The second season of Star Trek: Discovery premieres in less than two weeks, and there is more and more publicity for the show coming out. TrekMovie was given a look at the brand new issue of SFX Magazine, which features a cover story along with new images and exclusive interviews with cast and crew. We have some highlights below.
Season two will tackle issues of the day
Speaking to SFX, executive producer Alex Kurtzman talked about how Discovery will be dealing with contemporary issues:
“Like all the best Trek shows, we’re examining how it’s a mirror to the world that we live in now. We live in a world now where we’re talking about building walls around ourselves, literally, to keep people out, and I think that’s not in keeping with the vision of Star Trek. What are the freedoms that we’re giving up in making choices to protect ourselves? How does that chip away at our essential understanding of Starfleet doctrine, and what it means to assume diversity? Why do we need to keep people out? All of those things are questions.”
Captain Pike helps Discovery return to classic Trek storytelling
The introduction of Captain Pike in the second season has been noted as one of the biggest changes in comparison to season one, especially the contrast between his command style and Captain Lorca’s. Speaking to SFX, actor Anson Mount notes how this change in leadership on the ship also facilitates the goal to return to more traditional Star Trek stories:
“The first season operated in a vacuum of responsible leadership, which is how we’ve always felt taken care of in this world. They wanted to get back to that. Because when you’re calling into question the character, you don’t have the space or time to have the question of the week – y’know, ‘Let’s tackle racism; let’s tackle the unknown.’ They wanted to be able to get back to those big questions, and they wanted the audience to feel safe. So that was another thing that went into selecting an already established character.”
Anson Mount as Captain Pike in SFX Magazine
Shazad on how Voq is his “Hulk”
The character of Tyler, revealed to be the Klingon sleeper agent Voq last season, will continue to go through changes. Actor Shazad Latif talked to SFX about how he is approaching the character:
It’s like another new version – now he’s meshed, now he’s got Voq’s memories. That’s where we’re sitting. So he can access those memories at certain points, or something might bleed through, y’know, Incredible Hulk-style, almost. That’s why it’s confusing for their relationship now, because L’Rell knows that somewhere there’s some remnants of Voq, but it’s this other guy!
Shazad Latif in Star Trek: Discovery season two publicity shot
Season two will answer questions about Spock’s relationship with Michael
The lead character of Star Trek: Discovery was introduced in season one as a previously unknown adopted sister of Spock. This raised many questions, and apparently, the second season will answer them. Speaking to SFX, Alex Kurtzman says the season starts off with Spock and Michael as having been “very estranged” for “many, many years.” Actress Sonequa Martin-Green offered some more insights into how things kick off in the first episode:
“When Discovery finds itself face to face with the USS Enterprise, the first thing that Burnham wants to do is go find him. And he’s not there! He’s taken leave. So now Burnham has to embark on this journey to go find him, and be reunited. Why exactly is he on leave? What’s happening? I can also say that it’s a complicated relationship – I wish I could say all the reasons why! But we find out pretty quickly all the reasons why it’s a very complicated relationship. And we are going to be doing the work! There’s no stone left unturned, as it relates to those two.”
Ethan Peck as Spock in Star Trek: Discovery season two publicity shot
More in SFX Magazine, on sale now
There is much more from cast and crew of Discovery in the February issue of SFX (issue 309), which is available now digitally on iTunes and Zinio. It is also available on newsstands in the UK and at Barnes and Nobles and selected outlets in the USA. For more info on picking up a copy, visit gamesradar.com.
SFX Issue 309, on sale now
Star Trek: Discovery is available in the USA on CBS All Access. It airs in Canada on Space and streams on CraveTV. It is available on Netflix everywhere else.
Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news at TrekMovie.
Has Trekmovie had a chance to view the premiere? A few sites online are already posting their reviews, so i’m curious if you too have been given early access. Look forward to reading your thoughts.
I’ve read three reviews so far, but two of them are on sites owned by CBS (a fact disclosed by both sites, by the way)
They were full of pretty tough analysis, and two of them had both praise and criticism heaped on it.
I am one who tends to not read any reviews before I see a movie, or in this case a show -so I will stop looking at trailers until next week. I am looking forward to the Jan 17th premiere and I hope it lives up to the expectations of fans like myself who did enjoy season 1 of Discovery. That said, there is definite room for improvement and I hope it can emulate TNG which also had a rocky and shaky start, but went on for seven full seasons.
yes, our review will be out tomorrow.
Why do we need to keep people out? Because the last food critic to visit the hotel on Nimbus III ended up as part of the main course.
I really wish they’d ditch the politics. After all, they made a Star Trek show chiefly about war to start with, not exactly progressive when you consider the politics of the original version — the Vulcans were pacifists and vegans. Just want to see good stories without obvious allegories, please.
You do remember that Trek has always been about allegories of political issues, right? That TOS episodes tackled racism, xenophobia, the Vietnam War, and on and on?
^ This.
Star Trek has always been political. I just rewatched The Drumhead last night, and Ensign Ro and The Wounded last week. It’s like they could have been written today.
They did and in the best examples they did so in a sensitive and VERY thoughtful manner. (I’m talking TOS here. Can’t recall much from TNG except that their worst episodes often included the allegories to the issues you mentioned.)
They were also ALWAYS very politically left, and not shy about it. Pro civil rights, pro equality, pro gay rights, anti-war, anti-capitalism, pro-life, you name it.
I guess this shows how well the issues were tackled. You saw it one way, I saw it as mostly balanced. (Talking the TOS episodes of course)
You guys are hilarious with these comments. If you think Star Trek was always JUST left wing you completely took Star Trek the wrong way. Congrats.
Yes, but real issues not the fabricated crap we have today, And never ignoring science and reality,
But that’s what Star Trek has been about since TOS, allegories dealing with present day issues. That helped define the show as much as everything else.
I agree they don’t need to hit you over the head with it but every Trek show does it. And this is a great time to do it because there is so much going on politically. The last time there was so much going on in terms of fervent discussion was 9/11 and then the Iraq war which Enterprise covered when it was on.
There’s a difference between an allegory and a personal vehicle for their own divisive and partisan extremist ideologies (and to speak of the Iraq War, this was something “both sides” were fervently in favor of at the time, so more power to Enterprise for doing something nuanced about it!)
Ummm, no “both sides” were emphatically not “fervently in favor.” Dems voted for it, but did so because they didn’t want to appear “spineless” to the Republicans in the dawning age of 24-hour media coverage.
They voted for the Patriot Act because they did not want to appear “disloyal” in what was becoming a “yer fer me or agin me” presidency. I think now that more progressive Democrats have been seated, that sort of thing will cease to be the case.
Constituents like myself wrote to scold the people in Congress who voted for the Patriot Act, and the war. I did not vote Democratic to have the military fighting in the Middle East. I did not vote Democratic to have a really scary law passed, either.
Yeah, that was falling prey to the ‘with us or against us’ kind of shoehorning in the rush to war. Plus they did it to keep from getting voted out of office for being unpatriotic, given the fervor and fever of the times. Very adroitly maneuvered by opportunistic jerks.
So apparently, Vulcan Soul is as uninformed about the Iraq War as Kev1 is about Star Trek’s long political history.
VS. Sigh.
Extremist ideologies? Please tell me where any extremist ideology was ever promoted positively in Trek!
Correct, someone in the comments gets it!
Um, you did watch TOS and TNG? DS9?
if you’re looking for stories without allegories, Star Trek isn’t the show for you
Oh and the Vulcans we have NOW in the 23rd and 24th century are pacifists, but they were a very violent and hateful race originally involved in a lot of wars on their planet for centuries. Their infighting was so bad, they created an entire subset race in the Romulans who rejected their new way of thinking and continued being very war like setting up a new empire and still a foe to both the Vulcans and the Federation. And they were still pretty racist and isolationists against other cultures even some in the 24th century as well. So as enlightening as they pretend to be, they still have their own flaws and issues to work out.
That’s another great thing about Star Trek, nothing has always been purely black and white as much as some people want to think other wise.
If they ditch the politics, then it ceases to be Star Trek.
And it comes out as a JJ Abrams thing called Star Trek (in name only).
JJ Trek was full of politics. It wasn’t as deftly done, but it was most definitely there.
Kev-1 said ‘obvious allegories.’
There’s a balance that these days is lost in favour of ‘in yo face!’ didactic writing over subtly weaving a discussion into a storyline and accepting not everyone has the same opinion.
It’s partly to do with the fact that we’re dealing with third- and fourth-generation TV writers. The original generation had had other experiences. They’d been soldiers in WWII and Korea. Gene Roddenberry had been a policeman. This worldliness stands in stark contrast to most modern writers who went to ‘yewni’ to study creative writing, learned how to regurgitate lecturers’ views, bought a backpack and a cheap flight and slept around Europe for nine months, then got a job in Hollywood by saying the same things as everyone else who lives there. The average modern TV writer simply doesn’t have the skill or experience to write as well as his forebears.
Every allegory in TOS was obvious lol.
Did you really have to strain yourself to figure out “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” was about race relations or “A Private Little War” was about the Vietnam War? Or how in “Patterns of Force” the moral lesson is maybe you shouldn’t try and reintroduce the Third Reich on another planet and that Nazism really IS bad? If the message was too subtle for some people the Nazi uniforms, painted swastikas and salutes made it clear. The Omega Glory literally (LITERALLY) had Kirk read off the U.S. Constitution to tell the audience that white America should end its global oppression of minorities and POC because it was against what the country stood for.
I don’t know how less in your face TOS could’ve been with this stuff. It was the 60s, many shows and movies made the subject matter of the day as in your face as possible, Star Trek just did with ‘aliens’. But that’s the show.
Every time someone brings up how they don’t want Star Trek to talk about social issues or it tries to be too much about ‘SJW’ I’m sorry but WHAT SHOW WERE YOU WATCHING??????? Because clearly you either didn’t watch TOS or forgot half the episodes. Because you obviously missed the one where a clone of Abraham Lincoln literally (LITERALLY) showed up on a 23rd century SPACE SHIP!!! so they could stand around the bridge reminding people his legacy of racial inclusion and how Kirk and his crew symbolized that legacy today. I’m still shocked they didn’t just look straight into the camera. I’m almost certain Roddenberry wanted that in nearly all the episodes but kept getting shot down by the network.
But this is what Star Trek is. Always has been, ALWAYS WILL BE!
Pretty much all of your examples are from eps made from GR original stories, which shows you how much TOS managed to grow beyond his notion for the show (and by grow, I mean not just stay on the air, but become a lot more engaging and interesting.) You can say Kirk’s speech in the the tag on TASTE OF ARMAGEDDON (something Coon largely rewrote from a non-GR story) is a little too on the nose, but the rest of it with suicide machines is good SF extrapolation on future war.
Oddly enough, while your point about Lincoln is really good, I never ever considered it in all the dozens of viewings that it was Kirk & crew symbolizing his legacy — it was strictly for me a matter of Kirk’s hero coming alive for him (and I’ve actually rewatched a lot of TOS in the last month, including this ep, and it still never clicked for me about Lincoln’s legacy.) I always get more hung up on the contrariness of the being beyond prejudice dialog here and in LTBYLB, in opposition to Scotty’s ‘then ship out, freak!’ line to Spock in DAY OF THE DOVE, which suggests there is only at best a hairsbreadth separating TOS from the worst of contemporary us. (again, this suggests that GR was already more utopia minded and TNG-like in his thinking, which suggests a pre-cocaine predilection for perfectionism in his characters was always there, just that Coon and co managed to tamp that down in a very successful fashion.
Well and thoroughly and unambiguously said, Tiger2.
There were some “In your face” episodes like LTBYLB. But Trek was better when it was more subtle. (And by ‘more subtle’ I don’t mean ‘barely noticable’. I mean not nearly as obvious.) Sure, you can see it but it was embedded in a larger sci-fi type of story. The Doomsday Machine comes to mind. Or The Devil in the Dark or even The Man Trap. I do like how A Private Little War played out in that they didn’t come out on one side or the other. They presented the horrid dilemma of the situation that had no good answer. They did not preach or make one side “right” or “wrong”. Those are the times when Trek was at its best. Even A Taste of Armageddon has some of that. We could understand what the why for what they were doing, as crazy as it seemed to us.
Well I don’t disagree with any of that. And to make it clear I’m not bothered by how TOS hits us over the head with some of these issues because it was a show for its time. I just find it funny that TOS was being treated as some subtle or nuance show when that was usually far from the case. Now sure, because it was place so far in the future you could ignore the issues it was discussing directly but it doesn’t take a film student to understand they were criticizing events of the day.
And yes some of the stories they didn’t really take one side over the other, they presented both sides, which is great. That’s how its should be done. But who is going to argue things like racism or supporting Nazism is good lol. A lot of what they presented on that show was pretty clear because Roddenberry was a liberal who supported civil rights causes. There WERE two arguments of why segregation should stay law of the land, women shouldn’t get more rights or why black people shouldn’t vote. And just like today, people who pushed for exclusion saw their side as completely valid and not trying to be racist or sexist at all. But Star Trek never remotely try to look at those both ways and preached the liberal argument by its existence alone as it does now because end of the day its a LIBERAL show.
It’s just so ridiculous to hear people whining in 2019 that Star Trek shouldn’t discuss issues of the day or that it’s being too political when that was the entire basis for the show 50 years ago. It’s like these people has either never watched a lot of Star Trek or never understood it.
Dom has apparently never watched Star Trek, which has NEVER been non-obvious. That’s why we have an episode about people who look like black and white bakery cookies, or why we have space hippies, or why we have a planet where the entire planet is composed of black people who withhold a vaccine and Lieutenant Yaaaaaaarrrrrrr.
Those who say “ditch the politics” are woefully unaware of Star Trek’s history.
Those who say Star trek has always been left wing are woefully unaware of what Trek is about.
Star Trek has been 90% liberal and 10% conservative. The only time I seen Star Trek actually push a conservative view is when the prime directive came into play, ie, “we don’t LIKE their theirs views or mentality but its not our place to change it either.” So yes you’re not wrong, they have presented conservative viewpoints but even then the message is that they simply have the RIGHT to have those viewpoints, not that the show necessarily agrees with it, which is what America stands for in the first place.
One of the best examples of that (and the only one I can think of that comes to mind) is The Outcast. That was clearly an episode about homosexuality and the ‘twist’ was that society only had one gender and to even acknowledge another was wrong and forbidden. The crew, and Riker in particular ;), disagreed but by the end of the episode the society won out and the Enterprise went on its way because the prime directive made it clear they can’t get involved. But anyone who watched that episode certainly didn’t come away with the idea it’s OK be anti-homosexual, it simply presented the issue. But thats how most conservative story lines were handled on the show.
Now that I’m thinking about that story, I have another episode to rewatch!
Star Trek has space battle wars all the time, a lot of that came from DS9 and Enterprise so no it was an even mixture of both.
It doesn’t really matter what you say, they’ll always be someone in the comments below that will say something ignorant like “but Star Trek was always left wing or always had politics”. (facepalms)
You somehow misspelled “correct” and typed “ignorant” instead. That’s one hell of an autocorrect.
Nope, it’s your reading comprehension difficulties again.
What you said,
‘Leadership vacuum’ about sums up the story of Disco’s production and CBS too now that I think about it
LOL!
Ouch!
I don’t agree so much, but that was a good burrrn
I honestly thought this article was going to be about how the showrunners keep getting fired and no one making this show knows what it is supposed to be about. I didn’t think it was a pun, or clever. The disarray is so clear in real life that I didn’t even think they were talking about the Captains on the Discovery. I really thought they were talking about the production itself.
If you think Discovery’s behind-the-scenes is messy you need to learn more about the BTS of every earlier show. TOS and TNG went through a *lot* more turmoil than this.
Yeah I don’t really agree with me either lol I was just pointing out there’s been a lot of executive shuffling as of late!
Wow. Very good call. VERY good.
Agreed!
Kurtzman’s asking the questions of a spoiled five year old that hasn’t yet experienced the world and nature of people on his own (and hasn’t paid on his own account for his survival), just in line with the typical Hollywood gentry. He may as well ask why house owners use locks and barriers to keep people out who try to break into their house through the backdoor instead of politely asking for an invitation to come in, like every decent guest does! In this country they may even get shot for trespassing private property, being citizens and all, imagine that!
So no, this does not represent Star Trek or world history, rather Kurtzman’s own extremist ideology of “open borders”. As it’s a fool’s errand to try to make the blind see, I will just add that the concepts at the core of the world of the Federation, membership application and the Prime Directive, are both highly exclusive “walls” to indiscriminate masses of people just coming in and singing a collective Kumbaya, or rather, turning the place into the civilizational state of their homes (Bajor does not manage to join in seven seasons of DS9, presumably for not being developed enough yet, and as for the Prime Directive, many species are condemned to death or even extinction because of the upholding of this law of non-interventionism.)
The difference being when people politely ask for an invitation into your home they typically aren’t being brutalized in their own home. So your metaphor is quite simplistic in its own right. Maybe you and Kurtzman should do lunch sometime.
I hold a similar view and agree- Alex Kurtzman needs to shut up about his pro-illegal immigrant views and keep his politically motivated ideological, Hollywood know-it-all world agenda out of Star Trek. I truly hope this new Picard series isn’t going to go there. I hope new management will pull the rug out from under the guy who brought us the pasty-face John Whatshisname, aka, John Conner, aka. Khan Noonion Singh, and a movie title without a meaning. He’s JJ 2.0, and bad news for Star Trek. If it was any other show I’d ignore it. Here’s hoping CBS’s new management keeps a tight leash on this guy.
Without progressive ideaology it’s not Star Trek. where the heck did all these regressive, sorry, conservative, fans come from? Do you people just not watch the shows or you just in it for the tight fitting uniforms?
Hasn’t it been shown that people tend to get more conservative with age? Given how long Trek has been around (and when its heyday was) Trek fans probably skew older. It may explain why some fans may have been more open to progressive issues dealt with in previous shows than they are now. That’s not saying that all long-time Trek fans are opposed to progressive ideas. If we’re talking about more extremist views it also seems that people who’ve always held those beliefs are just more ready to voice them publicly now.
As for why people watch Trek it’s been shown in many polls that different people are into the shows for very different reasons.
So…protecting your borders is conservative now? Jeesh, someone tell Starfleet to welcome the Borg, Klingons, Romulans and Cardassians then…
no shit, what the hell do they think the Neutral Zone with all its stations is?
And how would Starfleet deal with refugees? Ah right…
As much as some don’t like to hear it, Star Trek is not the exclusive purview of those who think a certain way. There are fans of different thinking across the board. IDIC does not mean only for people who think one way. Diversity is not just in species or races. It’s ideologies too. Sorry to break that news but… Well… There it is.
@Vulcan Soul. Go back and crawl under your rock, right wing ideas don’t mesh with Star Trek.
The famous Star Trek diversity drawn into the light, people…
Oh, Jesus.
…kicking and screaming “Look at me everyone, I’m virtuous!”
You should have seen the original post before i deleted it. Then again, no you shouldn’t.
Conservatives are welcome, they’re just not welcome to complain ABOUT the diversity and left leaning political position of the show.
(facepalms) Oh boy…
you’re kind of a dick.
”Bajor does not manage to join in seven seasons of DS9, presumably for not being developed enough yet”
Not remotely accurate. Apparently some people are as ignorant about Star Trek as they are about what is and is not illegal under US & international law.
I don’t comment on political subjects online, so I’ll stick to Trek here: Bajor is initially shown as wary of the Federation, because the planet has only recently gained its independence from Cardassia and Bajorans don’t want to be dominated by yet another superpower. Eventually their opinions of the Federation and Starfleet are more positive, partly thanks to Sisko.
Much later, Sisko sabotages the discussions just as Bajor is about to formally join the Federation, because he believes the Dominion will destroy the planet in the impending war if it’s a member of the Federation.
^^That’s actually one of the (many) things I hope they will address in the Picard show and that is has Bajor finally entered the Federation or not? I would hope so.
Maybe it is something about the Brexit? I assume Stewart would like to tackle that topic.
You know what that COULD be a great idea! What if a major player in the Federation wants to leave it for some reason, like Vulcan for example? We seen them break treaties with alliances in the past (the Klingons being the best example on DS9) but I don’t think we’ve ever seen a fierce ally and member of the Federation decided to go their own way. What would that mean long term? What happens with that relationship and their contribution to the Federation? It could be part of a more sinister plot in the long run too.
I don’t think they are thinking at this level but it could be something interesting in a future season.
That actually would be an interesting topic to broach. It goes against the alleged perfect harmony among UFP worlds. But if they handled it in a smart way (which I’m wary of these days) where they presented both the advantages and disadvantages of a “Vulexit” it could make for a fascinating, and timely, story line.
I think Vulcan would be a great choice, because we are so attached to the Vulcans.
It is a fact that the Federation doesn’t accept members that don’t share their core values. However, the Federation NEVER denies asylum to individuals seeking it. Ro Laren was a Starfleet officer years before Bajor’s admission started to be discussed. The same can be said about Worf. And more recently we can see Saru’s case. So, the Federation really doesn’t build walls to keep those who want to live and work there out.
Playing the devil’s advocate here… One could argue that given the galactic size of the quadrant, it is possible such matters would be done as each individual member planet would see fit for themselves. Perhaps Earth is more open than Denobula is, for example.
I should have warned you: This site is loaded with liberal/progs who want mainstream America to swallow their ideological views. And if you even think about voicing your own opinion they will attack you. Call you names, and not make you feel welcome here. It’s sad. Those who cry diversity are the first to shun anyone that doesn’t see it their way. Even the people that run this site will not accept anyone’s views but their own. I’ve been warned here before: Only one set of views are allowed here.
I have no problem with conservatives here, or in Trek. Everyone is welcome to my table. The second people complain that there’s other races, or genders, or LGBT people, or different religions at the table, they will be asked to leave.
The problem is that the group in America right now that wants to restrict people (LGBT), turn away from our moral duty to care about other people (refugees), and wants to push stupid ineffective policy that is more theater than solution (wall) is the conservative party.
I welcome the return of a rational and fiscally conservative party to have more measured and lasting progress as a society, but right now all we have is a regressive party that seeks to only undue any and all progress that has already been made while stepping on marginalized groups.
Funny how commenters will insult the production staff for acting like a “spoiled five year old” while they themselves act like children.
But…but…Star trek was always left wing…
Ever heard of the “neutral zone”?! Kind of a wall. Just sayin’.
Which is breached as often as a wall would be.
The neutral zone is not a wall. It’s a region between the Federation and the Romulan Empire that is politically neutral, i.e. it doesn’t belong to either alliance. Also, the US and Mexico are not at war even if you could almost get that impression based on some of the rhetoric used by the current US administration.
I absolutely love the new take on the TOS uniforms! I really hope they replace the blue DISCO uniforms soon.
It’s a shame that they took the route they did with Discovery. I just wish they had focused on the adventures of Pike from the get-go.
Yup, same here. If they HAD to go TOS prequel, I would have much preferred a Pike or even Capt. April series.
So many upset straight white guys about Trek’s 50+ years of progressive political commentary, divirsity and social allegory storytelling in the comments. Gay white guy here. Good to know that their outdated whiny views are confined to just the obscure comments section of a blog and have zero effect in the TV shows or films. Such sad little rants against Trek’s “PC” social views make me think they just think Trek is about phasers and spaceships. I guess that demonstrates that they can’t grasp the obvious. Sad snowflakes.
No one cares who you bed at night. Tell me what your sexuality has to do with anything? Did someone call you a name, or disrespect you? Then why must you be disrespectful?
Beg to differ… if no one cared who gay people “bed at night” we wouldn’t have had to fight for marriage equality and equal rights, families wouldn’t reject their children, LGBT kids wouldn’t kill themselves in such massive numbers because they are mistreated… need I go on? If you think people don’t care if people are gay you’re not paying attention. Also, if people didn’t care I might have been beat in the head with a baseball bat and left unconscious bleeding in a ditch and then stuck in a hospital after I came out at 15. So people care. I wonder what the cognitive capacity of someone who doesn’t think people care is? How impared are they to not see what to many is obvious? Hmmm. :)
You’re the one coming off as the pretty angry and sad one in that post honestly, Luke. I think you’d be pleasantly (or not) surprised to know how few people care about your personal preferences. And using a current buzzword like ‘snowflake’ just makes you look even angrier and sadder. None of which represents the ideals of the 5+ decades-old show we’re supposedly all here to celebrate.
We interrupt this bickering for an important announcement:
It’s not a “choice” or a “lifestyle”, folks.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled bickering.
Lol. I’m surprised some of these social throwbacks with values less progressive than my grandparents like a show that is flaming liberal at its core and has always been? Do they believe that they would fit in in the liberal socialist future that Trek depicts? Or do they just like the phaser fights?
What will the Bridge Club say…
Well ‘gay white guy’ you SJWs can enjoy your rubbish show and us ‘snowflakes’ with continue to complain. Okay with you or are we invading your safe space?
I’m excited to see Anson Mount’s Pike, and mildly curious as to what they do with Millennial Spock. However, two things leftover from last season I’m conflicted about – 1) why are they (ie. Starfleet) going to trust an evil homicidal maniac tyrant in their Section 31 unit (except as a reason to keep Yeoh around and cause mischief), and 2) why are they going to trust a former Klingon spy/warrior torchbearer human hybrid as a security officer of all things on what is essentially a special-ops. ship (except to keep Latif around as SMG’s love interest)? Not trying to be overly negative here, but a week out from season two, those are two reasons I’m not terribly excited to watch.
Oh who are you kidding, you know you’ll be watching at 8 PM EST next week. :)
…never said I wouldn’t, I just said I wasn’t terribly excited about it. But honestly I’ll probably wait a few days, to shorten the total purchase time of CBSAA.
Yep. I’ll be waiting a few days too. Don’t want to have to spend money on that extra month just to catch the premier on the 17th.
I do happen to share such concerns. I’m sorta hoping the Klingon story and the Discovery story will crash into each other as some point during the season because going in to S2 I see no reason for the show to even follow the S1 Klingons at all.
It seems that both Georgiou and Tyler are recruited by Section 31. Having Voq’s memories gives Tyler a unique insight into Klingons which (I assume) Section 31 might be interested in – despite the risk that his Klingon side might take over. Georgiou is probably harder to justify. I mean she doesn’t know the universe she’s in, I would hope that even Section 31 isn’t keen on replicating the methods she used to subdue her empire in the mirror universe.
Man, that new uniform looks so good on Pike.
The cover looks like “SEX” …. :-)
LOL… So it does.
Well you know what they say about that?
I like how celebrities talk politics like “building walls” when they themselves live with massive walls around their own homes and are constantly walking around with armed security. Ahh..the hypocritical liberal/socialist hollywood agenda.
Oh good grief. If you can’t tell the difference between the need for a famous celebrity or politician to protect themselves from deranged kooks vs. building a completely unnecessary and ineffective wall along the US southern border, then you are beyond help.
smdh
I would say the same to you, if you can’t see the difference between a wall protecting celebrities and a wall protecting civilians then you’re not just beyond hope but you are quite delusional.
A border wall “protecting” people first requires threat endangering them. There is no real threat. Silly made up problem. I suggest you watch the TOS episode “Patterns of Force” which directly addresses this idea of making up an enemy to build political power by inspiringing baseless fear. See, liberal socialist Trek already addressed this issue almost 50 years ago. Do you not actually watch the show you rant about here in these comments? Hmmm…
Amen to that, Scott.
Um, the “liberal socialist agenda” is what Trek has always been about. That’s why it’s great. Read some old interviews with Gene Roddenberry from the 70s and 80s if you want a secular humanist socialist viewpoint. The greedy sexist Ferengi were a comment on American capitalism and the episode they debut in even clearly says as much. Glad you are tuning into and spending time on show and fan blog for such a liberal socialist propaganda tool of the left-coast elite. Maybe some of the values will rub off on you ;)
It’s good you think Star Trek always had a liberal agenda, for the rest of us we like our Star Trek that’s not far left.
The true irony as to what is happening right now in Hollywood unfortunately.
I’m still miffed my Spock audition vid wasn’t even acknowledged. It might’ve sucked, but how hard is it to say, “thanks for watching”?
Funny how they claim there are questions about Burnham and Spock. There really aren’t. She’s his adoptive sister. And Spock traditionally has never spoken about his family to anyone unless he had reason to. What questions are there besides minutia?
Kurtzman also spoke about how Trek was at its best when it “a mirror to the world we live in.” This is kinda true but it was also best when it presented great cases for both sides of issues. That is something that Alex & Co would do well to remember.
He never spoke of Sybok. It was a surprise to Kirk. He never spoke of Ambassador Sarek being his father. It was a surprise to Kirk. Maybe “fans” are only whining about it because she is a black woman? Kinda like the bogus “Obama was born in Kenya” thing gained traction with racists who simply couldn’t swallow that black people and their presence and accomplishments are legitimate. Seems to me the same thing because if Spock wouldn’t mention his father or brother why would it be different if he wouldn’t mention his sister? It’s a non-issue. Except for racists. The same crowd that had an issue with a black woman being the main character of the show. Just boring old racism. These people are not Trek fans beyond the phasers and spaceships apparently as they had missed the message behind every incarnation of Trek.
I would thank you to not inject racism even tangentially into my comments. While there might be a a few who are swayed by the color of Green’s skin, I do not for an instant believe that is the prevailing issue for those who have a problem with the character. At all. I would think it more likely it’s the fact that she has a familial connection to Spock and Sarek. There would be the same blowback no matter who was hired to portray the character.
Umm, maybe you didn’t notice but Sybok has never been accepted by the fanbase, and the character was called out as a lame retcon and his status as “previously unknown brother!” a pathetic example of lazy writing. Sound familiar? In fact, a large number of fans reacted to the news of “previously unknown step-sister!” with “oh no not another Sybok!”. The gimmick was soap-opera hackery the first time and adding another one is even worse.
A lot of people have asked for a reason why Spock has never mentioned Burnham, and have accused the Discovery producers of “breaking canon” by introducing her. So apparently, “Spock traditionally has never spoken about his family to anyone unless he had reason to” is not good enough for many people.
I personally wouldn’t have needed an explanation but if season 2 offers an interesting character arc for Burnham and Spock then I’m fine with it.
Actually it’s not that many. And most of those who have asked do not recall that Spock has had a history of being overly private about his family. While I do not like that they made the connection, it is not absurd that it would exist. There are other ACTUAL inconsistencies going on with Discovery that Kurtzman ought to be addressing but seems to be ignoring.
God, I just wish the show was considered a complete reboot by the producers. Then those things wouldn’t be a problem with anyone.
And so the promotion begins…
Starwars has gone down the capper, low and behold, Startreck is now a piece of leftest political propaganda. Is there nothing that you guys can’t screw up