mark, you’re right about the season finale, it was a fairly poor episode that felt rushed but I would argue this was down to bad plotting/writing and it would have been an equally unsatisfying resolution even if it was set in the 25th century. You’re right though, if it had of been set post Nemesis there would have still been the slim possibility Qo’noS wouldn’t have survived the episode but I don’t think this in and of it’s self invalidates the concept of a prequel. It was a creative choice to set the stakes so high, they could have left themselves more time to wrap up the plot properly and tell a more personal story against the backdrop of these huge events.

ML31

” it was a fairly poor episode that felt rushed but I would argue this was down to bad plotting/writing and it would have been an equally unsatisfying resolution even if it was set in the 25th century.”

I find this comment to be 100% spot on. The difference is, more people would be whining about the low quality of the silly plot than about the aesthetic changes of Star Fleet. Because it moved forward, the ships and uniforms could pretty much look like anything. But bad stories are still bad stories no matter when they are set.

Corinthian7

I’d agree on that, I think the only reason we let them off the hook for that final episode was that it was overshadowed by the big reveal of the Enterprise showing up. It’s frustrating, because they’re producing episodes for a streaming platform, they don’t need to stick religiously to a 43 minute running time for episodes so there was no excuse for the conclusion to be so rushed.

Tiger2

I still remember cutting on the finale only to be disappointed when I saw the 45 minute run time. I honestly couldn’t believe it. They built up 14 episodes and we KNEW the Klingon war would be settled in the finale so I knew there was no way they could wrap it all up and not feel rushed. And obviously I was right.

Yes I don’t think CBS understands yet that the point of streaming gives you the freedoms traditional TV can’t, but they still treat AA like its a network. The finale should’ve been a full 60 mins minimum. It really should’ve been 80 minutes and gave us a real wrap up of the war, not just a few Klingon ships turning away from Earth. That entire arc was just so bad to me and the finale made it completely unsatisfying when it all comes down to handing your arch-Nemesis an ACME bomb to blackmail her way to leadership and then you pat yourself on the back for it because you didn’t genocide your way out of it.

Corinthian7

Agreed Tiger, we’d all been speculating rabidly on here about all sorts of clever ways that they could wrap it up and then they go and do that! You’re right about CBS still treating the show like a network. All it would take to make it suitable for the parent channel would be snipping off a few seconds of violence here and there and cutting a couple of F bombs. The cynic in me feels that they know exactly what they’re doing and they’re producing a show that can be easily cut for future rerun broadcasts on network television.

Tiger2

Yeah you’re probably right and they know exactly what they are doing which is to fit other broadcasts. And to be a little fair you can’t completely blame CBS because the writers knew ahead of time what they had to work with in terms of episode count and running time and just stuffed WAY too much content in for what they had. It’s clear a lot of it just wasn’t planned out very well from the start.

The finale should’ve just had a bigger running time but based on how they ended it there were still no guarantees it was going to be better.

ML31

I don’t think a lot of people left them off the hook for that finale, Corinthian. Even most of the people who loved the show overall questioned that finale. I normally rant on the poor decisions made over the course of the entire season but the way they wrapped it up… (sigh) Words cannot express how monumentally pathetic it was. For all the reasons nearly everyone here says.

And I want to agree with you regarding the show length. That just floors me. It feels like the episodes are still cut for time rather than pacing.

Corinthian7

‘Let them off the hook’ was probably a poor choice of phrasing, perhaps got off lightly would have been more apt. Believe me, I was one of those sorely disappointed in the finale and several other aspects of the final few episodes but I do feel that despite the criticism it received it was overshadowed by the arrival of the Enterprise.

Tiger2

“Prequels tend to answer questions I’ve never asked. Star Wars, Enterprise, Fantastic Beasts, all exist to build on franchises that don’t want to move forward for a strange reason, and if the threats aren’t real, then the drama gets muted.”

Exactly! This is why prequels get so much slack because it’s too busy filling in things no one really asked to fill in in the first place. I mean I don’t remember anyone asking how did Han Solo get his name and yet the movie Solo seem to think we had to know that for some reason (sigh). As if you had fans were saying “Man I love Han, he’s my favorite character, but his last name never made much sense to me.” Its nothing wrong to build on past characters of course but prequels feel the need to add lore just to add it to justify its existence.

The current Fantastic Beasts movie is the perfect example of that. Harry Potter fans are going nuts because apparently JK Rowling thinks adding convoluted character backstories to even Voldemort’s snake, among other things, is what people have been asking for. Looking at the backlash and hatred over the film, obviously they weren’t.

And yet so many fall into this trap over and over again. Now we are getting why Spock smiled 50 years after the fact. Whoopee!

ML31

Non fans are going to be less affected by such things, however. I had to endure those Harry Potter films as my kid grew up with them. I saw the Fantastic Beasts film and thought it OK. I do not remember enough of the Potter world to get any reference that film made to them beyond a few names perhaps. If I saw this one, I would likely miss ALL the future Potter references and explanations and just judge it on its own merits. For the record, I was OK with that first Fantastic Beasts film. In fact, I found it better than any of the Potter films.

Tiger2

I agree but this is only done FOR fans which is why its there, but yet most fans say you don’t need to have constant callbacks or squeeze in every past character association for people to care about the story. That was literally the entire problem with STID. They were so busy trying to throw in as much fan service as possible they actually alienated the fans they were supposedly doing it for and why ironically the film plays better for non-fans than it does for hardcore ones.

As for Fantastic Beasts, I think thats how a lot of people feel about them. The first one, not great, but OK. A decent start into the new story and doesn’t over do it with the HP lore. And then the sequel went total George Lucas lol. It was just over stuffed with HP backstory that didn’t need to be there and more focused on world building instead of telling a good story on its own.

The River Temarc

We know everything will be fine with *Spock*, yes. With every other character? No.

Mark Calcagno

I’m going to copy and paste my response from another comment.

But the dramatic tension in the season finale of Disco wasn’t character drama, it was whether or not Earth and Qonos was going to survive the day. Unlike Saving Private Ryan, where it’s entirely a personal struggle following characters you love and don’t know the fates of, we know that Earth and Qonos survive the finale, so none of the drama amounted to anything.

If Tilly or Michael or any of the crew were in danger, I would have had a different opinion, but because they made the stakes higher, the drama was lessened, as we already knew both would be fine.

Hopefully in season 2 they focus on the personal drama, rather than galactic politics, otherwise the ending is written in stone. UNLESS of course, they say it doesn’t take place in the prime timeline. I don’t care either way, I just want a good story, like the majority of season 1 had.

Tiger2

You said it Mark. Prequels need to STOP!

And yes Discovery would’ve been better as a 25th century show since hardly anything about it feels like a 23rd century show.

That said now that we ARE at least going into the 25th century with the next show I’m not against others as I once was. I think if they did a spin off of Discovery (like the Section 31 rumor) that would be OK and a way to connect an already existing show. But if they did another prequel, like something before DIS I think the fan base would riot lol.

ML31

Honestly, I don’t have as much of a problem with a prequel show so long as it is set sufficiently enough time before the other thing that it can be it’s own thing. I was fine with Enterprise being over 100 years before TOS. That was plenty of time and I really thought a show in a pre-UFP setting could be very interesting. There is also another time frame that has never been touched that is prime for exploration. How about something 30 years after TUC?

Danpaine

Something post-TUC, pre-TNG would be most welcome to this fan.

Tiger2

Agreed! That’s the other issue of course. Once we heard it was only a decade from TOS it felt like it was trying to have it cake and eat it too. Try to be its own thing but can frankly use whatever TOS characters or stories it wants, as we are now starting to see.

I didn’t love the Enterprise time period at all, but I would take that over Discovery’s any day because at least it tried to be its own thing and being so far in the past it set itself apart from the others. And they really tried to make it feel like an organic continuation between it and TOS. Of course things still looked more advance but it was acceptable and didn’t feel like it should be centuries ahead like Discovery does. I appreciate it so much more now that Discovery is on because I can see how hard they tried to make it fit in its own period.

ML31

Thank you for bringing that up, Tiger. The NX-01 was very well done. It successfully bridged the tightrope where it looked like a future ship from the days of the ’00’s but it still looked like it could evolve into the Constitution Class ship we saw in TOS. It looked more advanced than TOS but it also wasn’t. It CAN be done. And I liked the jumpsuits for uniforms, too. It hearkened back to NASA but you could see the TOS color codes beginning as well. The PD of Enterprise was VERY well done.

PS… Just want to add that when I read it was set a mere 10 years before TOS I knew that was done solely to grab TOS characters and/or situations for fan service of if they felt they needed a subscriber boost. Same thing with Michael’s Spock relationship. I feel it naive to think otherwise.

Tiger2

The NX-01 definitely fit in the time at least. Yes things looked more advance here and there but they gave that ship tons of technical and hardware limits and used those limits as story points. There were things it just couldn’t do all the other starships could. And I loved the interior of the ship from the beginning. It was the first ship that didn’t feel like a hotel to live in like the original Enterprise and definitely the D. Not bad but not as big and open as the future ships.

Discovery looks bigger than the Enterprise D. I don’t know if it is, but its the sleekest ship we’ve ever seen IMO and I couldn’t tell you what its limits are because I think it has none lol. Again, the size and comfort level NOT a bad thing in itself, just out of place to this period. But my guess is Pike Enterprise will look just as sleek too so that will make the ship feel more on an even level to this universe at least.

And obviously the show mostly takes place in this period to piggyback on TOS connections. People can’t deny that when you make the star of it a sibling of one of the most famous characters in the franchise. But it is what it is.

ML31

I don’t wonder at the need or wisdom of bringing Spock in. It is painfully obvious why it was done. I just wish it wasn’t. But as you said, that ship has sailed. It’s happening. Spock is in the show. Moving on.

Mark Calcagno

Yup! People know Spock, so we’ve got to put him in. I wonder if Fuller intended the show to be in the 23rd century, as the showrunners that replaced him said they were building up to the Enterprise all season.

Tiger2

He definitely did. But he also said that we would never see any major TOS characters, or at least the crew from the Enterprise. I think a lot of that was changed the second he was fired though.

ML31

I think all that went out the window with not just Fuller getting the boot but when the subscriber numbers were not close to what they hoped ST would bring.

ML31

Forced to admit, that is actually a good trailer. Shows a lot and creates that final bit of curiosity with the Spock smile thing. Especially for people who do not know that The Cage smile was going to be “explained”. I’m not looking forward to this upcoming stretch of shows like I have for other series’. But the trailer is making me more curious. My gut feeling is this new version of STD will be better than the previous one. If it’s good, looking past the inconsistent production design will be a lot easier. :)

Urk

I just watched the whole season on blu-ray again. I’ve had a few minor issues the first time around. Watching it on blu-ray again is quite a different experience to streaming. Can I just say that I really appriciate that Star Trek on TV looks like cinema now? Though at times the production design looks like canon gone weird the amount of detail is astonishing. The Klingon Armor for example is on Lord Of The Rings level. Though some of the actors might not be too flattered to see themselves in that much detail. You really see every wrinkle and pimple. What I really do not appriciate is the whining culture that has established for every big franchise online. Some people even made a business model out of it which to me is nothing more then leeching. Star Trek can’t look like the seventies or eighties anymore. Right now you can’t have people talking philosphy in space for ten minutes on the screen cause half of the audience would start snoring. The Klingons gonna have hair in the second season. everyone can stop crying now.

ML31

Once again, it appears we have someone who does not understand the complaints regarding the 100% change in production design. No one, and I mean NO ONE is saying it should be a duplicate of 60’s or even 70’s sci-fi. What we ARE saying is that it needs to evoke the era it is in. It is possible to update the PD while still making it look like it could easily belong in the era it is supposed to be in. Looking at the STD Enterprise interiors, it seems like they could have easily done it had Fuller and Co. allowed it.

Urk

Still endless whining won’t change nothing. I have seen every freakin Star Trek show from start to finish. Compared to those STD had the best first season ever.

ML31

But whining is what fans do. Your favorite team sucks, you complain about it. Your franchise comes back after 15 years and it sucks… That warrants complaints in my book too. And then we hope it gets better in both cases. In STD’s case, early returns indicate it is possible it will. I am very happy you felt STD was the best Trek ever. I really am. Go buy the discs and soak up everything about it. Just understand there are many who do not share that viewpoint. It doesn’t make one side right or wrong.

Urk

Whining is what little sissyboys do. And I did not say it was the best Trek ever, I said it was the best first season ever. Endless complaining makes one side really annoying. STD really does not suck. I have seen way worse episodes in previous shows. What storytellers do most of the time is that they do not explain everything at the start, cause that would be boring. To repeat the same stuff over and over again is boring too. As a fan I like to be challenged now and then. And if the answers are delivered in a way I did not anticipate that is storytelling I like. Indeed there is hope that season two will answer some questions and possibly deliver new challenges. Then the sissyboys can start whining again until season three. If you really have nothing better to do. XD

ML31

No, whining when what you are a fan of sucks is what FANS do. But I guess you have never ever complained about anything coming up short. You are either a better man man than pretty much every human on Earth or have never found anything you were a fan of come up short of your standards. I would still challenge the best first season ever argument. I would argue it had the WORST first Trek season ever, in fact. The reason is no other first season of Trek had such bad story telling and piss poor writing and plotting all the way through the entire season. Even the first season of TNG had a couple of decent outings that out shined all but one STD episode. Personally, I’d rather watch all twenty whatever episodes of Enterprise S1 than any 2 episodes from STD S1. At least they had more interesting characters and none of them ended up being a one dimensional evil version of someone. No one asked to be spoon fed everything from the start. What was expected was for them to follow through on the themes they told us they were going to examine. I think we also kinda sorta expected the show to surprise the audience a bit more and go places no one suspected. Not somewhere we dismissed because it would be “dumb”. But somewhere we never considered. That would be challenging to the audience. Sadly, STD did none of that. Regarding hope for S2, there were no questions left plot wise from S1 for S2 to answer except perhaps who they were getting for Captain. But at this point, I’m not really caring that much. Hopefully I will after I see all 13 (is it?) episodes.

Corinthian7

“Whining is what little sissyboys do”

Does that include people that whine about fans?

Tiger2

If there was no whining on the internet, how would it even exist lol.

Tiger2

“Still endless whining won’t change nothing.”

Actually I disagree there. I think the whining is why the Klingons are looking like Klingons again and why the second season is trying to look a bit more closer to classic TOS, even with Discovery’s spin on it like the uniforms. This stuff is only happening because fans said the show felt like it was in another universe or time period and were having trouble connecting with it.

ML31

Normally I would agree that most times whining does do nothing. This is one of those rare cases where the fan response did influence what was to come. And that is about as far as I will go. Changes were coming regardless. I think we fans INFLUENCED the show runners in some places.

Tiger2

Exactly! It doesn’t always make a difference but in DIS case it did. The Klingons are clearly the biggest example but I would say everything from wanting more exploration to just a lighter tone came from fans complaining all year and just realizing they went a little too far in making the show ‘different’.

ML31

I honestly think that if they felt they could have gotten away with it they would have changed the uniforms and the PD of the Discovery itself (to make things look more in line with the era they were in) now that Fuller was gone. Unfortunately, they are locked into those looks for now. But I think if the show goes on long enough we might yet see the gold blue and red shirts.

Tiger2

I agree actually and I said in the past if Fuller was still on I don’t know how many changes we would be getting. He’s a great story teller but pretty stubborn and probably why he can’t hang on to a single job these days.

And its certainly nothing wrong to fight for your vision but if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. But yes FORTUNATELY they no longer have to worry about trying to conform to his way. As you said, they can’t change it THAT much in terms of the look, that’s all but locked in, but they can make some cosmetic changes like with the Klingons and the uniforms.

Again, people just want some consistency, thats it. No one wants it to look exactly like TOS but no one thinks you should completely ignore it either which Fuller was basically doing.

Fred Javelina

I highly doubt that. From the beginning, they said they had a plan to show how this portrayal of the 2250s dovetailed with the TOS canon we were familiar with, including design elements. We never really saw much of the Enterprise from the 2250s except for The Cage, and that was retroactively framed into ‘The Menagerie,’ and it was a pilot. Things often change dramatically between pilots and series, as we saw with the second pilot and then TOS with its amped-up colors, brighter lighting, more vivid uniforms, etc. The reasons for those changes weren’t “canon” or even really thought about, they were practical and commercial (NBC/RCA wanted to sell color TVs!) Over the 7 years of TNG we had multiple uniform revisions, the combadge was redesigned, the bridge and interiors got updates, and of course the TNG feature films introduced a new set of uniforms (which were then parallel-adopted on DS9 / VOY). Worf’s look evolved significantly from S1 through Nemesis. Did anyone complain about that? None of those changes were made because the fans “whined” about it. Costume changes were made for practical and creative reasons – the pilot TOS uniforms looked dull and washed-out on TV; the TNG S1 jumpsuits were legendarily uncomfortable, the polyester soaked up odors like you wouldn’t believe, and with a zipper on the back they were impossible to get in/out of. So they made changes in fabric because they were easier to maintain, breathed better, or looked better under TV lighting; as they got the technology to sync the film rate with video displays, you started to see more of them used ‘live’ on sets, as opposed to inserts in post-production, etc. All of this has been extensively documented and discussed. I challenge your assertion that fans’ complaints had *anything* to do… Read more »

ML31

Fred… From the beginning the producers SAID a lot of things that never came to pass. Like “we are going to dive into Klingon culture like never before”. They also said the aesthetic and other canon inconsistencies would be addressed by the end of the season. They then back peddled and said it would be in S2. And there was more than just that. Yes, things to get changed from season to season and even show to show. But the fact is the bulk of those changes almost no one notices. So a panel on Data’s station changes one off season. So what? It’s not like Data suddenly came the next season looking like Robby the Robot. Which is what Discovery did. Furthermore, such changes are still acceptable as they are moving forward. Things change. At the time, TNG was the furthest forward Trek there was. So they pretty much were free to make nearly and aesthetic change they wanted. Unlike Star Trek Discovery, which was set in a time frame that already had an established look. What they did was make the 1920’s look like 2010’s. You can’t give Eliot Ness a flip phone because you want your portrayal to look “modern.” Yes, costume changes are made for practical, real world reasons. But if you are making a period piece, and Discovery IS a period piece in the Trek universe, it needs to look like the era it belongs in. That is the limitation of that decision. The only way around it is to call it a reboot. Which STD producers went out of their way to say it was NOT. The season 2 PD changes are not decided “years” ahead of time. Months is more like it. In fact, I think it a strong wager that CBS realized… Read more »

Mark Calcagno

Man, you’re not kidding. Remember when those black people kidnapped Tasha, and she liked it? Remember when Sisko and co. were put in a game? Alamraine! And when Tom Paris kissed a married woman, or all the racist Chakotay stuff? Or when Trip was raped, impregnated and it was treated as comedy?

Seriously. Disco has the best season 1 of Trek ever, followed by TOS. Surprisingly good episodes in TOS season 1.

The River Temarc

“Right now you can’t have people talking philosphy in space for ten minutes on the screen cause half of the audience would start snoring.”

Well, that explains INTERSTELLAR and EX MACHINA.

ML31

Interstellar, yes. But I like Ex Machina. ;)

Urk

Two really good movies who have a smaller and more narrow audience then Star Trek usually has. I personally wouldn’t even mind if Star Trek got as crazy as Annihilation at times, but studio bosses who have ROIs on their mind, don’t like that.

alphantrion

I wouldn’t generalize this as “whining culture”. I think there is a place for legitimate criticism in all fandom. If a person doesn’t like something that he is a fan of, he or she has a right to state this. Also perhaps you should consider the fact that our world is this messy place nowadays because no one is “talking philosophy” anymore. Not just philosophy but people in general don’t talk with one another. We are slaves of our screens and social media and you think this is not a problem? Sometimes you just gotta appreciate the more innocent and simpler times of the older days when people talked about “philosophy”.

This one is antibiotics-resistant. You’re gonna love it. :-P

FrostUK

Shapiro-Spock will defeat you with logic and facts. *smirking intensifies*

RikersMailbox

“Remember Spoooooooock?!” – ‎Mike Stoklasa

Afterburn

Anyone who gives a RLM reference is aces in my book, even if I do disagree with Mike and Rich’s take on DSC.

RikersMailbox

Thanks Afterburn. I can’t argue against some of their points about bringing back classic characters, or any kind of IP that the audience is familiar with; But this is an issue with all franchises now. Heck, I can’t walk by a checkout aisle in a grocery store without having to look at a magazine cover of John Lennon or the Stones, as though that article will tell me something I don’t already know, but that’s what sells. You also can’t argue with the fact that Mike cares deeply for Trek and wants to see DSC succeed.

Afterburn

I do appreciate that perspective, and in some of his other commentary (particularly his Han Solo review) where he understands the business angle of this (“You can’t have a movie called ‘The Adventures of Johnny Swashbuckler and his Friends'”).

I also am grateful he sees what makes DSC have a brighter future than The Orville. While he may not enjoy DSC now, he sees the potential is there, whereas The Orville is a fan film joke with no future.

RikersMailbox

Totally agree with that. DSC is oozing with potential. That’s its biggest asset I think.

Mark Calcagno

And it’s so close to being truly great. Last season was, I thought, written really well, but with some strange plot points, namely the ending. Disco with a lighter tone exploring this season sounds perfect.

Afterburn

I think the handoff from Fuller to his replacements really hurt the show. It’s funny, most fans were so excited to hear when Fuller named show runner but nearly everything about the show they hate– including the fact that it’s a prequel– was all left over from Fuller’s time as show runner.

ML31

If you took your own advice you would not watch it anymore since the show is so very damaged without Fuller’s influence.

Mark Calcagno

He didn’t say he didn’t like the show. He said fans don’t like it’s a prequel, and other decisions he made.

ML31

Mark, he said that Fuller’s departure really hurt the show. Perhaps that means he didn’t like the show as much but he still liked it. But I took it as it hurt the show to where it wasn’t good anymore. I just saw this as an opportunity turn his favorite argument around.

Tiger2

I actually agree in that a lot of us was excited about the show because of Fuller. And yes I will say its mostly his ideas, from when it was set to the massive changes of the basic look of the universe that has bothered fans too. So I think its fair to say his ideas were mixed at best.

But I do think he still would’ve made really strong stories and I do give him a lot of credit for trying to make things feel original and different. But, as I always say, it was probably a mistake to make it so radically different in such a known and popular era of the franchise. If the show could be completely its own thing in its own universe it probably would be more accepted and received. But I know the whole prime universe thing is what drive fans, but I honestly don’t see the difference in putting it in another universe since it already looks and feels like it is in another universe? It is all made up at the end of the day. For me, I would accept it just as much if it was but I’m probably in the minority.

Mark Calcagno

Tiger2, you’re not though. Disco is a really popular show, and it’s because people don’t sweat the small stuff and just want a good story depicted well.

ML31

If it were a reboot I would have no issues with the PD changes at all. Does that put minority?

That said, the story and writing would still be the weak link and the show would still be bad. If I understand correctly, it seems like almost every bad decision was from Fuller. The Klingon change, the departure from the look of the era its in, Lorca being from the MU… All that. Can that be confirmed?

Mark Calcagno

I don’t know if it can be confirmed, but I like the changes they made, except Klingon makeup, which I got used to by season’s end. I find the story to be well told, with an exception being the ending.

ML31

I’m being honest here. While I was not a fan of the Klingon change, it didn’t bother me as much as it did some others. I think the uniforms and the overall StarFleet look bothered me the most of the design changes. But even with those changes I would have enjoyed the show a lot more had it just been well written with a good story. The story arc did not work for me, the big twists were either tired or idiotic and the characters were, for the most part, lacking. (Saru did grow on me, however.) And the finale, well… By then I had already stopped taking the show seriously. In short, my problem with the show was the writing and plotting first and foremost.

Mark Calcagno

Which is totally fair. Modern television likes to make everyone jerks for some reason lol

Tiger2

Actually Lorca from the MU was not Fuller’s idea but his replacements. Jason Issacs confirmed that IIRC that the character was just suppose to be a messed up guy due to the war but he was changed to be from the MU when he came on board.

odradek

Very cool

slider

I take it from the pictures the show is still being colour graded with a nice dose of teal? Come on CBS, you don’t need to follow the crowd all the time.

Afterburn

I’ll agree it is annoying, but we really don’t know who’s to blame here. I am not sure I can blame CBS; it could very well be the decision of the cinematographer, editor, or an individual producer.

kmart

A very major colorist who does tons of big features, including ST-ID, did the pilot (check his imdb page, it is unbelievable how busy this guy is!), so I suppose they could be following in his footsteps for continuity. Smallscreen cinematographers and even directors don’t always get to put in time on DIs either, for TV it is more of a producer thing.

slider

So what you’re saying his they’re doing it his way to make him feel comfortable? Then that begs a question why hire him in the first place if that was a restriction placed on them?

slider

CBS approved the style so I’m guessing more specifically it was the producers who decided on the idea to copy every other TV series and film at the moment. It makes the show look very artificial. Can’t stand that style however popular it is. Oh well.

If they really wanted to take risks with the look of the show what they could have done is light it as though it was filmed between the original series and TMP. They could of even of made it grainy like a 70s series aka Space 1999. A big risk but at least it would show some individualism in modern TV.

Vice Admiral Nakamura

Wha? Is that first photo from a Paul McCartney biopic, circa Wings?

Si Frost

Looking at this brief clip you see spock smile, ye gads the worlds going to end!

BUT in all seriousness, we have got use to seeing an elder spock, and lets not forget he is half human.
If you look at the events in the cage, you will see a different side of his character then we do for the rest of the films/tv series.

Even after his death, on Vulcan while reeducating himself the computer asks him, “HOW DO YOU FEEL?” Because of him being half human.

It appears to me, that some people hate Discovery because it dares to be different, the tec looks too advanced then the 1960’s future vision they had.

Of course it does, things change, they always do, we have to get use to this and see how the show as a whole evolves of the life time of the show.

Just my thoughts as always

Peace

Si

Mark Calcagno

Yeah, I totally agree, I love the aesthetic of this show, from the top down.

Zashun

The final scene feels reminiscent of other scenes where Spock expressed emotions when logic and reason were not enough to convey the scope of something. The scene in TMP where Spock was crying for V’ger is one example I can think of.

Boo

Anson and Ethan look great on screen together, I can’t wait to see more of their dynamic explored and how that informs what happened in The Menagerie.

Trailer looks exciting, I can’t wait already!!! Gimme season 2!!!

By the reactions don’t watch it. Star Trek fans are an odd duck.Everytime a new series comes out the boo birds come out in force. They bitched about Next Gen , then DS9, Voyager,and Enterprise. What they want to happen in any series ,your guess is as good as any.No different with Discovery,boo birds out again. I rewatched this series on blu-ray season 1 and I have to say this series is better than you think.And it’s in the spirit of Star Trek. I would say embrace it,it’s worth a rewatch.I look forward to season 2

Myrth

This is Spock by way of the CW network.

Danpaine

That is something I fully expect to see, sadly. But that’s the demographic they’re aiming for.

Jefferies Tuber

All the histrionics over Spock are from people seeking attention. The real departure, if we’re being objective, is Pike depicted as a jolly team builder.

ML31

I must have missed it… Please Jefferies… Tell me where you saw a post where someone wanted STD production designers exact duplicates the 1960’s Trek sets. I’ll wait.

Mark Calcagno

It’s an inferred statement from what people have said about the show: Disco doesn’t fit into the established visual canon of Trek. For it to fit, they could do what other Trek shows did, and embrace the 60’s kitsch.

However, that would be a huge mistake for the show’s production.

ML31

I’ve never even seen such a thing inferred. I find it to be a grand assumption. Yes, the show needs to look like it belongs in the era they say it’s in. But that doesn’t mean it needs to be an exact duplicate of The Cage. But it DOES need to evoke that era. Good designers are able to accomplish such things. I think the show has good designers on staff and were indeed up to the challenge had they been allowed by Fuller to do so.

Mark Calcagno

I’m intrigued. Can you explain how to change, say, the bridge of the Discovery to evoke the time?

Also, I was speaking on my own behalf. I infer that when people say it doesn’t fit, it should look like the 60’s.

ML31

I do not possess the skill and artistry to describe such things. Let alone design them. I just know such things are possible. The NX-01 is a good example of being futuristic and also looking like it could evolve into the 1701. There was also a video circling around that showed how an updated 1701 bridge could look like using CGI with existing TOS footage. It doesn’t look bad. And the brief scenes we’ve seen on board the Discovery era Enterprise from the upcoming season look pretty decent as well. If they show the bridge, I’d bet they would have done a pretty good job of updating while still maintaining the era’s look.

Further, I still think it would not have been the end of Star Trek if they just rebooted the entire thing so they could do whatever they wanted to the look. They do that, no one cares anymore. But then we are more focused on the writing and plotting. Which I feel we should be anyway.

Mark Calcagno

I’ll never disagree with you on the importance of writing!