‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Update: Kurtzman Talks Red Angel, Yeoh Reveals New Ship, Red Carpet Pics & More

| January 20, 2019 | By: TrekMovie.com Staff 93 comments so far

As we continue to analyze the Star Trek: Discovery season two opener and work on putting out all of our interviews from the red carpet premiere (with more to come!), we are taking a break to catch up on some other bits of Discovery news and fun that have popped up since the premiere of “Brother.” So, join us and jump into the first Disco Bits of season two.

Kurtzman connects Burnham, Spock and the Red Angel

The big mystery for the second season of Star Trek: Discovery plays out over a grand stage, with the seven bursts appearing around the galaxy. Speaking to The Hollywood Reporter, showrunner Alex Kurtzman talked about how the episode “Brother” opened and how that tied in with the main character’s arc:

“What I love about that opening is that it jumps you to this incredible bird’s eye view perspective on how small we are in the universe, and how massive the cosmos are. Burnham is really going to be wrestling this season with her place in the universe and what her purpose is. Spock is doing the same.”

He also discussed the theme for the second season:

“Initially, it started as a conversation about the way in which Trek has dealt with the issue of [faith] versus science. In The Original Series, religion doesn’t exist. Yet, faith is something that has always been a major topic in different ways. The idea of this mystery that has no answer immediately suggests a presence or force greater than anything anyone has ever known. It was really intriguing to us.”

And he then tied of this in with how it relates to Spock:

“It sheds specific light on Spock’s dilemma at that point in his life. Spock has, as we all know, a very unique relationship to logic. And logic fails him in dealing with the Red Angel. He doesn’t know whether to turn to logic or emotions to solve the mystery.”

Michael Burnham finds Spock’s message and map in “Brother”

Behind the scenes on “Brother” with Alex Kurtzman and Tig Notaro

CBS has released a video featuring the Star Trek: Discovery co-creator and showrunner talking about directing the season opener and the changes he is making to the way the show is shot for the second season.

CBS has also released a video featuring Tig Notaro talking about her role of Jett Reno.

Red carpet photos

The cast of Star Trek: Discovery was in New York City for a red carpet premiere of the show on Thursday, and CBS has made a bunch of photos available from the event. Enjoy.

Executive producers and cast on the red carpet for the season 2 Star Trek: Discovery premiere (CBS)

Yeoh beams in possible Section 31 ship hint from London

Michelle Yeoh missed the red carpet premiere. But to give fans something, she shared an image yesterday of her doing some post-production dialogue re-recording in London.

The Instagram image from the recording studio shows an image of a ship, which could be her new Section 31 ship for the second season, and maybe for her upcoming spin-off show now in development. The ship was first glimpsed in the final trailer for season two from December.

Ship was first seen in the December season 2 trailer

Is this Georgiou’s new Section 31 ship?

Stamets helps navigate Discovery times on Netflix

Anthony Rapp appears as Lt. Commander Stamets in a short video for Netflix viewers around the world to help them know when and where to watch Star Trek: Discovery.

Okudas happy for the nod in “Brother”

If you looked closely when Captain Pike’s record was shown in “Brother” you would have seen one of his listed commendations was the “Okuda Award,” a reference to veteran Star Trek designers Mike and Denise Okuda. Mike Okuda took to social media to express their thanks to the Discovery art department.

Gram of the week

Star Trek: Discovery’s new captain had some fun after the premiere, sharing his special version of the distracted boyfriend meme. Anson Mounts adds the simple message to his predecessor Jason Isaacs, “Deal with it.”

Star Trek: Discovery is available exclusively in the USA on CBS All Access. It airs in Canada on Space and streams on CraveTV. It is available on Netflix everywhere else. The second season debuted on All Access and Space on Thursday, January 17th, 2019, and on Netflix January 18, 2019.

Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news at TrekMovie.

SHARE TWEET PIN SHARE

Related Articles

93 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Trekmovie,

As a very loyal member here for years, I have to give it to you, you have been on fire with all the Trek news and keeping us updated on everything. This has become my go to page that I check first before nearly anything else since news of the Picard show arrived. There is just so much Trek news now but its great to come to one place that keeps up with so much of it all the time.

And its nice to know we will have news and updates for the next several months with Discovery now airing again and ramping up to the Picard show not to mention everything else currently going on. I haven’t been this excited for Trek since the days of the TNG era!

I absolutely second your high praise for Trekmovie.com. They are indeed the go to place and a “one stop-shop” for all things Star Trek. I also really like that, with the exception of the odd review or podcast, it is fact-based and NOT an opinion-based website nor is it affiliated with CBS – therefore we get great unbiased info and if we want opinions, we can go visit, read and post our own comments. Keep up the great work!!

An enthusiastic [and grateful] third!

I just can’t wait till Discovery is put off the air. These are exciting times.

Slider, can you please stop trolling. You don’t like the show, got it, but all you’re doing is trying to bait people now. The last time someone kept doing that was eventually banned and he liked the show. Just keep that in mind.

I should be allowed to voice an opinion on this website otherwise it turns into that ‘other’ Star Trek website that has a bad reputation for silencing different opinions. Hey look, if this site covers something that isn’t to do with this show I’m there to be optimistic.

It’s great all these Starfleet ships, pre-TOS, that no-one’s ever heard the class of, are coming to light.

I guess the victor gets to re-write history. All hail, Kurtzman.

How many starship classes have you seen in TOS, and how many do you think should exist in that timeframe? Just curious…

@Salvador Noguerira — there are almost no other ships seen or referred to in TOS, most likely due to budget. TAS introduced a few … interesting additions. And the re-mastered episodes likewise introduced some new designs, previously unknown. None of what is otherwise commonly known by the fan base is canon. So, what Kurtzman is doing is not a problem, and arguably a great service to the franchise.

Exactly! This is one of the things I DO think are positives for prequels and that it expands the universe in ways we never knew before. I’m not completely against prequels when this is one of the positives about them. The problem is they seem to make the universe smaller as well, hence you now have siblings working in Starfleet together.

But in this scenario, this is great. It shows us a Starfleet TOS never could. Even the TOS movies, while showing us more ships, still never showed a big fleet of ships, although that was probably just due to the stories themselves. We didn’t start seeing that until the later spin off shows because the technology has finally caught up to the imagination of the show.

And now we are at an age where you can do practically anything even on a television budget. We should be embracing what Discovery is doing in this regard, not complaining about it.

No idea. Like I say, it’s great.

Umm. Star Trek is not history. It’s the ongoing “sub-creation” (a term coined by JRR Tolkien) of an imaginary future. “Rewriting” or “reimagining” by the changing roster of authors is part of the game.

People who begin written comments with “um” are uniquely awful.

People who post to troll the way other posters begin their posts are uniquely awful.

Why thank you, Bryant. Not only did you (apparently) find my comment awful, you found me awful as a person (about whom you know nothing), but even more “uniquely awful.” Nice to be so distinctive. I guess simple respect and common courtesy are alien concepts even on Trek boards. (But thanks, Astra!)

You didn’t really think the twelve Constitution-class ships were all there was for 100 years, did you?

I guess Kirk’s “there are only 12 like it in the fleet’ line from TiY could mean that the connie fleet was decimated by 2266, and there are only twelve like it that are LEFT flying.

But given the number of years between this DSC kling war and TOS, you’d figure they could have built a few more, unless their shipyards were all destroyed. Or it has been a political football, like deciding whether or not a 15 year old class of long range explorer craft like the starship brand vessel was worth expanding upon.

Out of those 12 from ’66, how many connies are wiped out just during TOS? You’ve got EXCALIBUR presumably destroyed since all hands are lost in ULTIMATE, CONSTELLATION in DOOMSDAY, DEFIANT in THOLIAN, which are all onscreen Connies, plus verbally described starship assumed to be a connie in IMMUNITY SYNDROME with INTREPID. And that’s just in a couple of years, and just what I remember off the top of my head. I guess it is no wonder the Enterprise is the only ship in the quadrant as time goes on, because everybody else seems to be getting knocked off.

I think this is a great way to see it Kmart!

Maybe there were more Constitution ships but have simply been wiped out over the years due to wars and the dangers of space in general. Maybe 20 years ago there were 30 but they simply got destroyed. As you pointed out, we seen several of these ships destroyed on the show in just the three seasons it was on.

And exactly why it doesn’t make sense there are only 12 starships. You just pointed it out in your example, these things get destroyed all the time lol. So, who in their right mind would build just TWELVE of them knowing how often these things get lost to battles, strange phenomena, alien viruses, disappear into another universe, on and on.

If Star Trek was JUST about exploring the galaxy and being a purely scientific show then maybe you can believe that. But the problem is they also made it a defensive and diplomatic arm of the agency as well and thats where it falls apart.

Starfleet isn’t just a future NASA. Its NASA, Department of Defense, State Department, CIA and Homeland Security ALL rolled into one. It has both enormous power and responsibility in the Federation. Even though its not technically a military its the Federation’s sole line of defense from what I can tell. When the Borg took on the Federation at Wolf 359 they were all Starfleet ships only. An organization of 150 planets and yet the only one that took on the Borg were literally just Earth ships. And it seems like its always been that way mostly, as the Klingon war recently showed.

Its no way with all the responsibility and dangers that goes on in this universe, that Starfleet had 12 measly ships to handle it all.

No; Starfleet is not “Earth ships”. It is comprised of ships built by the Federation for Starfleet to do exploration, rescue and defense. That means the funding comes from all planets of the Federation, as do the crews.

Well in that case you just made my argument a bit stronger then.

So if ALL Federation planets are funding Starfleet to build these ships then they should have MUCH more of them in the 23rd century, certainly more than 12 lol. I was always under the impression only Earth was funding and building them, but now that makes more sense that they are seen so important all the planets are chipping in.

But thank you, this never made sense to me either. The Federation was so big but it felt like only Starfleet was putting up all the people and hardware for defense. That really bothered me and felt others should be doing a lot more. I was starting to turn into Trump over it lol.

I have no problem with this because it was never stated the Constitution class ships were the only ships in Starfleet, other wise why give them a class at all?

The reality is TOS was just a more primitive and budgeted show, it can only do so much for its time. I have always imagined a TOS 23rd century Starfleet to be just like this, a big and massive fleet of ships just like the 24th century has. How else can you maintain a huge delegation of planets and colonies while keeping enemies with big empires like the Klingons and Romulans at bay? It never made sense to me. But they could only produce so much on the screen at that time.

Now they can project a Starfleet with real strength and teeth. One you DON’T mess with unless you are just egging for a fight like the Klingons were last season.

TOS said there were only a dozen “starships,” which at the time meant a very specific kind of large, self-contained, long-range, independent vessel like the Constitution class. There were always supposed to be other space vessels of other classes, shorter ranges and smaller missions, a merchant marine, etc.

But it wasn’t a massive fleet at that point because space was still supposed to be a new frontier (thus that whole “Space…the final frontier” bit). TOS wasn’t trying to show a massive fleet of any kind. They were trying to show believable future human ships in space, not just “gee, wouldn’t it be neat to see thousands of ships on screen at once.”

By the TNG era, Starfleet has grown to what you’re describing, but it was never supposed to be anywhere near that massive in the TOS era. That’s why Kirk’s Enterprise was so often the “only ship in the quadrant.” Not a lot of ships, especially starships.

Unlimited starships of unlimited size turned Trek into space fantasy instead of science fiction.

You can’t think in TOS terms. TOS, in fact, wanted to be as vague as possible about pretty much everything. But NOW we know the Federation was 100+ years old by TOS’s time. And that would take a huge fleet. Not all of them would be super exploratory vessels, but you can bet a lot of ships would be built for cargo and patrol. Let’s suppose they have, like, four shipyards (one for each founding planet), building just one ship a year. Which is insanely low considering the just-ended Romulan War. That would make a 400-ship fleet by TOS time. I don’t think unreasonable to think this times ten. We would have 4.000 ships. A lot of them old, as the Shenzhou, some pristine, as the Discovery. Let the fictional universe breath, man!

I’m sorry but I really disagree with that PaulB!

I agree it may not have suppose to have been the size of the fleet we got by the 24th century but I never believed that the only star ships were a few Constitution class ships. I saw those as the deep space ships and why they were suppose to be so much bigger and advance but of course Starfleet had tons of more vessels because how does that not stop the Klingons or Romulans from invading Earth any time it wants? Who exactly is doing all the defending?

To me, and this is just my opinion, Roddenberry set up Star Trek around the era he lived in and all the events that were happening during that time, namely WW 2 and communism. Everyone seems to agree Starfleet for all intents and purposes represented America and that the Federation was the UN, which was set up after WW 2, which oddly enough the Federation came into power after the Romulan war. And that the Klingons were the Soviets. Just on that basis alone, it makes sense that Starfleet, like America, would be this powerful entity that not only helped win WW 2 with the other allies but then would become this big super power that would then set up multiple alliances and the biggest protector of the planet in general. Basically he took the present day Earth and just extended it to the galaxy. Starfleet wasn’t America in 1920, it was America in 1960 and all the vast resources and power that came with it.

And quadrants meant something different then in Trek then it does today. Most of the first season of TOS, it was pretty clear Starfleet had zipped around most of the galaxy and not just one area of it.

Actually, the Federation is like the United States. Each planet (like the States) is a voluntary member of the Federation, all ratifying and agreeing to abide by their Constitution. Each has representatives, and each vote on a President. Roddenberry clearly modeled the Federation after his home country.

Starfleet is the US Navy, combined with NASA.

The UN is nothing like this, and neither is the EU (which is largely an economic entity).

Well it is mostly just my opinion and sure I agree the Federation in general are based in American ideals (in its truest form) but I do think a lot of it was based around the UN model in general. In reality its probably a mixture of both. Here are two parts of the Federation from Memory Alphas that supports my theory. First what the Federation is basically defined as:

“The United Federation of Planets (abbreviated as UFP and commonly referred to as the Federation) was an interstellar alliance, composed of planetary governments that agreed to exist semi-autonomously under a single central government based on the principles of universal liberty, rights, and equality, and to share their knowledge and resources in peaceful cooperation, scientific development, space exploration, and defensive purposes.”

So I guess in one way you can look at it as states vs federal issue. But the way its described here is that the Federation are really self sustaining governments who decided to opt in later…and they can opt out at any time. Thats not how America operates. The states has their own government but they were never independent of the federal government. And they didn’t all just decide to come together as an alliance. It’s a much more living body vs something like the UN where you do it because its a choice to be part of a global community. But the UN isn’t a government either where as the Federation clearly is, so yes it is a little of both. The Federation is a government like America but unlike America the Federation is always expanding and adding new members where anyone can just apply to join.

Which goes to the second part, its membership:

“Admittance into the Federation was either by invitation or successful petition of a world or civilization desirous of joining. In the second case, membership was granted only upon satisfaction of certain requirements. Firstly, the government of the prospective member submitted an official petition to the Federation Council, outlining its desire to join.”

To me this is what really gears it closer to the UN model because its literally open for anyone to be a part of it, just as long as they abide by the same democratic standards, take part of its defense and certain level of technology. Brazil or Canada can’t decide they want to petition to be part of the U.S. But they can all, including the U.S. obviously, join the UN together as a sustaining community just like in theory every civilization in the alpha quadrant can join the Federation if they meet certain standards.

And culturally the Federation is not really America IMO because while YES, every nation is represented in America, they are basically assimilated into the American ideals and see themselves as one. The Federation doesn’t really work this way, it is more of an alliance and the members still have their own distinct cultures and identities just like the UN. They work together, focus on their shared ideals but they don’t assimilate culturally just like nations in the UN doesn’t. Earth and Vulcan may be a part of it but they still emphasize they are very different planets with their own separate identities from each other. In America, you’re different but the same equally.

So to me the Federation is a bit more different in how its set up although its laws and government are closer to America’s.

Oh I forgot to add, it doesnt’t make sense given both the HISTORY of Starfleet and the Federation. Think about it, how old was Starfleet suppose to be by then? I’m guessing at least a hundred years. It could’ve been even older. And then if you have such limited resources for space travel, how does something like the Federation even make sense??? I don’t know how many planets are there by TOS but lets just low ball it and say around 50, but how do you make so many alliances if you are just this young agency with limited space travel? How do you maintain these worlds that are in vast distances of each other? Thats always been the issue what this idea Starfleet was this little upstart agency never made sense. TOS had established we were allies with dozens of planets, that alone tells us they needed the star ships to reach and stay in contact with them, right?

And also remember this, how many Vulcan ships did we ever see on TOS? Or Andorian? Or ANY Federation ship? None, right? And a lot of these cultures were space bearers centuries before Starfleet was. So most of this just came down to budget more than anything.

And I think people over think ‘the final frontier’ line. If you look at TOS and how it was set up from the beginning they already had a very large foot print in their area of the galaxy and had been around for a long time to cultivate that influence.

> And also remember this, how many Vulcan ships did we ever see on TOS? Or Andorian? Or ANY Federation ship?

The only non-Constitution class Federation ship I ever remember seeing in TOS was the Antares from Charlie-X.

@Gary — and you didn’t see it then, unless the first time viewing that episode was the remastered version.

@Tiger2 – Wow, that’s quite a lot of overreaction in response to my comment. Sorry I hit a sore spot by stating facts. Nothing I stated was opinion or speculation, so…feel free to keep arguing, but facts are facts.

LOL, it wasn’t out of anger or anything! Just the opposite, I LOVE discussing this stuff and its always fun to debate it. Yeah its just an opinion, I’m not saying I’m right but it comes up a lot.

And again, the fact is NOW the 23rd century has a pretty big and expensive fleet that has been shown numerous times, especially in the Kelvin movies and now Discovery, so its kind of moot today. So you have to blame prequels on that one if you’re bothered. But canon wise the Federation is just as expansive and powerful in the 23rd century as it is in the 24th, just not as big.

But I think at the time it was mostly just down to budget issues and they probably weren’t really sure of how the universe really fit. We have to remember most of TOS was just making it up as they went. But after 50 years of shows and films adding to it its pretty well defined today. And Discovery is defining it more by every episode.

So even if you were right, its been completely retcon at this point and doesn’t really matter.

“I have no problem with this because it was never stated the Constitution class ships were the only ships in Starfleet, other wise why give them a class at all?”

That is an interesting comment because they initially just called it “Starship Class”.(See the plaque of the 1701). Which confirms the theory of only one class of starships. They later made a course correction and called it Constitution Class which indeed alludes that there are more classes.

Its the overuse of holo tech and collapsible suits that take me out of it being a prequel.

I mean did the candles have to be holo. Could the EMH wander the Discovery without a mobile emitter? And that emitter was 29th century tech.

The EMH is not just the image of the doctor, it’s a physical object that you can touch. The candles were just an image.
If you think about it having real candles with real fire is a safety hazard on a spaceship.

I’d say that the problem with the ambigous “starship class” is the first series established all sorts of other ships with interstellar capabilities: Leo Walsh’s, Zefrem Cochrane’s, automated freighter M-5 destroyed, Orion syndicate suicide ship,
etc.

And certainly there had to be repurposed decommissioned older starfleet vessels which would imply other older classes, at the very least? The only alternative view is to assume the Constitution design is 100 years old and the existence of multiple prior wars would tend to discount that. Although, I suppose ENTERPRISE’s IN A MIRROR, DARKLY would swing the needle right back into the plausible direction for long-lived design?

Aggressive looking design. Sort of like a Starfleet version of a Klingon ship.

Reminds me of the Saber Class

In the image with Discovery the middle part reminded me of the Cardassian warships. Of course, the rear side and the engines look different.

It looks like a Romulan Warbird from TOS with upgrades.

“These mysterious signals are beyond anything we understand. Is it a greeting, a declaration of malice? Let’s find out.” – Pike

“He took leave. It’s as if he’d run into a question he couldn’t answer.” – Pike

“Spock is linked to these signals and he needs help.” – Burnham

– – – – – – – —

“On Vulcan I began sensing a consciousness of a force more powerful than I have ever encountered. Thought patterns of exactingly perfect order. I believe they emanate from the intruder. I believe it may hold my answers.” – Spock, Star Trek: The Motion Picture

They never said religion did not exist, they just never explored it.

The Enterprise did in fact have a (presumably non-denominational chapel) which suggests that some sort of religion exists in the 23rd century.

And Kirk flashes back to a Christmas party as well at one point.

At least where I live Christmas is not only celebrated by Christians. For many people it has no religious meaning at all.

Religion, specifically Christianity has been mentioned loads of times in ‘Trek

Hey can you please have some more pop ups that don’t close?

Exactly… CBS isn’t the only one with the cash grab mentality these days.

Costs money to CBS to make the series, costs money for TrekMovie write stuff, and run a website.

They still ain’t got nothin’ on Star Wars and Disney for a cash-grab mentality.

Yeah, the nerve of Trekmovie trying to survive lol. These people probably make peanuts as it is considering its not exactly a heavy traffic site and people jump down their throats when they try and offer a little variety to others like the Orville or other sci fi projects. It amazes me people don’t seem to get websites aren’t run free. Yes they can get most of their news around the web but you still need people to do that and write the articles around them. And you also need to find ways to keep content varied and interesting, hence why they actually go out to conventions and special events like the recent Discovery premiere. How do they think stuff like that is paid for?

And have people seen other sites out there? TM is one of the LEAST ad aggressive sites I’m on. Most message boards these days display ads BETWEEN the posts. Here you have just one small popup screen, you can flick it away and you’re good. I actually click on a few because I know that helps if advertisers at least see people going to the site. I do that for every site I’m on a lot. Its literally the very least I can do.

No religion? Forgetting the episode that ended with the TOS bridge crew discussing a “sun worshiping religion” when Uhura pointed out that she was monitoring their broadcasts and they were talking about the SON of God, are we?

I thought that was odd too – there was lots of religion on TOS, mostly being shown in a poor light and as something mankind had evolved away from. Part of the optimism of Trek came from showing humans as having grown up and got over the issues of the day: war, racism, religion and finally, by TNG, even the scourge of capitalism had been erased.

I’d be concerned from a comment like Kurtzman’s, that Disco wasn’t planning on addressing the issues of today, but if we assume that today’s issues include religious cults whipped up by racism (“remain Klingon”), sexism (“I’m telling you what I told her” – splat) and grifters selling snake oil (“jippers on a beach”) then so far it’s done OK.

Trek has always “done” faith. Faith in humanity, faith in science, faith in the greater good. As long as those aren’t undermined then I’ll be happy enough.

Also, +1 on the site coverage. It’s been great :-)

@Sarek — people keep trotting that example out in these discussions, but all that signifies is that Uhura knows her history of religion, not that she, or anyone else is practicing it in the 23rd Century. Context is key here.

Star Trek was created out of Gene Roddenberry’s secular humanistic philosophy, which was atheistic in nature. This isn’t opinion, it is well documented. In fact, the son of God stuff from Bread and Circuses has been discussed as an anomaly from this secular vision, and is not representative of what Trek was meant to be. People may like it or not like it, but the turn towards religion in DS9 and by Kutzman is a fundamental change in Star Trek’s original philosophy.
I believe Star Trek is an expression of The Enlightenment, in which humanity, by the enhancement of its own resources through scientific and social evolution, comes to improve itself. While others may welcome the pivot towards religion, I think it fundamentally undercuts a pillar of what Star Trek was about, and I don’t like it. If people want faith and mystical forces mixed in with space action, I think they can follow George Lucas’ creations instead of Gene Roddenberry’s.

The topic of religion is one of the main topics of Star Trek. It dominates the series and all of the movies. DS9 is hardly a turn with that subject.

You must have seen a different Star Trek than the one we’re talking about.

Yeah, really?
Star Trek I: The God Thing
Star Trek II: Genesis
Star Trek III: Resurrection
Star Trek IV: Noah
Star Trek V: Dante’s Inferno
Star Trek VI: Adam and Eve expelled from Paradise

And you do not see any religious theme there?

And in the largely Roddenberry-influenced ST:TMP, Kirk refers to V’Ger as trying ‘to capture God’, to which McCoy answers ‘Well, V’Ger liable for one helluva disappointment!’.

In fact, you could argue that the whole of TMP is about trying to find existence’s meaning through a deity made in one’s own image… and thus about religion.

Actually it was Star Trek:The Motion Picture, Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan, Star Trek:III: The Search for Spock, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (The one in which Kirk says Maybe God’s not out there, Bones, maybe he’s right here, and refers to the human heart);
Star Trek :VI : The Undiscovered ered Country,
And so on.
I would prefer to talk facts and not projections. If you want to see religion everywhere, there are many Churches, temples, and mosques. Maybe a show created by an atheist is not the right place, and says more about projection than facts (such as the actual movie titles and not the ones you superimposed onto them). But Bryant you are correct, I did see a different show than the one you and Odradek saw. Mine was called Star Trek.

@GarySeven

To say that first, the title thing is kind of misleading. It was not my intention to rename the movies, but to give examples of religious themes they feature by giving keywords. That was not an elegant way and I see how that leads to misunderstandings.

Beside of that, your post is a fine example of gatekeeping, not only do you arrogate to decide that Star Trek isn’t the right franchise for me but to advise me where I have to go (Churches, temples,mosques). How much more bigoted can you get? To notice obvious religious themes does not mean that I desire them. That is projection on your side.

And your argument GR was an atheist means little. He was also a capitalist and the Federation is depicted as socialistic. He was also a sexist and the Federation is depicted as gender equal (Well, except “Turnabout Intruder”)

@GarySeven — yup. When I was a kid and Star Wars came out, I recall my church youth group did an entire evening on all the religious meaning behind every aspect of the film, which of course culminated in The Force being God. Of course none of that is true.

I have always liked Star Trek’s examination of the human condition. I personally may or may not believe, but the very fact that billions of humans do believe in some form of higher spiritual power and being is a fact that started with the dawn of humanity. Therefore it is only natural to be curious about that and want to delve into it further. It is of course a “touchy” subject for many, so I hope the writers do it with thoughtfulness and empathy.

I believe the “Son of God” thing may have been a sop to the Southern broadcast affiliates of NBC; remember, it was the ’60s, and religion was pretty dominant in American culture at the time.

As far as “faith” goes, I’ll wait and see what pans out in DSC S2. Remember, faith is not always about religion. Think of faith in oneself / the Constitution / a lover.

Good point.

Gary Seven, I think your description of Roddenberry’s humanistic philosophy is right on target. Well said and thanks!

Whether the seemingly perennial human quest for the meaning of life or existence can be satisfied by total reliance on empirical science is another question, including centuries from now. No doubt different people in the future will pursue different answers in search of meaning. It’s always struck me as a little odd that while Trek admirably tried to represent diverse cultures, it shied away from portraying diverse religions which are intrinsic to so many diverse human cultures. Is it realistic to think that all human cultures will have embraced Enlightenment secular humanism in a couple of centuries? Food for thought.

Have to say, big fan of the new series. Thank you for the updates!!

One very minor niggle for me is the in fact that outside of Discovery and Enterprise, none of the ships of this era appear to have a drive section to their ships. It’s literally just a primary hull and nacelles. But like I said, it’s a minor niggle and it doesn’t really impact my enjoyment of the show in any way.

Also: Is there any way of watching the trailer that showcased more things to come from Season 2 that aired alongside Brother? Because I can’t find it anywhere on Netflix or YouTube. I’m kind of hoping I didn’t dream reading about it!

@Ad Astra — you mean like the Reliant?

We don’t see Reliant until the mid 2280s.

Can someone please lock Eaves in a cupboard so we can get some beautiful Federation starship designs again like the Miranda, Excelsior, Constitution, Oberth…

Kutzman is mistaken. Religion is not gone in the TOS universe nor is faith. In the first season episode “Balance of Terror” there is a wedding ceremony where Kirk remarks on ‘Our Many beliefs’ in what is quite obviously a ships chapel. Also, in the season two episode “Who Mourns for Adonais?” when the god Apollo tells Kirk that man needs to again worship the ancient god’s, Kirk tell’s him: “We find one sufficient,” and finally in the third season episode “Bread and Circuses” Spock has made the comment “It is illogical for an advanced culture to worship the sun,” to which Uhura replies “It is not the sun in the sky Mr. Spock” but the son of God.” In awe Kirk replies regarding that both Caesar and Christ were on this planet. Let’s also not forget the entire DS9 series revolves around the Bajoran ‘Faith” in their prophets and the Emissary.

He’s not entirely mistaken. Those were anomalies. Two lines out of 79 hours of television.

@Michael Dempsey — B&C doesn’t count, it’s easily interpreted as an historical observation. I’d argue WHfA refers to the individual self-actualizing “god” within ourselves. The chapel in BoT doesn’t imply religion, so much as traditional “beliefs” and customs. Nor is it obviously a chapel, but a multi-function room, possibly for ceremonial purposes. One could also argue that with all the species in TOS, that such a room could be practically used to accommodate any member who does still have religious beliefs, and by phrasing it the way Kirk did, introduces the audience to the idea of embracing those who’s beliefs are different from ourselves, religious or otherwise. DS9 depiction of the Bejoran’s “Faith” isn’t exactly espousing that the same is true of Humans, or Starfleet in general. So Kurtzman’s comment is definitely contextual.

You are correct. IMO, this is another example that shows Kurtzman doesn’t really get TOS, or has only a superficial view, which is something he has in common with the other Kelvin movie makers. In another interview, Kurtzman said Spock was logic and Kirk was emotion, which is how they were portrayed in the Kelvin movies, but not on TOS where McCoy was emotion, Spock was logic, and Kirk was the synthesis.

Spot on. Kirk was never emotion. He relied on Spock for knowledge and McCoy for emotion and he was the integration. On the Trek podcast Mission Log they similarly refer to Kirk as Ethos, Spock as Logos (Logic) and McCoy as Pathos (emotion). They put a guy in charge, Kurtzman, who really just has, aa you said, a superficial view. To those of us who watched it on a deeper level, it is painful to witness how we know more than those now creating it. Star Trek is being literally hollowed out before our eyes.

@NC Trekker — sorry, but Kirk had plenty of emotional reactions, completely ignoring McCoy and Spock in some instances. If distilled down to these two characters, that’s exactly how I would divide it too. Anybody recall this classic line:

SPOCK: Captain, your primitive impulses will not alter the circumstances.
KIRK: Stay out of this. We’re fighting over a woman.

Of course Kirk expressed emotion. He wasn’t a single dimension character in TOS. In the Kelvin movies, it is like they took a superficial, even stereotypical, casual-fan view of “Kirk as womanizer hothead fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants guy” and made that his defining characteristic. And yes, it does look like they (Kelvin group) distilled the dynamic down to those two characters.

Hands up who else doesn’t care about canon ?

Even if DSC was slavishly reverential to TOS – people would still complain about *something*… ***

I don’t care about canon in the slightest. All I care about is whether I enjoy it and if the

stories and acting are great. End. Of.

” Waaa Waaa – The Enterprise didn’t look like that 53 years ago!!!! ”

It does now. Deal with it.

*** – ( I’ve even seen so called Star Trek fans whinge about what Star Trek Continues got WRONG so I rest my case ).

Agreed! Canon is a fun thing but good story writing is much more important. That said, Discovery could use more good writing.

You’re so cool. Remember that time you beat a dog to death?

My hand is up

Oh man I’ve done ADR from that very spot as Michelle Yeoh at Warner Bros in Soho :)

I know the spot as well. Pretty cool.

It’s time for a Captain Pike series, aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise.

Jason Isaacs can have Discovery back after Season Two. :) Anson Mount is incredible in the Pike role.

I don’t like Tilly. She reminds me of everybody I try to avoid in real life. Worst part of Nu-trek.

She is a delight. She’s a genius who is very human. You have the freedom to avoid socially awkward, overly talkative people if you like. As someone who has both character traits I welcome Tilly’s portrayal! As do many other “geeky” fans who also have these traits.

I literally turn the sound down when she has a scene.

I want Tilly and Pike to hook up. Make it so.

TrekMovie, I hope you can share the Netflix Saru video … it sounds fun and I couldn’t access it thru Twitter :^(

Just like CBS’ content is region locked for USA only, Netflix is region locked so people in the US can’t see it.
The good news is Instagram doesn’t seem to have region locks. Here’s the promo on the Netflix Discovery Instagram account
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bs59-wYna5K/

TOS does state, famously, that to a certain people, there was a “son of god,” which could be taken as a statement of faith by implication regarding real-life faith.

Can I make an observation – probably just coincidence, but as I recall from VOY, the Borg had 6 Transwarp hubs scattered throughout the galaxy. Just a thought, but could these signals be these hubs being activated for the first time, and the 7th failed for some reason, the after effects we saw in the first episode ?

They really spent a lot of money on Georgiou’s new bridge. Not even a chair?

What’s it with those long, triangular nacelles, anyway? I mean I get that they’d have more details obviously than in TOS (even the Enterprise ones do, and look great BTW), and that they’re supposead to be precursors of the Consitution ones. But that much longer and that different a shape? Hard to buy, when NX-01’s nacelles basically looked the same as the Connie’s…