Another stop for Alex Kurtzman’s recent media blitz promoting Star Trek: Discovery included participating in Variety’s CES Summit in Las Vegas earlier today. Variety has posted their summary and the full video of the 27-minute long panel, which you can watch below. The steward of all things Star Trek for CBS talked about the Picard show, Discovery season two, Lower Decks, and more. We have pulled out some of the highlights.
KURTZMAN ON DISCOVERY SEASON 2
Why Spock never mentioned Michael is fundamental to Discovery season two
The mystery of the red angel and seven bursts has been shown to be a prominent part of the second season of Star Trek: Discovery, but Kurtzman actually pointed to another mystery as being even more important:
“We set up a mystery in season one. How come Spock – one of the most beloved characters in all of Star Trek history, let alone the world and the universe – has never mentioned his sister Michael Burnham. It was a big mystery. And I think I knew inherently that the answer to that wasn’t going to be one or two episodes. It was going to be a full season and you were really going to have to dive deep into that story and into that relationship and what happened between them. There is a lot of friction between them.”
“It was really, for me, the storyline of season two. They work out their relationship agains the backdrop of a larger mystery and it turns out that if they don’t fix their relationship, they are not going to solve the mystery.”
Building the family of the Discovery bridge crew
Kurtzman also expanded on how the theme of family weaves into the new season:
“It is for me a story about this bridge crew family that has finally become a family, because season one was really about coming together as a family and season two is about the family working together to solve this mystery – the literal and figurative families – and ultimately the story challenges the family with whether or not it is going to be able to stay together.”
Incorporating fan feedback
During the CES discussion, the executive producer of Discovery said that he does keep up with fan debates and reads reviews and tries to internalize critiques to learn from them. He even welcoming negative feedback, saying:
“It’s a very vocal fanbase. It took me a while to understand that the debate that some people love it and some people hate it is actually one of the great gifts of Star Trek. That, if you try and please everybody, you are going to please nobody. And that debate is democratic and wonderful.”
“So, if somebody doesn’t like something and writes about it, or writes about with consistency and I see that message echoing with other people I will say “Okay, what feels resonate for me?” and what lessons do I take in how we are going to take our next steps.”
Klingon hair planned from the beginning
One area of fan feedback Kurtzman specifically highlighted was the controversy over how Klingons had no hair during the first season of Discovery. It has been revealed that Klingons in the second season will have hair, with reasoning tied into Star Trek canon. According to Kurtzman, this was actually always the plan, saying:
“There was so much debate about the Klingon hair. Why don’t the Kligons have hair? Why did you redesign the Klingons? Your life is over! Actually, Glenn Hetrick who does our prosthetics and Neville Page came up with this idea that in a time of war, the Klingons all shave their body hair. It’s a version of saying “We are committing to war” and that was the logic for them not having hair. And really through an error of omission, we realized we never made that clear in any context. People were like “These are not the Klingons!” And in season two, we were like “Let’s tell them why” and that was because it was a time of war.”
KURTZMAN ON EXPANDING STAR TREK TV UNIVERSE
New Trek shows will be unique, explore new characters, new parts of the galaxy
When talking about the fanbase for Star Trek, Kurtzman used that as a jumping off point for his approach to expanding the universe of Star Trek shows, saying:
“I think [the Star Trek fanbase] is large, and expanding actually. And that is part of why we all felt it was an opportune moment to expand the Star Trek universe, because Trek has been defined traditionally by a somewhat narrow point of view. And that point of view isn’t wrong, it is wonderful and what I love about Star Trek, but I think Trek can be so much more. So, the idea is that we can retain the essential optimism of Star Trek, but begin to tell stories in different ways about characters who you haven’t necessarily seen before and areas of the galaxy you haven’t necessarily seen before is really, really exciting.”
“My hope is that through the different shows that we are doing now, and the idea being that each show has to be a totally unique prospect. You can’t get from Discovery what you are going to get from Picard or Lower Decks, each one has to be different… Each one has to be unique and specific. And when you look at what Marvel has done on television, nobody complains about too many Marvel shows. Each one is different… So, what do you put the highest premium on? Great storytelling. If each show is told well and each show is different enough, then why can’t there be more of them. That is not to say we should just throw them all out there and do bunch of random Star Trek shows. Each one needs to be unique.”
Lower Decks is not Trek and Morty
When talking about the expanding world of Star Trek shows and specifically animated shows, Kurtzman noted that while CBS All Access is the “fundamental home” for Star Trek, in the case of animation, shows aimed more for younger audiences may end up elsewhere. However, in the case of Star Trek: Lower Decks, he felt it was a good fit for All Access, and explained the approach they are taking to the show:
“The showrunner of Rick and Morty Mike McMahan came to me and said, “I want to do a show about the people in the lower decks of the space ship whose job is to take the yellow cartridge and put it in the processor and make sure the banana comes out the other side.” And I said, “You can stop pitching because that is perfect.” It’s not that we are doing Rick and Morty in the world of Star Trek, although if you watch Rick and Morty you will see that it is deeply influenced by Star Trek, which is really wonderful. It’s just a very different tone. The key is to laugh with Star Trek and not at Star Trek. And it will skew slightly more adult.”
The Picard show still needs a title
We are still learning more about the Picard show in development and in the Variety discussion, Kurtzman confirmed that the show is headed into pre-production. However, it is still missing something important, as Kurtzman revealed:
We don’t have a name for it yet. I’d love to give you an official title — there’s a lot of conversation about that right now.
Watch full discussion
There’s quite a bit more from Kurtzman, you can watch the full video interview below:
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 and Upcoming TV Projects news at TrekMovie.
I have a perfect idea for a title for the new Sir Patrick Stewart-led “Star Trek” series: “The Picard Chronicles.”
I like it, kinda hardboiled like his halodeck personas.
Now I’m picturing Picard playing Halo on the holodeck.
Perfect? Er……. no. That’s an overused cliche and isn’t very Trek-like.
I think we’ll end up getting The Young Jean-Luc Picard Chronicles.
title? How about just TREK? Or Star Trek Too?
Good luck on these shows, Alex. Looking forward to them.
I’m sorry I’m still not buying the hair thing! Maybe he is being completely honest and it was always the plan but they literally had flashbacks of Voq as a kid with other kid Klingons and they were all just bald as we were introduced to them. How long have they been at war, for 30 years? And its not even just the hair, they clearly redesigned the basic look of some of them. Look at L’rell in that picture, they glammed her up. Her make up is changed in her face, she has (much) better and prettier clothes now. But end of the day it doesn’t matter. IF they found a way to explain it, fine, all fans wanted were something closer to the other Klingons from the film and shows. It’s not that they changed that was the problem so much as it just a BAD change to a lot of us.
Crazy they don’t have a title for the Picard show. I was wondering why haven’t they just said it. I originally thought they didn’t because the title may give away the story line or something. Guess not.
It’s nice he listens to feedback from fans though. He’s not as brave to talk to us directly as his old partner Bob Orci does who has taken quite a beating over the years here lol. Love ya Bob!
Lastly with the news of the Lower Decks announcement I been watching Rick and Morty the last few months. I never seen an episode until then. It’s…different I will give it that, but its VERY smart and yeah sometimes very funny. Some of it is a bit too gross for me but I do like it. I’m hoping Lower Decks has an adult vibe but not as in your face I guess.
I agree with you on the klingons as well, I think they just have too much pride to just come out and say that they have dropped the ball with “some” of the design choices. I don’t think he is being completely honest in this issue, but in the age we are living in now would you really expect complete honesty from anyone.
So basically because it’s not the answer you want it to be, you’re throwing an assumption that they have too much pride to come out and say what you want them to say. Wow…
Yes, it is an assumption. But it is a VERY solid one. A less solid assumption would be to take what he said at face value.
Here is an article about them going into massive detail about why and how the Klingons look different. They spent an entire panel at the LV convention discussing Klingon anatomy and culture. The title of the article is literally called ‘Designers explain why Klingons are bald”. And note the date of the article.
And this was their response and the ONLY response we ever got until just a few months ago:
“Page explained that DSC’s Klingons are bald because of these heightened senses on the top of their heads. The bald look was also a mandate from Fuller.”
So maybe WHY they are lying may not have anything to do with pride, OK, fine. Maybe CBS just told them to say that or they are all fired and threatened the lives of their pets over it. But yes they are clearly lying when they pass off this silly notion this was something they came up with early in the production process. Really? Because they went into full nerd detail about the production process, and not a single line or hint anywhere about Klingons shaving their hair and pubes for a war rally they are trying to (desperately) pass off for some odd reason.
The Light of Kahless has nothing but bald Klingons at every stage of T’Kuvma’s life. And they were co-written by one of the producers. So I am calling bullshit. Love the show deeply, but sometimes they lie.
Spot on about the Klingons and the hair! Also, *if* the war was the real reason, as been pointed out before, why do the Klingons have hair in their other wars and conflicts? It’s just a BS excuse they took from that one TNG episode, and they didn’t even get it completely… But good the hair is back! ;-)
They’re a society, and societies change social mores all the time. In 1930s America, racism, sexism, and homophobia were “normal.”
Ok, you got a point there. Still doesn’t negate the point that Mullet Man has about T’Kuvma *never* having had hair ins his entire life…
Well, in his heart he might have been at war his whole life.
“And really through an error of omission, we realized we never made that clear in any context.”
That quote pretty much sums up the last decade of Star Trek. Except it’s not really an “error of omission”… it’s just lazy writing.
Yes the fact he called it ‘an error of omission’ just further shows this was most likely done after the fact. Come on, there were 200 articles about the Klingons in the first season explaining every little detail they could about them even down to a mention about the importance of fire on the show.
And yet not ONCE, anywhere, did people hint Klingons being bald was only a temporary state. They discussed the Klingons being bald a few times and everyone treated it like this is simply what they looked like, period. In fact the closes anyone ever got to defending why they were suddenly bald came from one of the old show runners IIRC who said in a round about way that people will eventually get use to it. Again didn’t say that precisely but that was the basic meaning so what does that tell you? They NEVER planned to explain why they were bald because they simply were, end of story. And now they are trying to (badly) rewrite history. It’s amazing in the age of the internet where every sentence you ever uttered publicly can be pulled up and viewed in seconds you still try to deny it later.
But then you look at how the current U.S. President who does this daily about everything under the sun so I guess it’s not exactly uncommon.
It’s called retcon. They are fiction writers working in a business, making a product. Sorry, but sometimes we just have to accept what is and get on with it.
They have hundreds and hundreds of hours of Star Trek to comb through to get everything 100% correct. I’m not sure why they don’t hire researchers for every little aspect, line and design of the show but that’s not up to me.
That said, I know it’s the nature of Trek fans to discuss and dissect ad infinitum. That’s the only reason the producers feel they need to “explain” or “justify” things to the fans in this Age of Internet Fandom. Back in the day, they just did what they did, and fans could like it or lump it. Guess I’m kind of used to that model. Sure, I’ll petition with #BringBackPrimeLorca, but ultimately it’s not up to me to produce and write the show.
Marja, I have no issues its a retcon. I don’t remotely care about that. I’m only saying PRETENDING they had this plan from day one it was suppose to be a retcon was disingenuous, that’s all.
And what’s hard about this? Klingons had hair before, on this show they acted like they didn’t. That’s going to ruffle a few feathers as they found out. But even if they don’t want hair, OK, then take one line and just explain they at least can GROW hair and that would’ve satisfied a lot of people at least. They didn’t for a reason, because they never were suppose to and they KNOW that.
Couldn’t have said it any better!
I thought the Klingon hair thing was the least of season one’s problems, but I call bullshit on that explanation as well. Personally I’d rather get no explanation at all, than a lie. But here we are.
To go very technical, imagine the nightmare of shaving ridges. It can’t really have been shaving, can it? Did L’rell grow a three-days stubble on her head during detention? I say, it absolutely clearly must have been epilation – or waxing really, resulting in the pain appropriate for a Klingon war ritual :-D
@Webguest — I have to admit that was my first thought when I heard this explanation — and you’ve hit the nail on the head — they didn’t just shave their head, they ripped it out at the root in some painful process!
i can imagine this. Youch! But Klingons seem a lot hardier about pain than we small humans
“I thought the Klingon hair thing was the least of season one’s problems, ”
Yes. That. Sure, the look was not good and the change ought not have been made. But even if the Klingons looked like TNG or TOS Klingons the show itself would STILL be poorly plotted, conceived and written. So yes. The prosthetics were the least of the shows problems.
“Look at L’rell in that picture, they glammed her up. Her make up is changed in her face, she has (much) better and prettier clothes now.”
…because she’s leader of the Klingons now? And no one looks the same for all the years of their life? I love her new look. You get it, girl.
Taking the hair thing a step further, if the Klingons shave their hair in time of war, why didn’t they do that during the Dominion War on DS9 or at the beginning of Errand of Mercy when war was officially declared? It’s just another example of coming up with a different aesthetic for no good reason and then trying to retcon a reason for it after the fact.
For me, it’s an obvious lie as well – while I can totally believe they screwed up telling that information in an episode for the sake of the pace (that happens way too often – explaing something helps for the audience to care because the know what’s going – usually when there’s stuff on screen happening I don’t get, I’m not involved and don’t care so I’m not to sure why the people behind the shows/movies think it is such a good idea to prefer pace over making sense) there’s the thing I really don’t believe at all: they managed to never get this bit of info in any of the After Treks or interviews? They sure were asked about it back then because people obviously noticed. Right now, I’m hoping they do actually bother to explain their reasoning onscreen in season 2 instead of just the internet. Or do they plan to make a comic book again to explain the stuff you see on screen so that the show can be fastpaced??
@TonyD — who knows, and who cares? It’s all fiction. They could come up with a million retcons to answer every question Trek fans have. In the end, it all boils down to whether you like it or not as to whether you’re happy with their fabrications. I liked the bald Klingons and this new makeup a lot. I’m going to miss it. And frankly until someone explains they shaved their heads because it was a time of war on camera, then it’s not canon anyway.
All people are saying is you don’t have to lie about it. I have no problems if they simply said they changed up Klingon culture for the shaving the hair thing to be a new war call. That’s fine and things are added to every alien culture in every new show obviously.
What’s bothering people is pretending this was all some plan from the outset when thats clearly not true. NO ONE on the show reacted to the fact an entire species just showed up hairless because my guess is that’s simply was the way they were suppose to look to other characters.
And IIRC I thought I still saw a few bald Klingons in the last trailer they showed so maybe they didn’t all suddenly grow their hair back after all and you may still see that look after all. We’ll see.
I could care less either. Given all the other aesthetic changes made for no particular reason, turning the Klingons into walking turtles barely registered. What does kind of bug me are the after-the-fact attempts at rationalizing or justifying changes in the hopes of appeasing fans who probably will not be appeased anyway. Its strikes me as pandering and a little insulting to my intelligence since they excuse just doesn’t hold any water. Just have the balls to say you wanted to go in a different direction and be done with it. If the stories are good (which unfortunately was not the case a lot of the time in season 1) then it will all fall by the wayside anyway.
“If the stories are good (which unfortunately was not the case a lot of the time in season 1) then it will all fall by the wayside anyway.”
Yes! This! If we all loved the first season nearly universally then the Klingon look would be rendered to a little referenced good natured nit pick.
Ditto TonyD! Ditto!
@TonyD — it’s the nature of Hollywood. How many times did Roddenberry change the facts to suit whatever current narrative he was trying to push? The fact is, the producers didn’t do anything but come up with a retcon, like any fan. The fact they aren’t apologizing for making a mistake doesn’t change it. Frankly, I wouldn’t expect them to. This latest quote from Kurtzman is perhaps the most refreshing, as he says they came up with this idea to explain it, which implies they needed one after the fact when they changed their minds for whatever reason. Is the reason that the fans hated the hairless Klingons? I think the irate fans would like to believe it, but perhaps the producers themselves decided it just didn’t work for any number of reasons. To me it’s a non-issue, definitely not worthy of the energy being put into the debate.
Because DS9 is generations later. I don’t think many traditions last hundreds of years without changing or vanishing, in any society. Human society has changed a lot in one century, the idea that because the Klingons did something at one time and doesn’t do it a hundred years later is what I’d consider quite normal. It would be impressive if they DID the same things after all that time, actually.
Lying and pretending like it’s always been the plan so to appease fans? Sounds like he’s taking a page out of his pal Damon Lindelof’s playbook. After Lost I have no tolerance for this kind of BS anymore. I can’t believe we let these people get control of Star Trek. The only thing I really have hope for now is that Kurtzman keeps his distance and the Picard show manages to be good despite him.
Sorry, but unless you work in a high position at CBS or Paramount you don’t have any say in who gets control of Star Trek. It is controlled by the rights holders whether you like it or not.
Tiger, they could have been at war, Klingon House v. Klingon House. It makes a lot of sense if you think about that in relation to what T’Kuvma wanted to do, make peace among his people to make them stronger. I objected to the “new look” Klingons at first, but over time realized how much more alien it makes them, along with their speaking Okrand’s painstakingly designed Klingonese. They are aliens now, not just hearty Samurai in leather clothes.
L’Rell can be more glammed up, I suppose; I found her just as appealing before, in an alien way. She’s now the Chancellor and they’re now at peace, so maybe she can take some time with hair and makeup, LOL.
So even kids shave everything? Are they fighting too? I’m sorry, it just comes off lame to me, but whatever.
L’rell now looks like a Klingon Barbie doll lol. It looks better so I’m not complaining.
@Marja — I agree, I wish they hadn’t gone back to hair. Regardless, they gave us an answer worthy of the most hardcore Star Trek fan. I couldn’t care less if they didn’t apologize for doing it, or admitting they made the change in capitulation to the fans, assuming that’s even the reason they did it. Only the self-absorbed fans would turn this into an issue. Indeed, I would argue that making changes because of a particularly vocal group of fans is the last thing they should admit, as it only encourages the same behavior in the future, and propels the producers into making only safe decisions which results at a minimum in the same mistakes the Berman group made.
They did not need to admit to listening to fan comments. But they didn’t need to come up with some obviously BS line about it either. Just say they wanted to change the look for creative reasons. Or whatever, it was a production decision that has no in universe explanation. Many fans would guess at the truth but it would be better than than what they tried to feed the hard core fans.
I appreciate the hair returning. There are other obvious differences though – double nostrils, teeth, and I think fingernails and ears. You hardly saw the ears before except probably in ST VI? I don’t mind the Tellarite changes, so maybe the Klingons with hair is a good compromise. I don’t buy their reasoning that they shave for war. Did that custom die off by STTNG then?
Hey everyone, just wanna give a shoutout to the whole Trekmovie team and community. I don’t post often but when I do my comments and questions are always met with such informative and thoughtful responses.
Am I the only one who doesn’t find it hard to believe Spock would have never mentioned Michael? I grew up with a second cousin living with my family and being raised by my parents until I was around 13 years old. She moved out as an adult and got in with a bad crowd (abusive men and drugs, etc) and despite my parents attempts to help, she basically cut us out. There are very few people in my life today outside of family who even know she existed. This includes my best friends, partners, coworkers, and basically everyone who I’d consider my “crew”. I just state this to show what a non issue it really could be to have never heard of Michael in all the established Trek cannon. Thanks for listening to me ramble!
I think most fans think it is a non-issue as well. Spock was always very reserved. But, having said that, if they want to tell this story, so why the hell not? It doesn’t really matter if it required an explanation or not. What matters is that the Burnham-Spock story, whatever it may be, be interesting and well told. If it so, bravo. If it is not, well, we didn’t really need it in the first place, but how many Star Trek stories we didn’t need as well, and we’ve got them anyway? I think it is unfair to have someone create a Star Trek show and then expect the creator not to do what he feels it’s right. Let’s just enjoy the ride and see where it leads us, no preconceptions!
Besides, Spock never mentioned his half-brother Sybok until he was forced to do so during ST:V. So there is precedent here on how reserved Spock is about his family.
Hell, Kirk and McCoy didn’t even know Ambassador Sarek was Spock’s father until Sarek came aboard the Enterprise!
That is true but in the worst cases such unnecessary things never went more than two episodes. This one seems to be going on for 13 episodes. So…
Old days of TV vice the new, friend.
“You can’t have progress without change but not all change is progress.”
It’s entirely reasonable that Spock has never mentioned her. He never mentions anything–his brother, his parents, his wife, pon farr, his contact with V’Ger and the Talosians, his full name, his love for his mother, his peace negotiations with Gorkon, his involvement in the Romulus-Vulcan reunification efforts, etc. (See this article for more information: https://www.herocollector.com/en-gb/Article/star-trek-spocks-biggest-secrets.) It’s just in his nature to keep secrets from everyone.
Thank you for bringing up V’Ger. I always wondered what that connection really did to Spock and what he fully learned from it. I mean just imagine!
Yep. I do not think that you or I are alone in thinking the lack of mentioning Burnham is a mystery that needs explaining. The fact is, it doesn’t. Spock doesn’t mention her because A: She wasn’t created as a character while Nimoy was playing him and B: Spock never mentioned family anyway. It’s not unreasonable she would exist. Further, we were told all first season long that Spock would never show up. So the creators of the character and the show never felt it was a mystery either. Suddenly Kurtzman does? I call BS.
I mean, it’s not like people go around talking about the details of their childhood all the time while they are trying to work in real life. Most people I work with and even some of my best friends only have at best the faintest idea I have a full-blooded sister. Why would this detail necessarily come up in the context of the stories we’ve seen Spock in?
I always felt from the start of Discovery that Michael Burnham would be part of the reason for Spock and Sarek’s estrangement.
Well, Lethe confirmed that. By joining Starfleet instead of the Vulcan Science Directorate, Spock ensured that Sarek betrayed Michael for nothing.
When I resubscribe that is the one episode I may want to check out again. It was the only good one and I’d like to be reminded of those events.
Is there an interview with Hollywood folks that goes by now without working in the word “family” as many times possible? Must be a marketing program where they learn that.
Hollywood is a loosely knit… wait for it…
Aye, the Manson Family. ;-)
Maybe it has to do with being human, and having a human audience to please. Humans are raised in families, you know. I bet if Hollywood were run by lizards, they wouldn’t give a shit about family on those interviews… :-P
I would agree with you if this line about a cast of characters being a family wasn’t used as often as Geico tells us about savings on insurance. It’s all about selling a product. Don’t forget that.
Sure, it’s selling a product. I didn’t say it isn’t. But it is selling a product for family-loving creatures, and that is why family is ALWAYS key. ;-)
That’s the Gorn way, my friend ;^D
“‘What does she do? She’s a producer.’ Of course, in Los Angeles this doesn’t mean much more than ‘she’s a member of the human race.'” ― Julian Fellowes
Yes, words are changing meanings in this modern time. “Family”, “Experience,” and many more.
And now we have “Friendsgiving,” which sounds like a really great charity but is a new coinage for “Thanksgiving,” which was perfectly appropriate in the first place ….
Star Trek: Aftermath (Picard Show), you heard it here first ;)
Star Trek: Past Blast
Star Trek: The Not Prequel One
Star Trek: To Baldly Go
My three choices for a series title would be:
(a) Star Trek Future Realm
(b) Star Trek Permutations
(c) Star Trek Revelations
A title should be relevant to a show’s story focus. Since we have no idea what the story focus will be yet, those titles are (with all due respect) random and meaningless.
Part of me wonders if we do need to have explained everything to us about the characters. I mean what is next? Are they going to make a full season to answer why Spock sneezed in an episode? Do we really need to learn all these details? I think these guys are a little bit too stuck up on details. I would prefer a show with a good message, good idea behind it rather than why somebody didn’t talk about somebody or why somebody smile in this episode, or why another character sneezed etc…
You literally have people praising them over the sounds the controls make on the bridge, and lamenting the fact the warp nacels aren’t quite the same shape as the 1960s model. This is also a franchise that needlessly felt like they had to explain a design change due to better makeup technology. They do have to explain it somehow or someone will pitch a fit (then again, no matter how it’s explained someone else will also pitch a fit).
They are damned if they do, damned if they don’t, and I’m just sitting here enjoying the show for what it is, as I have enjoyed all the previous Star Trek shows.
But for me, this is the problem with prequels in general, every little piece of past canon is analyzed to death to either explain it more or to connect it to differences with new canon. I don’t disagree with you, someone will complain if its not explained but that’s only because they have overwritten so much of the old canon with the new then they feel they have to justify why it’s different in the first place. It can’t just simply be different for different sakes because in a lot of people’s minds it SHOULDN’T be that different.
I’ll be honest, the uniform thing drives me crazy for some reason more then anything else because we know what they were suppose to look like during the Cage. It’s clear they are going back to the traditional uniforms (which is good) and I know an explanation is coming why there are different ones used in this period but its only because its new canon on top of old. If this was a completely new time period I would just accept them as new uniforms and move on as I done in every show before.
Agree with everything you said there, Tiger, and the problems with prequels in general. If they just went ahead and said it was a reboot, or set later on in the timeline, I’d have very little to complain about with DSC (except for lousy writing in S1 and bad space sfx, imo).
Again, Danpaine, right there with you. All the visual issues (and even the canonical ones) are GONE if they just said “This is a reboot.” Klingons look different. It’s a reboot. Uniforms are different. It’s a reboot. All that’s left would be complaints like “Lorca is from the MU? That’s just lazy writing.”
“That’s just lazy writing.” I think I need to trademark that phrase and charge people to use it…..
The whole thing is still odd. They know the fanbase they have and that fans are very fickle and canon is the backbone of the franchise for many along with the TOS era almost being the holy grail. So what did they THINK was going to happen when they take this era and basically completely change it but then tell us its all ‘canon’ as before? Just as long as you ignore everything you see on the actual screen.
That might work for some people but it wasn’t going to work for everyone as they have seen. And yes I have said a million times too but if this was simply a reboot or in another timeline obviously a LOT of this goes away tomorrow. It doesn’t mean everyone will just fall in love with the show as I imagine a lot of the writing issues would still be there but they wouldn’t be asking for so many explanations either. But knowing this fanbase they can’t be shocked fans wait to explain how it fits into previous canon.
Or if it were a hard reboot the new uniforms would be just accepted as the new uniforms and everyone would move on. And to me the visual upgrades, uniforms included, are just too jarring. We know what that era looked like. The PD needed to be upgraded but it needed evoke the feel of what we know the era was supposed to look like. And what they gave us did NONE of that. It put the show in a bad place from the very start before we even got to know any characters. Which meant it had to do an even better job when it came to writing and story. Which it failed to do. So now all those changes are even a bigger mistake than they could have been.
And the uniforms just look like something from a different era completely. There is absolutely no symmetry between those and the TOS uniforms but yet we are suppose to pretend they both exist at the same time. And then the fact was compounded because we never saw anyone wear the traditional uniforms anywhere. It’s another example this was probably suppose to be a reboot in Fuller’s mind. And if it was, then no need to explain. But then when you say its all happening in the original universe then of course people are going to question it. That would be for any story and not just Star Trek.
Laughing imagining the reactions if they had made the SAME EXACT UNIFORMS for wear on a modern show. I loved Theiss’s work back in the day. He was on a short budget with a short turnaround and made it work. It’s different now.
Well no not the EXACT same uniforms, that would be a disaster lol. The revised uniform Pike is wearing on Discovery I like, but I admit I do prefer the Kelvin uniforms, especially the more formal look in Beyond. They look closer to TOS and more modern at the same time. But why Discovery didn’t go that route on day one I will never figure it out. Of course its a lot of things about this show I will never figure out lol.
Once again, (and I do not know why people jump to that conclusion) it would not be EXACT duplicates. It would be modernized but still feel like it belonged. Just look at what Pike and #1 are wearing in the photos and trailers. They did THAT from the start and there would be no uniform issues.
I think as well, Tiger, that the original intent was indeed to make this a complete reboot. There is just too much evidence for it not to be.
If it were a hard reboot they’d have just as many fans complaining for different reasons. Look at the reception for the Kelvin Timeline films. I am convinced Trek fans are not happy unless they are complaining, dissecting and dissatisfied with some aspect of the show. Geebus.
I am in the minority I suppose in that I’m not leaving the viewing audience over this. In fact I’m sure people seldom do despite their complaining. Yet Kurtzman and Co. feel obliged to explain this stuff to fans. It soothes some ruffled feathers, it amuses others [like me], and others get all het up about “lies.” Perhaps they feel they deserve The Unvarnished Truth. Here it is. It’s show BUSINESS, not show friend.
I’m assuming those last few lines were aimed at me since I brought it up here first. And no worries, we’re still friends lol.
Look, its not a big deal, OK? I don’t think anyone is evil, I just can’t for the life of me figure out why they feel they need to lie over it? I guess they don’t want to just admit they changed it over fan pressure, OK, fine, then just say you decided you missed them having hair or that was a decision Fuller made when he was in charge, but they wanted another change with new bosses and leave it at that. But when someone says something that is clearly in dispute of the evidence people will point it out. That said, since its something most of us are actually happy about then its not a big deal. Its just funny they KEEP bringing it up now. Then how come no one just said this a year ago when it was asked countless times? It would’ve saved them a lot of grief lol.
Got you. It would have been nice, too, if they hadn’t tried to answer fans speculating on STID “It’s Kahn” with “Don’t be silly it’s not Khan, haha!”
They could say, “we changed it bc it felt right and we had more money” or something. But I still don’t think that would assuage protests, it would just create other responses. You can imagine what those might be!
The complaining will never 100% cease. That said, a hard reboot would almost certainly reduce the production design complaining by at least 2/3 in my estimation. Probably more.
@MysticalDigital — right there with you. I love this period of Trek, and I love that they are exploring it. The connection between Burnham and Spock was skillfully done, and helped the characters resonate more for me than before, so mission accomplished. Not every series, or every episode is for eveyone, so differing opinions will be shared. But my favorites are those shared as empirical truths, not to be challenged by anyone. There’s a lot of that in this franchise …
Thank you for saying it. With you 100.
That was a nonsensical post that has no basis in the kinds of conversations people are actually having.
Not really buying the Klingon hair comment. I think that they’re trying to undo Bryan Fuller’s more controversial design decisions, at least with the Klingons. We saw a hologram of an actual D7, after all.
I really hope they do series, movies or specials about:
Enterprise B C (especially) and f
Early colony story.
A long small long range scout ship.
Personally, I’d like to see a civilian ship for once. But it would be really hard to avoid comparisons to Firefly.
The next show sounds like it will be the Section 31 rumor so you are getting the complete opposite of that one. ;)
Yes I meant after that one.
Merchant, cruise/ferry or barge?
It might be fun to see a merchie / pirate trying to evade Starfleet. Maybe someday they’ll consider a Mudd spin-off. I wouldn’t count on that.
Being a former Coastie, I’d love to see a Rescue/Recovery show, they could even throw in a mystery element where Starfleet security could investigate. Too often Starfleet Security are shown as bad guys that don’t understand Our Heroes. Diplomatic incidents could result from individual attacks/murders. I imagine sometimes the big starships like Enterprise might have to select and direct on their way to save a planet, y’know?
A Dept. of Temporal Investigations show might be interesting, since it’s a civilian agency in the novels.
I think we’re bound to see a young Montgomery Scott on a freighter or cruiser at some point, in some iteration.
I hope we do! Pike could recruit him for Starfleet, and he could go to an officer candidate school instead of the full four years of Academy! Boss idea!
I agree with all of those!
“in a time of war, the Klingons all shave their body hair”
Yeah, tell that to General Martok, Commander Kurn or Chancellor Gowron during the Dominion War. I don’t think they got that memo. Not to mention, Starfleet Lt. Commander Worf.
This is just a really poorly thought out “excuse” for the piss-poor redesign of the Klingons in Season 1.
And Kor. A war was about to start and he knew it. He should have run off to a side room to ceremonial shave his body hair. Yet he didn’t. Yes. We all know that explanation is covered with manure. No one is buying it.
On the contrary, people who don’t get wrapped up in such minutiae buy it just fine. And if you really need an extension of that explanation, you are talking about 100 years difference in time. Do we wear the same clothes we wore 100 years ago? Or style our hair the same? Or worship the exact same religions? Or entertain ourselves in the same way? Lots of things can change in 100 years, and observing the tradition may have fallen out of favor in that time.
There are religions that haven’t changed much over the course of 100 years. But the Kor example takes place a mere 10 years later anyway so…
Things can change in 10 years time as well.
True. But from what we know of the Klingon cultural desire to retain ancient ceremony I’d say that’s highly doubtful.
Styles change. I’ll give Kurtzman the benefit of the doubt and accept his answer about this. Lets face it, a lot can change in 10 years. Consider how radically our society changed from 1956 to 1967. In my head-canon, I accept the idea that the house that runs the Klingon empire sets the “style”. If one house wants to shave their heads during a time of war, then the Empire follows suit probably because it is mandated from above….a “conform or die” type of totalitarianism. If another house comes into power and decides that this custom no longer has value, then the custom is changed and suddenly the Klingons from the TOS period onwards keep their hair during times of war and conflict. Sure, it’s jumping through hoops to fix what was essentially a bad design decision that didn’t go over well but if you accept it than it adds another interesting layer to Klingon society.
Sorry. While that is possible from what he have learned about Klingon society it’s a very slim possibility. Such ceremonial things seem to be held on to and are not easily let go in their society. This is not a fashion change. It’s more like a religious change. And how have those gone in a 10 year span?
I prefer to explain it away as the show runners decided the first season look was a mistake and changed it for the next. End of story. Moving on.
I don’t think Kurtzmann or the others involved really thought too heavily on previous Klingon episodes from the other series, specifically the 24th Century Klingons. They were thinking internally for their own series, Discovery. They have redesigned the Klingons and they also took away the hair, apparently for just Season 1.
In 19th Century Britain it was top hats, cigars and big waist coats, and high trousers. In 21st Century it’s casual jeans and snazzy jackets; strange analogy, but you may get my point, I think.
It wasn’t just for season one. If the new Klingon look was well received it would still be there. If the explanation was correct, there would have been Klingons with hair in the first episode. His explanation is that this is NOT a fashion statement. It’s a societal custom based on the predominant religious belief.
You have only to look at the changes in the Protestant church in the last century.
That was what, 125 years later? Cultures can change a lot in a century.
I think it’s safer to say it’s an ‘old’ Klingon tradition, like when politicians wore wigs, or like modern-day female Muslim’s phasing out the burka, etc. The Klingon’s “Used” to shave their hair during war-time, but they phased it out. Besides, these Klingon’s were members of a religious cult who isolated themselves from the mainstream empire, so L’rell probably accelerated her hair growth in order to make her appearance more acceptable to modern, mainstream imperials.
“Star Trek: The Greatest Generation”
Then it HAS to be good.
I do wish they took into consideration how Enterprise explained the forehead issue to the point where some smooth headed Klingons can be in the mix as well.
Nice you said that. I thought that when we were told before season 1 started that we were going to get into Klingon culture like never before I felt we were going to see the smooth headed AND the ridged Klingons. Instead we got yet another version of Klingons. Which would have been easier to take had we seen the other kinds among the other Houses. But alas, the group running this show really didn’t seem to know what they were talking about when they dropped hints about the show they were making or about Trek lore. Whoever was advising them either was terrible at the job or just weren’t listened to.
I don’t think they even had an advisor.
Who knows, maybe House Mokai has designed a genome to change the appearance of Klingons. They can retcon anything. They run the show.
“Enterprise” tried that and it apparently incensed fans.
I don’t think the Enterprise Klingon explanation incensed the fans. I read the reaction as being more like, ‘OK. But why go there?’
I don’t. Ruffles Have Ridges was probably the dumbest idea for a story arc in all of ENT season 4, and a classic example of Couldn’t Leave Well Enough Alone.
Well enough was Worf openly admitting that there was no explanation.
Berman Trek-style Klingons are essentially retconned out of existence, which means that TOS-style Klingons are once AGAIN retconned out of existence. So what would be the point?
For the foreseeable future it will likely remain retroactive that Klingons have always had four nostrils. Which is how it should be whenever a new team gives us “their” interpretation of ST.
Yes but its going to be really interesting what they do on the Picard show and if Worf shows up? You know if that guy showed up bald and with four nostrils fans would lose their shit lol. Maybe they can get away with the nose if its not too obvious but I’m certain he’s going to look as close to Worf as possible. They gave Spock a freaking beard and some people consider that blasphemy lol. We know Vulcans can grow beards people, calm down. But I’m pretty convinced a big reason the Klingons got their hair back is to look a bit closer to previous make up because of the Picard show.
But I don’t disagree too much, I don’t have a problem they changed the look of the Klingons, since they gotten different looks over the years. The problem with DIS is that the look simply SUCKED to a lot of people and they felt too much like a different species entirely. What they are doing with them now at least looks like other Klingons in the past so will probably be more acceptable.
If the franchise were younger and Klingons were less established THEN I could go along with major changes. But ever since TMP Klingons have had that definitive look. Sure, there have been tiny alterations here and there but for the most part, they always could easily be identified as Klingons. A major change at this point (in the prime time line, no less) just opens up a huge can of worms that really doesn’t need to be opened. They may as well have changed up the Vulcans as well for the same reasons.
I can’t agree that it’s been the same since TMP. Every pre-Berman era movie tweeked the Klingon design except for The Voyage Home, which more or less kept The Search for Spock’s take on the prosthetic design. With TMP’s Klingons themselves appearing obviously different from everything since.
And Berman Trek changed up the Romulans to make than appear noticeably different from other Vulcanoid species. This does not appear to have carried over (certainly not into the 2009 movie).
The aforementioned Ruffles Have Ridges story arc (which for me encompasses both the Augments and Infliction mini-arcs, incorporating five whole episodes that exist for the seeming purpose of leading up to a fan-servicy reveal) is my example of a can of worms that should never have been opened.
For most people though the Klingons look pretty much the same from TSFS through Enterprise. Yes there are tweaks but only hardcore nerds like us really know the difference. They generally look and act the same for the most part. TMP Klingons does look a little more different for sure but most people will still see them as Klingons.
It’s really DIS when you really don’t know what you’re looking at lol. And I know thats true because when that leaked picture dropped people were literally arguing with each other if they were Klingons or not. I got into a fight with one person (not here) telling me I was high for thinking they were Klingons. Crazy thing, I probably was. ;)
Sam, I just said that there have been small alterations and tweaks in various productions over the years. Even Worf had his ridges changed. But they STILL could be easily identified as Klingons. Make a MAJOR change, like the people on STD did, and now there is a tremendous issue.
PS… While I felt there was no need for the Enterprise Klingon change explanation episodes, it really didn’t open up much of a can of worms franchise wise.
I feel like it’s already established Klingons have hair now, and if Worf shows up on the Picard show he will certainly have hair. But by my vote, Klingons should just retroactively have four nostrils according to CBS Trek. Put to rest any notion that there’s any other reason for it besides a stylistic change, which is what it really is. And then once CBS Trek is no longer the current version of Trek, Klingon nostrils can be revisited and it may be something else that’s stylistically retroactive.
Well yes that’s my point. They have hair NOW, but they probably made that decision around the time they knew the Picard show (god come up with a name already lol) got the green light. That would’ve been a disaster if he shows up looking like an Orc lol.
The nostrils thing I don’t think is a big deal. In fact I didn’t even REALIZE they had four nostrils until a few months ago when they showed L’rell with her new hair do. I was surprised I didn’t notice it before. It’s just not as jarring as the other things about them, at least to me so I think most people won’t be that bothered.
Just Call the show:
Star Trek – ambassador
Star Trek – To Boldly go
Will be interesting to see what the Picard Show becomes.
In my head it may be something like this – Drawing on his experiences as a career Starfleet officer and an Ambassador, plus the melded memories of both Sarek and the now missing Spock, the emotionally distraught Picard has become the Federation’s unwilling emissary to the post apocalyptic remnants of the Romulan Star Empire.
These are the chronicles of Star Trek: Diplomacy OR Star Trek: The Emissary (sorry Sisko)
Star Trek: Picard
Picard is almost universally known and loved. It’s his show, we all just live there for an hour a week ;^)
Or just call it The Picard Show and give him a house band, a co-host and a live audience
How about Star Trek: Geriatrics. Just kiddin
I smell an Emmy…
Yup. The ratings demographic will be 65 to dead … ;-)
– Spock is to iconic of a character to waste on Discovery. Also, they are cheapening the character by recasting multiple times.
– Can’t wait for the Picard series. I don’t want to see further copies of ST (see Discovery) I want the real thing
– I have no interest in these Star Trek cartoons. The Lower Deck concept couldn’t interest me less.
Voodoo, I must say that I agree with you 100% on each point, especially about the Picard show because it moves us forward. Although I will add that I hope others do enjoy the other incarnations which are coming up, and that they do well. YMMV.
#1. Insipid point. Recasting him cheapens the character? James Bond? Batman? Daniel Craig and Ben Affleck– the most recent recasts for those roles– are often cited as among the best to ever play them. Try agin.
#2. DSC is Star Trek. Don’t like it, don’t watch, and stop whining about it.
#3. I too have little interest in cartoons, but if I don’t like them, I’m just not going to watch them. That they will exist is no skin off my back.
-Nonsense. Daniel Craig doesn’t cheapen Bond. Christian Bale didn’t cheapen Batman.
-DSC is Star Trek. If you don’t like it, don’t watch.
-I’m not really interested in the cartoons either, but I’ll give them a shot. IF they’re no good, I’ll not tune in. Their existence is no skin off my back.
Sorry, came back to the page an hour later and the comment wasn’t there!
You can thank both Kurtzman and all the fans who watched Discovery on CBSAA, Space Channel and Netflix. Collectively, they are the main reasons why CBS greenlit not only season 2 of Disco, Short Treks and Lower Decks but also the Picard series as well, which you are looking forward to.
“STAR TREK: STRANGE NEW WORLDS”.
Star Trek: Infinity War
Honestly, I’d be all in favor if they just continued to call it Star Trek: The Next Generation. All of these older shows that are returning are continuing to use their established names.
The issues is that this isn’t a continuation, as Picard will likely be the only character returning in a full time role.
It is that “generation” though.
[[The Picard show still needs a title]]
“Star Trek: The Even Newer Generation”
In the Picard show, they could have Picard mention to someone that through his mind meld (if that really was a mind meld) with Spock in “Unification,” he learned about Spock’s “sister.” This would be similar to Braga & Co.’s attempt to retcon the events of “Enterprise” into the twenty-fourth-century Trek canon (“These Are the Voyages”).
I don’t watch DISCO, but I follow news about it on this site and on the Trek Today site. Apropos of all this talk about Michael Burnham’s being Spock’s sister, do they ever mention Sybok?
Nope. Not yet, anyway.
And it totally feels like they should. Mentioning Sybok would legitimize Burnham some more to many.
Nobody mentions Sybok…it is forbidden!
Apparently mentioning Sybok has the death penalty. Maybe the involvement of Talosian in the new season might also involve him.
@navamske — I for one really hope we do learn more about Sybok. You can’t just ignore or erase canon. As long as this is all in the same timeline/universe, then he can’t just be ignored. Despite the horrific way he was introduced to the franchise, and they perfectly abysmal film he was in, the character is actually fairly interesting, and worthy of exploration.
Who would you cast in the role? This could be an amusing thread
Sybok: Who Would You Cast
Travis Fimmel from Vikings.
I’m between Sacha Baron Cohen and Zachary Quinto LOL
Mentioning Sybok seems to go against General Order 47: Mention Sybok and its imprisonment.
“We set up a mystery in season one. How come Spock – one of the most beloved characters in all of Star Trek history, let alone the world and the universe – has never mentioned his sister Michael Burnham. It was a big mystery. And I think I knew inherently that the answer to that wasn’t going to be one or two episodes. It was going to be a full season and you were really going to have to dive deep into that story and into that relationship and what happened between them. There is a lot of friction between them.”
OK. This set off my BS meter. There is no effing mystery. We all know what was really going on behind those decisions and we all saw the evolution of what led to the story line of season 2. And to be honest, and I know I am speaking for myself, I honestly do not care one bit about his relationship (or lack of one) with Burnahm. I really don’t.
“…because season one was really about coming together as a family…”
It was? If that was the ultimate intent then epic fail.
Regarding the Klingon hair comments… This sent my BS meter into overdrive. This has been discussed time and time again. The “time of war” thing is such horse sheite. First, if that was indeed the reason the makers would have been all over it all season long as they spent the bulk of their press defending their show. That explanation would have been made public. Next, even if that IS the explanation it still makes no sense as it doesn’t fit with the rest of the Trek universe anyway. I think the reality is they saw the hair thing as an easy way to appease some of the fans. So kudos to them for that. I just wish they would own up to the reality, however. Some of the previous administrations defensiveness are still there. They need to get rid of all that and own what they are doing.
What was said about the expanded Trek universe, on the other hand, was good to hear. I personally LIKE the multiple shows with different tones. I am happy they are trying new genres even though I personally will not be a fan of all of them. (the section 31 show sounds like a loser to me before it even reaches pre-production phase for example) It can only expand the Trek audience. Which is a good thing for all of us.
I can just imagine newer fans watching through older Trek episodes and scratching their heads when they don’t see bald klingons during war times.
@alphantrion — well for starters this explanation may never be canon for them to even look for an explanation. I suspect they’ll have a much a harder time trying to explain why TOS Klingons don’t have ridges, and if they make it to ENT, dealing with the lame story that suggests a reason, without actually connecting the dots as THE explanation.
Makes you wonder how WE managed to not have a problem with it lo these many decades……
@HubcapDave — exactly!
Or maybe they’ll have a hissy like some fans after they first saw “Next Generation” or “DS9” or “Voyager” or especially “Enterprise.”
I commented on the Klingon hair above, ML, but I absolutely agree with you when you say you could care less about Burnham’s relationship with Spock – Spock, who was never supposed to be in the show anyway – whatsoever. I think it was a stupid idea to make her his half/step/adopted sister as it is. At this point I think it would be best for Kurtzman to simply stop talking for a while and let the product speak for itself. He’s only digging holes for himself.
The whole setting up Spock and Michael in season 1 for season 2 seems to be even bigger BS because we were told that they never even plan to bring Spock on the show. That didn’t change until well after the finale.
But I agree about having different tones for other shows. I think this is a good thing and it doesn’t feel like the shows are just using the same template. The Picard show is still the only one I’m genuinely excited about but I’m certainly curious about the others and the more Star Trek (if its good) the better for a lot of us.
Just remember, “Star Trek Into Darkness isn’t going to have Khan, what made you think that?”
EXACTLY! And why I don’t believe them over the hair thing in the first place. These guys have been caught lying in the past. Now I will say for Khan they wanted to keep it a surprise, so I get WHY they lied, but they still lied. Now they lied about us never seeing Spock and just acting like that was always in the cards from day one as well. “Yeah, this is something we planned for since season one.” Dude, there are multiple interviews where you guys said you can’t even see Spock appearing on this show in a cameo and now he’s the driving force of season 2 that you claim you set up in season 1?
Don’t turn into a Trump, Trek’s fans are not as easily duped.
The “always planned” thing… not buying it. :P It’s fine to do some course correction and admit to it. The bald-at-war bit is pretty clever and sneaky, though. I’m happy to just accept that retcon and move forward.
Understatement of the decade: “It’s a very vocal fanbase.”
Season one of the Picard show might end up as “Picard” – and assuming it might get a second season it will be called “Star Trek: Picard” – and this change will be planned from the start. They just won’t tell anyone through an error of omission.
Let’s note that Alex Kurtzman’s comments about Bryan Fuller are always complementary. I was excited Fuller would be making Star Trek – even as I question the results. Whether Klingons have hair is important! Are their ships recognizable? If they’re not, how does this “evolve” into the Klingons we know? Last season, that’s the questions they were asking us to ask. Maybe if Fuller were still on the show, the transformation would have been amazing. Who knows? Original speculation was that the entire series took place in the Mirror Universe. If true, that would be an interesting outline to read now. So let’s not accuse Kurtzman of lying, even though he clearly is. Let’s say he’s being nice and respecting his friend. For a myriad of reasons.
I want a sequel with Captain Archer and T´Pol…..
@Markus — man that would really put me off this production team if they brought that series to life. Maybe if you recast both characters with new actors who could … act.
I would love to see them show up on Discovery. Archer may be too old or even dead but T’Pol could definitely appear.
Archer would be some 180 years old. So yeah, he’s long dead by the time Discovery tinkers with their spore drive.
Yeah he wouldn’t be around and now that I think about it in the Mirror Universe that Archer saw the date of PU Archer’s death when he was on the Defiant. So we literally have the date he died, I just don’t know it.
That said it’s still Star Trek. They can always pull some time travel or alternate timeline device if they wanted to bring him in for an episode, especially with the Spore drive that can literally time travel and hop universes.
OK. I was thinking straight linear. Sure, they could always go and pluck Archer from his time like Daniels did a few times. He’s probably used to it now. :)
Has anyone ever asked him in an interview about the possibility of direct-to-streaming movies like what Netflix has gotten into? With the quality of storytelling and effects, this could be amazing. 2hr Captain Riker film if they wanted or whatever really.
Back before Star Trek Beyond came out I remember reading that CBS had to lay low with their new Trek show until after Beyond’s release because of some non-competition clause between Paramount and CBS. If there really is such a thing it may also prevent CBS from making Star Trek movies because that’s Paramount’s prerogative. As for Netflix, I wonder whether they would be interested in financing a Trek movie if they can get 1 or even 2 full seasons of a Trek series for the same price.
Call it a mini-series…..released in parts :)
Even if there are no legal barriers the question remains: Why should Netflix want to fund a Trek movie if they can get 1 or even 2 full seasons of a Trek show for the same price?
.. you know, the theme to “the orville” is really starting to work for me
He never mentioned her for the same reason he never mentioned Sybok, they are making things up as they go.
At least with Sybok it didn’t feel so contrived.
No amount of continuity plugins with make me believe Burnham is Spock’s brother. You can retroactively have Mr Mott be Picard’s half brother, I’m sorry but it’s too contrived.
BS. They realized they had screwed up the Klingons and are now slowly making them more TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT like. I don’t buy the story that they planned it from the beginning.