Following the Star Trek Universe panel at Comic-Con, the cast from the Star Trek: Discovery portion and the Star Trek: Short Treks portion, did a mini media tour at SDCC, taking time for video sit-downs with Entertainment Weekly, Entertainment Tonight, and the Los Angeles Times. Like we did for the Picard show, have rounded up the highlights of what they had to reveal about the new seasons.
A future and a world never seen before, finally beyond Voyager
The big event for the end of the season two finale was when the crew of the USS Discovery went through a wormhole into a far, far future. Show star Sonequa Martin-Green spoke to the LA Times about this opportunity for the show, which just began production on season three:
The beauty of going into the future – boldly, I might add – is that everything is new. Everything you will see will be new. We were able to shoot in Iceland for the first episode of season three and you are going to see a world we have never seen before. We are not in Terralysium. We did not end there like we planned. So, now we have to figure out where we are, who we are and when we are, at this point now. It is very enervating to be able to build canon moment to moment.
She spoke on this subject to ET as well:
We are a thousand years in the future, we are boldly going where no one has gone before, literally. It is very, very exciting and exhilarating because we get to build this new world. Where are we? And, who are we now?
Still speaking to EW, Martin-Green acknowledged how jumping to the future satisfies those fans who raised concerns over the show originally set as a prequel:
I heard a lot of people say when they found out we were going to be a prequel, they would say: “Well, what happened after [Star Trek:] Voyager? It is so exciting to be from then [before TOS] and also come here [the future]. Anything can happen.
Sonequa Martin-Green as Burnham in an SDCC preview image for season three of Star Trek: Discovery
Book represents this new world
Martin-Green also connected how this new world they find themselves in ties into the new character of Book (David Ajala):
[Book] represents this new world that we land in. You are really going to love him. This world is very interesting and it’s intoxicating and it is exotic. And what happened in this world?
Speaking to ET, David Ajala enigmatically described his character:
I am playing Cleveland Booker, Book for short. He is a man on a personal mission who bumps into Burnham. Is she a friend a friend, is she a foe? We will find out.
Ajala gave the LA Times a bit more detail:
He is a guy on a very personal mission. He lives by his own set of rules. He is going to add something quite unique in season three. Again, because we are departing away from the canon, it just leaves a lot of room and scope to reach new territory.
David Ajala as Book; Sonequa Martin-Green as Burnham in an SDCC preview image from season three of Star Trek: Discovery
Jump to the future takes Discovery where the canon has not gone before
Martin-Green told EW about how the jump into the future changes the way the show relates to the canon of Star Trek:
We always had that kind of dual identity. We were familiar but also had to be new too. Now we really get to do that. We keep the connective tissue to the canon, that doesn’t go away. Everything that has been established stays the same, it is now we are in this world we get to create. So, it is very very exciting. We have the backbone of the canon, which the two of them [pointing to Ethan Peck (Spock) and Rebecca Romijn (Number One)] represented very beautifully and brilliantly, and we have new people like this brilliant guy [David Ajala (Book)] who represents the new world that we land in. Because – teaser – we don’t land in Terralysium, things don’t go as planned. This is a new world. Who are we and what do we do now?
Martin-Green told the LA TImes about the creative freedom that the new era allows for the show:
We were excited before, but now we are more excited than ever. Now, you have so much more room to create. But again, we always have the same foundation. So, I thought it was genius. Because we get to be who we are, but we get to boldly go and do what we never thought we would be able to do. I think everybody across the departments feels that way.
However, she also assured that even with a new era to play in, they will still hold true to canon:
The canon is still where we come from. It is our foundation; it is our root. We still are who we are. Alex Kurtzman, our showrunner along with Michelle Paradise, he said earlier we are not going to take away anything that has been established. Everything is what it is, except now we basically carry the Star Trek that we all know into a future that we don’t know.
A Discovery /Picard crossover?
When asked by ET if there would be a Star Trek: Discovery/Star Trek: Picard crossover, Martin-Green didn’t confirm anything, but she welcomed the idea:
I would love that. I think we all want that. Let’s make that happen.
Sonequa Martin-Green as Burnham in an SDCC preview image for season three of Star Trek: Discovery
Short Treks on the USS Enterprise sticking close to the canon
One of the other reveals from SDCC 2019 was that the next season of Star Trek: Short Treks will feature six episodes, three of which will be set on Pike’s USS Enterprise, with Rebecca Romijn (Number One), Ethan Peck (Spock), and Anson Mount (Pike) all reprising their roles from the second season of Discovery. Romijn and Peck were in San Diego and wouldn’t say exactly how many episodes of Short Treks they are in, but did offer some details.
Discussing the approach to the Short Treks on the Enterprise, Romijn talked about how being tied closer to TOS, they are trying to stay closer to the canon:
(To EW) Ethan plays Spock, I play Number One from The Original Series, and to be stepping into someone else’s shoes, we stay very near and dear to the canon. But we have to really honor these characters while taking artistic liberties at the same time…It is terrifying. We don’t want to let anyone down.
(To ET) Three of the [Short Treks] are based on the Enterprise, which is obviously we are going to adhere very closely to the canon. Our characters are pre-established. My character…we didn’t learn very much about her [in TOS]. So, we get to take some artistic liberties and explore her a little bit more [compared to Spock].
Romijn also gave some details on “Q&A,” which features herself and Peck:
(To LAT) These Shorts are all anachronistic, stand-alone stories. They are beautifully written little stories. Ethan and I did one together called “Q&A” that is just this incredible…it’s early on. He is Ensign Spock. He has just arrived. He is a science officer. I am his superior. We get stuck on a turbolift and something happens on that turbolift that will forever bond our characters.
(To EW) We are allowed to talk about what they showed in the actual trailer, which is Spock and Number One stuck on a turbolift together. It is a beautifully written piece by Michael Chabon. It is this moment between Spock and Number One that bonds them, that they will always have. No matter what goes down in the future, they will always have this sweet little moment together.
Ethan Peck as Spock; Rebecca Romijn as Number One in an SDCC preview image from season two of Star Trek: Short Treks.
I think Short Treks don’t get enough credit for being a terrific new storytelling format that can both satisfy old schoolers who long for SOME episodic Trek again (and shortform storytelling in general), like yours truly, and those who always liked Fuller’s original idea of Discovery as an anthology show. Now we can have both, I only wished there was more of them each year!
Lets be honest, they are being used as a way to try to get people to stay subscribed to CBS All Access. Will they still do them when the majority of the year has a Star Trek series running?
Sure it’s a business, and they are utilizing both available actors and sets (as in the case of Enterprise) in a cost-efficient manner to create new content. But I don’t see how this can’t be win-win still to also be an “experimental testbed” for new forms of Trek storytelling, for the most successful ideas to “graduate” to their own series, so I hope he’s using his new clout with CBS to push for the continuation of this format.
Yes,it will be used to keep subscribers. It’s show BUSINESS. Short Treks also allow the use of existing sets. It allows experimentation and unique stories. I look forward to them, actually.
Yeah, so what? It’s also a way for CBS to make money, too. The point I agree with, it’s a great way to context and content, which keeps the literal paying customers happy.
What?! Star Trek is a for profit Enterprises? Despicable!
Sarcasm aside, look at the wealth of Trek we are getting out of this subscription model! The Golden age of streaming TV finally made it to Star Trek.
Agreed. I really like the Short Treks last year and that was the beginning of my perception of the show going from ‘ugh’ to ‘this is actually not so bad’. And I liked how they mostly tied into the season (and we know Calypso will tie in to the show maybe next season or the fourth).
But overall I’m actually excited to see the stories of Spock, Number One and Pike continue and it will be a nice teaser going into the main event, The Picard show, jumping from the 23rd to the 24th century. I hope they keep them around and if we don’t get a Pike show right away they can do more of those with them for awhile.
I have no interest in anthology shows generally (and to be clear, I wouldn’t call season 3 of Discovery an “anthology”; it’s focusing on the same core set of characters). An hour isn’t enough time to build deep characterization.
As for the much-praised “Twilight Zone,” people focus on a handful of well-done episode and are forgetting the great mass of boring or uninspired ones. It’s not must-see TV by today’s standards. And the same is true of “The Incredible Hulk” from the early 1980s.
We are talking about Short Treks. The new season will be anthology of sorts as 2 episodes are animation, 3 episodes are pre-TOS Enterprise and 1 episode is a Picard prequel. The trick with successful anthologies is to focus solely on the ideas that work; other than that, it may still a cost issue for a while (upfront production cost, which is why they currently reuse sets from the main shows), but once digital sets become indistinguishable from real ones, the sky is the limit: any era, any planet, any starship, every week!
VS I’m also really appreciating the Short Treks.
There are many things that fans of the Trek franchise would like to see, explore or know about that don’t necessarily warrant the deep dive of a series or miniseries on their own.
We’ve seen in genre fiction that e-books have enabled authors to publish short stories and novellas that wouldn’t be viable outside anthologies.
Bringing them into anthologies seems to come later now. I’d be really pleased if Trek keeps putting out a half dozen Shorts per year and eventually packages them into DVDs or even one hour summer replacement shows for network broadcast on CBS.
I think the Short Treks was a very good idea. I do, however, feel like the idea falls short of genius as they will not be enough to get a lot of people to subscribe to CBSAA. At least, it didn’t work for me. I didn’t watch the previous 4 until I signed on for STD season 2. But it’s still a great idea that I endorse. Even though out of the first 4 there was really only one good one. But these are supposed to be experiments and not all are going to work.
It’s more than just to get someone to subscribe just for those episodes. It’s to create more content to convince someone to subscribe. This way, when you tuned in for Season 2, you had some episodes waiting. When season 3 begins, a new subscriber will have 2 seasons of discovery, 1 season of Picard, and something like 10 short Treks. It creates value now and in the future.
A large part of the reason for them is to help keep someone like me from bailing out between shows. But as I said, it didn’t work for me. I just waited. If the Short Treks in the near future ever get released while another Trek show is going on then I will reconsider that.
Have no use for the short treks. They can’t seem to lock down an hour of solid storytelling, I’m sure not wasting my time on 15 minutes. But I understand the business of tossing out some crumbs to keep subscribers from bailing. It’s a solid plan and it may work, who knows. But as soon as they can stagger Discovery with Picard and another series with the cartoon, they’ll pull the plug in these short offerings. Right now, it’s just filler.
I think Short Treks may stick because they’re easy and cheap. They can shoot them in the middle of a season using existing sets and spend a few days filming one right after finishing an episode of Discovery, for example. I mean, how long could it have taken to film this new one with Spock and #1 in a turbolift?
I think it’s a smart move both creatively and business-wise. I’ve always felt that studios didn’t take enough advantage of the streaming platform’s freedoms– that they can do short episodes, or movie-length episodes, they can do multi-part stories or standalones, and aren’t limited to what advertisers are willing to pay for.
Frankly, i’d love for them to expand the short treks. Release 1 a week year round.
I’ve always been a fan of short story collections– sometimes the stories are just okay, some are boring, some are amazing, but it’s like a sample platter– I can pick up a book for $6 and get a little taste of a lot of different things.
That’s why I think Short Treks is such a fantastic idea. They may not all be great, but it allows them to try out different things, and I like that it’s something new and different in format.
I agree with you Afterburn.
Short Treks are a really smart way to exploit the freedoms of streaming – and demonstrate one of the benefits of production enterprises having their own streaming platforms.
I’d like to see more per year. Perhaps at least a couple a month during any hiatus in other Trek series.
With so many Trek series in regular production with dedicated sound stages, there is a serious opportunity to go beyond the series, redress some sets, and tell the kinds of splinter stories that never fit in the 90s series that always had to be about one of the characters in the ensemble.
Down the line, they could be packaged for broadcast on CBS network as a summer replacement or released in DVD anthologies. I’d buy them.
But the fact that they seem to be a way to permit spec pitches for stand alone stories is one of their greatest strengths.
Trek author David Mack – who is consulting on Lower Decks and the other animated series in development – recently tweeted that he’d love the opportunity to write an animated Short Trek. I’d be really interested to see what he has in mind.
“I heard a lot of people say when they found out we were going to be a prequel, they would say: “Well, what happened after [Star Trek:] Voyager? ”
OMG, THEY GOT ALL MY EMAILS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D
Yes, I been wondering about that for 17 years or so. Of course when you jump 800 years into the future, everyone from Voyager and that era are probably already dead, so we don’t actually get to know what happened to anybody….except maybe the Doctor! Maybe they will bump into him?????
“The canon is still where we come from. It is our foundation; it is our root. We still are who we are. Alex Kurtzman, our showrunner along with Michelle Paradise, he said earlier we are not going to take away anything that has been established. Everything is what it is, except now we basically carry the Star Trek that we all know into a future that we don’t know.”
Even though I partly wish they just started the show from the future from the beginning, in many ways she’s right. Now its more interesting to be this fish out of water story and trying to bare their roots in a new era. And its not quite Voyager because Voyager never intended to make their own home in the Delta quadrant and we get to see these guys figure out what they will do, will there still be a Federation or not, will they become part of it again or is the entire galaxy filled with the Borg or some new evil foe they spend the rest of the time fighting off? Either way I can’t wait to see how this becomes a new home for them.
Star Trek is getting VERY interesting again finally! Down for that Picard/Discovery crossover too!
I’m finding discussion of cross overs very premature.
There’s a risk of making the universe smaller rather than bigger…in fact, that seems to be the major flaw of Discovery in my view : always taking the temptation to exploit some huge Trek capital to make yet another connection to the rest of Trek.
Let’s let Discovery breathe on its own for at least two seasons so it can find itself and stand firmly on its own.
Then talk about whether it makes sense to link back to Picard or other shows.
I was mostly joking but I wouldn’t put it past CBS to do it in the future. And crossovers are very common on TV franchises these days. Some like the Chicago and Arrowverse shows now makes it a yearly thing and they do 3+ shows together.
“There’s a risk of making the universe smaller rather than bigger…in fact, that seems to be the major flaw of Discovery in my view”
Didn’t they make crossovers (at least with shows set AFTER season 2) impossible by basically deleting Discovery from historical and Starfleet records? It’s not just a jump into the future; they closed the door to canon – both ways.
It only took 1 episode for TNG to do a crossover. 2 seasons before they did a full blown guest appearance (Season 3’s “Sarek”). I am OK with Season 3 of DSC including a crossover with Picard, but only if it is a true crossover: Have the Discovery travel back in time to correct a temporal anomaly, back to the time of Picard Season 2. Tell part 1 in the season finale of Discovery, Part 2 in episode 1 of Picard the following year.
What would be really interesting about this is that the Discovery would be traveling into a past that is technically their future, and still a huge unknown to them personally.
I still can’t believe anyone ever sat there wondering what happened after Voyager. I mean, does it matter? You could ask that question of any movie or TV series. “Well what happened after that?”
I find this season 3 no more interesting than I did Seasons 1 or 2. I think it could be fun. But anyone who thinks the unknown future is the cure for all the problems they had with DSC is in for a rude awakening.
And this is exactly what I said would happen if they ever wanted to do a Post-Nemesis show, and part of why a prequel setting was a good narrative choice: they’d have to do some kind of contrived reset. In this case, a thousand year time jump.
Once again, I’m right. Always am, so not sure why anyone is surprised by anything, they should just read my comments more closely.
“But anyone who thinks the unknown future is the cure for all the problems they had with DSC is in for a rude awakening. ”
I agree with you (again). If anything it will make the writers even more undisciplined and throw out any sort of general writing consistency and scientific credibility, to fully embrace fantasy as they flirted with that in season 2 already.
The problems with Discovery are entirely caused by sophomore writers, not the time period.
The thing is, I’m not all that excited for season 3 of Discovery at all. Not in the least. Season 2 ended as if they were permanently gone and set up Pike led show. It got me jazzed for THAT. But I think we need to continue to be aware the that while they did shed some constraints from the situation they themselves set up regarding Spock’s adoptive sister and super advanced tech for the time frame it is entirely possible, and I think likely, that the core problems with Discovery will remain. Flat uninteresting characters coupled with abhorrent plots and subpar writing.
Add to that what is for sure coming down the pipe that a lot of people are looking forward too… Picard for many. Lower Decks for others. And the possibility of a Pike led show. All of which leads to causing Discovery to get lost in the clutter. With all of this, I would raise an eyebrow if they get more than 4 seasons out of the show. And 3 may even be it, too.
Well let’s just acknowledge that nothing they ever do will ever make you happy.
While we are at it, why not let’s acknowledge that you have a hard time being civil with anyone who writes something you have a personal difference of opinion over.
Darn I was hoping Q&A was the Picard short trek and would have seen the return of Q.
I was never one of those people who was dying to know what happened in the TREK Universe after VOY.
Besides, I thought a Post-Nememis Trek series should be the domain of the next iteration of the USS ENTERPRISE crew – if not, then it doesn’t leave much scope for such a series to flourish.
I was happy with DSC taking place in the 2250s and was comfortably settled ( ESPECIALLY with the inclusion of Pike. Nothing to say he couldn’t have commandeered the Enterprise for another season i.e. if said season took place within a relatively short time-frame of 12 weeks or so ).
It seems the naysayers and all their canon nonsense have got their way sadly.
Fantastic to see. Watching STD butcher established canon was excruciating viewing.
How so, exactly?
It didn’t “butcher canon” any more than “Journey to Babel” butchered “Amok Time” (no Sarek in the former), or Star Trek V butchered “Journey to Babel.”
Yes, there was far too much Section 31; blame DS9 for that.
Sarek is in “Journey to Babel.”
But he’s not in Amok Time, despite the fact that it was Spock’s wedding and taking place on his family’s land, and it was presumably Sarek that betrothed Spock to T’Pring.
True but Sarek still harbored a grudge towards Spock. It seems right that he would not make his way to the site for the ceremony. He was probably on Earth and forbid Amanda from going as well.
You can’t blame DS9 for too much Section 31 in Trek. They only used it 3 times, two of them were outstanding episodes with 31 correctly portrayed and treated as the villains. ENT and DIS shoehorned it in incorrectly (ENT was too early in the timeline, and DIS has it too open and respectable). Like how Voyager took the Borg and tarnished their presentation (post-Scorpion).
Enterprise using Section 31 WASN’T too early in the timeline. It was stated clear as day Section 31 was invented when Starfleet was. Section 31 name literally comes from the Starfleet charter. Some fans seem to think they were formed when the Federation came around but that’s not true. THat was explained literally in their introduction they had been around 200 years when Dr. Bashir first meets them.
Totally with you, they did not handle the visual (and to a lesser extent, narrative) continuity well at all. I believe this was due to studio interference like the cretin Les Moonves, who did not know a thing about Trek or the importance of what came before (that’s Star Trek not Wars, which reportedly, he would mistake the two). That does not mean wobbly sets of yesteryear, but updating them in way that did not feel like a totally different universe or timeframe. Plus, with the exit of Fuller, time running out to get the show up and running to boost CBS All Access, they made the very mixed back that was S1.
Again, the show had upheaval during the production of S2, with massive behind the scenes issues/budget problems etc. leaving it down to Kurtzman, who’s own track record leaves something to be desired. So we got S2, which was another mixed back too heavily influenced on the nostalgia factor, but with signs of some improvement. Kurtzman needs to not make everything “pew-pew!” or what I call, Laymen’s Trek. Which is Star Trek seen through the eyes of someone who hasn’t been a fan, but creates a version of how they think Star Trek is.
Before people brand me a “hater” etc. I am not, I feel there is a good show to be made and have supported DIS from the get-go. I feel S3 (like past Trek Shows), will be the season that turns the ship around.
Setting the show miles ahead is perfect, they can literally make the universe they want without any restrictions. This is what it should have been from the beginning.
Its a far cry from so-so co-showrunner Aaron Harberts, who just a few years back stated, “I’m glad that it is [a prequel] because it set up parameters for us. Let’s say we set it 100 years after Voyager, the canvas is so broad. To try to contemplate, you’re creating a whole new mythology really.”
https://trekmovie.com/2017/11/16/star-trek-discovery-showrunner-dismisses-post-voyager-setting-says-s2-will-reconcile-canon/
What a copout, if you were a showrunner of an icon and goldmine that is Star Trek, you’d jump at the chance to be creative and create a bold new world!
With what we know about the future (Temporal agents etc), it would be interesting if we find out some sort of threat from the far future has caused the changes within the timeline (advanced tech, Klingorcs etc). However, although I am still weary of the creative team behind this new Trek, I will hopefully be happy with whatever they do. As Star Trek is finally boldly going forward again, away from the hashed out 23rd Century, and it’s about “time” too!
@Captain Braxton
Wow excellently put, very true. What a complete 180 from what the previous showrunner said! Thanks for posting the link, hadn’t seen that before.
“Its a far cry from so-so co-showrunner Aaron Harberts, who just a few years back stated, “I’m glad that it is [a prequel] because it set up parameters for us. Let’s say we set it 100 years after Voyager, the canvas is so broad. To try to contemplate, you’re creating a whole new mythology really.”
LOL it is pretty funny though to read these comments today. And I remember that article well because I commented in it at the time and I said what I always said, it just comes down to the imagination of the writer. None of this is real. I mean its funny people where suggesting 100 years post Voyager was ‘impossible’ to imagine which has always sounded ridiculous to me and now they have gone WAY past that just one year after that article was published.
Now to defend Harberts a bit, I’m guessing it was more about defending where Discovery was set at the time since there were many people out there who hated the prequel/TOS setting and wanted to go forward again. And he probably felt more comfortable putting the show in an established time which makes things a bit easier instead of trying to imagine where everything is from the outset.
But they are doing just that today! I have no idea how any of this will turn out of course but for me Star Trek has been more about imagining the possibilities. End of the day that’s what keeps me watching the most, meeting a new alien, discovering a new planet, experimenting with new tech and so on. Of course they could still do all these things in the 23rd century no problem but its a guarantee this will ALL happen with its new time period and its exciting. Even meeting ‘old’ aliens and planets will be interesting because they have now developed a thousand years. Everything is new again. They have gave themselves a crazy task that not even people who was begging for Star Trek to go forward again was ever asking for, so I give them credit for really thinking outside the box.
Yup, at least in the far future of the timeline they can’t mess up continuity (one hopes).
I basically agree with this. I would have preferred “Star Trek: The Third Generation” — a post-Nemesis series (yes, on an Enterprise) — from the beginning. But once we got Discovery established as a pre-TOS show, I would have preferred they stick with that. It’s as if they went out of their way to build relationships for these characters (Burnham and Sarek/Amanda, Saru on Kaminar) and then snatch the rug from under us: “just kidding.”
It’s a bit like uprooting the 4077th and saying, “sorry, just kidding; you’re not in Korea, you’re really 60 years later, in Afghanistan.” It might be the same characters, but it wouldn’t be the same show.
It’s also going to be a real stretch seeing how a 1,000-year old ship can be any kind of match for current technology. An army equipped with Aguincourt-era longbows still wouldn’t last long in the trenches of WWI.
So yes, I feel cheated for having watched and enjoyed two seasons of Discovery. We’ll see what they come up with; perhaps I’ll end up thinking otherwise.
I’d be thrilled for it not to be the same show anymore.
The difference is that for most, Discovery as it was was just not working. They HAD to do something. MASH, on the other hand, WAS working. I’m sorry you feel that way but that is how things have gone down. If it’s any consequence, the characters are still the same and the writers seem to more or less still be the same. So if you liked what you saw before you might like what you get in season 3.
“It’s also going to be a real stretch seeing how a 1,000-year old ship can be any kind of match for current technology. An army equipped with Aguincourt-era longbows still wouldn’t last long in the trenches of WWI.”
That’s actually the most intriguing part to me. How will that ship be considered relevant with so much advanced hardware around. Maybe it will get some MAJOR upgrades?
Tiger2, the question may be based on a flawed premise IF they go with the Fallen Federation / Andromeda route. I mean, how much more advanced could the Federation get for our understanding to grasp? They would have to introduce full scale genetic enhancement, mind uploads, instant intergalactic travel etc. to meaningfully set it apart from 24th century Trek and even Discovery’s tech shenanigans. And even that may not be enough to make a qualitative, not just quantitative difference.
But in a Fallen Federation scenario, Discovery wouldn’t feel so out of place, may ironically even be the most advanced ship around (remember Voyager among the Kazon who were scavenging for WATER?) Given the writers fondness of maximum galactic drama, in both seasons, I think they are more than likely to go this route than “more Utopian than TNG”. Discovery may be the only place where Utopian ideals are still upheld and isn’t that a scenario they are always favoring (even in Picard, “reaching the light through valleys of darkness”)
I can totally see this. Some situation where the Federation has fallen apart and these relics from that past show the current remnants what they have lost over the years. I really hope that is not it because it’s a trope. But I wouldn’t put it past the Discovery people.
I’m getting an Andromeda feeling about this too. “Pessimism is not a survival trait.”
But at a broad stroke – Discovery as a ship that is in some ways more advanced than the current 32nd century norms and somehow (based on Calypso) evolves an AI.
A fallen Federation.
However as the current technological concerns are different, rather than genetics it may be about AIs or some other issue, and no need to be in 3 galaxies etc.
And Discovery made a choice to go forward in time, and did it with a full crew.
So, in that sense it will be very different from Roddenberry’s post Armageddon concepts (Genesis II, Planet Earth, Andromeda) that all involved a single male hero inadvertently going forward in time and finding himself in a dystopia.
While it sounds like Burnham will be on her own at the start, she’s got a community that’s come forward with her.
I’m seeing it as potentially riffing off of Roddenberry’s ideas for aspirational heros being change agents in a dystopian future without taking up any one of those shows in detail.
Canon is not nonsense. Bear with me, I am not putting the idea forward that it is a religion. But inner consistency has an integral place in storytelling. I often hear people say/write “I do not care about continuity, just tell a good story”. Well… I am studying film and those are actually inseperably intertwined.
If you have people attached to character arcs (which plays honestly a big part in things like suspension of disbelieve and being invested in a story and being emotionally touched), it of course does not fly when you ignore bigger things that this characters journey is made of.
Imagine you meet an old friend again that you had a wonderful connection in your past and then this person is very very different. And you fail to connect to this person again. This can be a genuinely sad experience. I think some viewers feel like that with characters, but races, ships, organizations are in their own ways characters too.
“Canon is not nonsense. Bear with me, I am not putting the idea forward that it is a religion. But inner consistency has an integral place in storytelling”
You dont need to have studied film for it; this is exactly what people complained ahout during the entire run of Voyager and suddenly it doesnt matter anymore for some. It seems memory for these people is also lacking “internal consistency” :P
I understand what you are saying. I tend to fall in between the “Canon be damned, just tell a good story” crowd and the “canon is religion” crowd. Canon does need to be adhered to in an established universe. But if some canonical minutia gets in the way of a new story idea or plot point of what is shaping up to be a really good work, do you really want to scrap it so your story works? Do you really want to throw in a set of convoluted lines so you can retcon something just to make your story work? As a viewer, I can live without such maneuvers. Wrath of Khan is the best Trek movie to date. And it has canon errors in it and things that don’t make sense. I can even lovingly poke fun at them but that doesn’t destroy the entire movie. The movie is still VERY good. Now a TV show is a slightly different animal. But for me at least, that concept still stands although for TV I would lean slightly closer to the “let’s adhere to canon part.”
I will say by the time season 2 came around and Picard was official I wasn’t as bothered. I would’ve been fine if they stayed where they were.
But I can’t help thinking about all the new possibilities they will have so I’m excited. And let’s be honest if there is a Pike show coming most would be more excited about that one. So hopefully it will be a good replacement if it happens.
Or Section 31 but I know the feeling people have about that one lol.
I just hope that they rewatched Voyager and Enterprise, esp. the time traveling episodes before starting any writing. I don’t trust anyone involved anymore, when they talk about their respect for the Star Trek Canon…
I really try to be optimistic, but I fear that this is just some blabla trying to satisfy the “old” fan base. It has already been shown that they don’t do their homework properly. Kurtzman even once said that Discovery is the first Trek-Series that’s serialized and missed completely on DS9…
Odd how basicly every Interview bit says excactly the same… again and again and again and again.
I have the feeling that the federation will not be anymore and its a bad feeling. Because in a way they set the canon. If 100 Years later the Federation is no more… something inbteween have to happen!
I’m a little concerned about Discovery being in the far future because at first I felt like it handcuffed the TOS and TNG set shows a bit in that they were locked into the future situation that Discovery discovers. But then I realized that perhaps what Discovery is in is merely a “possible” future. So no one need be locked into what they see. But by that token the TNG could be a “possible” future for TOS. But maybe I shouldn’t dive too deeply into THAT can of worms! :)
“What happened after Voyager?” With the launch of “Picard” we’ll finally know which means Discovery will exist in a bit of a void and is somewhat irrelevant.
If you listed the excitement that came out of Comic Con for Star Trek in order it would be 1) Picard, 2) Short Treks with Pike and the gang, 3) Discovery. Discovery is now the odd man out.
As a fan of Discovery, I have to agree that the excitement level around Picard must have been over the top at SDCC. Heck, I am even hyped on Lower Decks which had little or no interest for me prior to their panel. As for Discovery, it is a little like the forgotten child but considering that Short Treks and Picard will air before Disco S3, that maybe should be expected. That is the downside of these long breaks between seasons – fortunately we have a TON of other Trek material to get us through the break. I feel for the fans of The Orville. I heard the other day, their S3 may be fall of 2020??!! Wow an 18 month break without any content – yikes!!
Fall 2020? Yikes. I hadn’t heard that. That’s a very long wait.
Several websites (NOT social media “rumours”) are saying late 2020 but I hope that means maybe Sept or so. I guess Seth has a lot of irons in the fire right now (so to speak) so maybe production won’t get going until later this year. I think their intent is also to raise the production values of the show, so that means more post production and therefore longer turnaround times like what you see with Discovery.
He’s a busy guy so, yeah, this would give him a bit more breathing room.
Fall 2020 doesn’t sound unrealistic given that McFarlane says they are still breaking story for season 3 of the Orville and their protocol is to have a season fully written before starting production.
One wonders why they started breaking story so recently.
I also feel bad for Orville fans because they are going to have to shell out $12 a month just to see that ONE show. I’m for sure not doing it I can tell you that. Orville is just not worth it.
Yeah suddenly paying just $6 to get Discovery doesn’t seem so bad. ;)
For season 1 I only paid $3.50. Shared it with two Trek buddies. But they were out for season 2 and I had to pony up the $10 on my own. :(
I can’t stand commercials. The only time I see commercials now is when I have live sporting events on. Everything else is on the DVR or streamed.
I don’t mind commercials every once in awhile and its not very many on AA. And yes if more people WATCHED commercials Star Trek would probably be on a network today and way less streaming sites. But this is one good exchange, you have to pay for them but you can at least do it commercial free.
My main beef with the streaming (apart from the extra payments) is the user interface is still to this day extremely poor. Forward and reverse and various functions beyond just pause and play do not work well at all. This not just a CBS thing. I find it true on all streaming platforms. Even Netflix. Who also do some very abhorrent things regarding controls and menus, IMHO. But that’s another story for another thread I think.
I agree there actually. I just brought my first official 4K smart TV a month ago and man I LOVE it lol. Its nice to have so many TV apps as options but the interface is still bad when it comes to those basic functions. I’m not really complaining though, especially for what I’m getting. But yeah I agree they can be better.
Its fun to watch Star Trek on this format though and watching Discovery on it feels like I’m watching a movie at times.
I would say it was more 1) Picard. 2&3 tied Short Treks with Pike & Co AND Lower Decks. Then 4) Discovery.
I can’t say that I disagree with you. Lower Decks generated quite a bit of buzz.
“If you listed the excitement that came out of Comic Con for Star Trek in order it would be 1) Picard, 2) Short Treks with Pike and the gang, 3) Discovery. Discovery is now the odd man out.”
I agree with this completely. In fact these boards certainly reflect this. You look at the article with the first Picard trailer and that clearly blows everything else away, but thats to be expected with our first real look of the 24th century again after so many years and how Picard now fits in. But it seems like that and the Short Trek threads have gotten the most attention. Of course that had a full blown trailer too.
I don’t think it means Discovery will be the least popular or in a void. I suspect once they film enough to have a trailer more interest will come. But it was never going to compete with Picard which is the first show to return old favorites in a long time. In fact Picard is the first Star Trek to have original actors replay their roles again since Nimoy did the Kelvin movies. So that is always going to bring more excitement.
It is crazy its ME who is defending Discovery more than ever these days lol. But I saw the potential in season 2, even if it still was pretty flawed by the end, but I see they really tried their best to make a much improved show and I’m hoping that carries over in season 3. Especially now that they don’t feel they are handcuffed to a prequel setting and can do whatever they want.
And season 3 is usually when Trek shows start to have their big turn around. They certainly gave Discovery the premise to do it.
It sounds as though the CCSD was intended to have this outcome.
Discovery just started production in Toronto on July 22nd, and according to a tweet from Doug Jones the cast, other than SMG, weren’t cleared for leave to go to Comic-Con.
Whereas we’ve heard that the entire bridge crew will be at STLV.
Clearly, TPTB are looking to make a bigger media splash for Discovery there.
Yeah that’s true. And we may get even more reveals and clips from all the shows next week as well too. I was wondering why Discovery literally only had SMG show up at CC but I actually watched the panel yesterday and they said because everyone else was filming. And it may suggest the character won’t be with the rest of the crew for at least a few episodes.
Yuck. I tried to like this show, I really did. But now I just realize it was ill-conceived from the start. The whole premise of basing a visual reboot BEFORE the Original Series was flawed. This time-travel thing is just a desperate attempt to make the show viable again. Guess what? I’m not interested. They’ve realized their timeline error too late in the game.
I don’t know why time period ever matters on this show. Without instantaneous transportation there are 12 Constitution starships in the TOS era and all of them could have amazing adventures that never in a million years come close to breaking any established canon. Even with one starship’s spore-drive, and the data planet thingy they picked up, there is no reason their adventures ever had to break canon. It’s a big universe that was never completely framed.
Crossover ? Yes!!
But only when Burnham and Picard decide to change the history and saving Romulus and Spock.
Kelvin-Timeline erased !
You might see a crossover if they feel the need to throw Discovery another life preserver…. But if it comes to that, with all the other offerings out there it might be better just to let Discovery drown.
The only crossover I need to see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9v6OBXxO8M
What’s your obsession with the timeline being erased? There are an infinite number of parallel, diverging timelines. Why the obsession with eliminating this one? There’s one out there where you are a clown, should we spend an episode dedicated to erasing that one?
Oh wait, that would mean erasing our own reality… darn.
Regarding the short Treks… I did like in the trailer where Spock raises his voice like he did in The Cage. Nice nod to that.
But, of course, the weird thing is they are both in the blue and gold uniforms. Odd since it seemed that, according to season 2 Discovery, they are new at that time. Shouldn’t they be wearing the Discovery type uniforms if they wish to stay consistent? Not that I want that to happen. I much prefer the colors they are using. But they aren’t even consistent in their own version of the universe!
Long used on Constitution class ships, soon to be used throughout Starfleet.
That sounds like a fan retcon but it does not fit with what was specifically said early in Season 2. They mentioned something about how the Enterprise got the new uniforms even though they were far away. Thus implying they have only had them for a short time.
So is this another new timeline?
That suit of Burnham’s looks Power Ranger-esque…well, from my viewpoint.
After binge watching clips of the series on You Tube, I’m blown away with the production value and story the series has taken. I’m contemplating getting CBS Access for Season 3 and the Picard series. The thing is I’m already paying through the wazoo for Verizon and everything else. *sigh*
Re: the look of the series. For those who keep talking about cutting the movie budgets, I don’t see how you can. The tv series has such visual flair, that the movies now have to top it to justify that $20 ticket price. So, I’d say $180M+ for Star Trek 4. If Pine doesn’t return, they can cast the guy who almost got the role in the first place. I forget his name now… :(
Discovery, “Going beyond canyon ?”
or,
Just making it up as they go along
Beyond Voyager? Don’t they mean beyond Nemesis.
No, we ignore Nemesis.
I will thank you to not speak for everyone. You mean “YOU ignore Nemesis.”
Many of us have done our best to avoid thinking about Nemesis ML31.
My spouse and I saw it once in theatres. That’s it.
Walked out saying that the director really had no clue about Trek — which seems to be the general consensus.
I haven’t even rewatched it w
Even when we have the TNG movie DVD set in the house.
That said, it sounds as though it has ‘essential backstory’, so I’ll find a way to make myself rewatch it before 2020.
And many others do not harbor ill will towards Nemesis. Many feel it that while there were a few flaws, it was overall an enjoyable and appropriate finale for the TNG crew. And also felt that a new director was needed after the blah Insurrection. So while you may have disliked it, it really is not yours, or more correctly AB’s place to turn that opinion into an absolute.
BTW… The way you speak about Nemesis nearly mirrors my reaction to The Voyage Home. But I have never claimed to speak for everyone regarding that.