Happy Star Trek Day! The Original Series Turns 53 And The Animated Series Turns 46

Star Trek: The Original Series turned 53 years young today, on the day that’s come to be called “Star Trek Day.” It’s also the 46th anniversary of Star Trek: The Animated Series, which also debuted on September 8th but a few years later, in 1973. Star Trek cast and crew have taken to social media to celebrate, so we present some of their posts here for your Trekkish enjoyment.

The architect of Trek on CBS, Alex Kurtzman shared a photo of the Star Trek: Picard producers.

CBS Star Trek brand honcho John Van Citters had a nice message about working towards a Star Trek world.

Long-time art department alumnus Mike Okuda shared his 53rd-anniversary artwork

Rick Berman, who oversaw Trek in the post-TOS pre-Discovery era, posted an early TNG photo that included Gene Roddenberry as well as Bob Justman (who was Associate Producer on The Original Series and briefly worked on TNG)

View this post on Instagram

A third of a century ago…

A post shared by @ rickberman on

The Original Series

Captain Kirk himself celebrated the anniversary with a shot from the second pilot.

James Doohan’s son Chris shared a fun publicity shot from “The Man Trap” of his father and William Shatner.

George Takei talked about Trek’s progress through the decades.

Star Trek: Discovery

New season 3 cast member David Ajala showed off his inner Trekkie with a Vulcan salute.

Writer/producer Bo Yeon Kim shared a video of the huge USS Discovery corridor set, adding in a second post that she and Erika Lippoldt have “consumed *many* PB&J sandwiches in these hallowed halls…”


Producer/director Olatunde Osunsanmi joined in, too.

Discovery and Picard director Hanelle Culpepper also celebrated with a note on Instagram.

Next Generation


and the Kelvin Timeline movies…

What are your Star Trek Day thoughts? Share them below in the comments.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Terrific! Wish I could remember the first episode I saw. Thanks to Chris Doohan for a picture I have never seen before.

My first episode was ‘Devil in the Dark’.

It’s unforgettably imprinted.

The message of finding understanding and empathy through communication really sank in deep.

Mine was “The Corbomite Maneuver,” fittingly as the first episode shot if not aired. It must have made an impression (or at least Fake Balok did), though I honestly don’t recall watching another until the series went into syndication in the ‘70s, when I promptly fell in love with it, as did so many millions of fans.

I honestly cannot recall the first episode I saw. I was amazingly young. But I do recall being impressed with Devil in the Dark because it was a change of pace from what I usually saw in other shows or movies with a creature. The animal had actual motivation and wasn’t just mindlessly killing. That aspect stuck with me.

It stuck with a lot of people, apparently. Great episode, anyway — hard to believe that Bob Justman at least initially thought it was a loser, due to production issues.

My first episode was “Spock’s Brain” … but I went on to love Star Trek anyway. :-) (Actually, I still have a soft spot for that episode, with all its goofy charm.)

Happy Birthday, Star Trek! And many more!

I was 11 years old the day this first episode aired. In all honesty, I only saw some of the episodes in TOS’s first run, catching up with all of it (in repeated viewings) in the early 1970’s.

The franchise really has lived long and prospered. Hopefully it will continue to do so for many years to come.

Happy Birthday Star Trek!!

I didn’t start watching it until the late 70s but I been hooked ever since. I love how big the franchise has become and only becoming bigger again. The future seems brighter than ever!

LOL You guys posted Rosario Dawson under Voyager. I think you’re looking for Roxann Dawson? 😂😂😂

Easy mistake to make, especially since Rosario is a notable fan herself.


Still 2 weeks from being born. September 22, 1966 was when I began my life “Trek”. Appropriately enough my birth was actually the same day that the actual first episode (Shatner start, Where No Man Has Gone Before) aired.

Rick Berman still struggles to recognise the original show, doesn’t he.

He posted something personal standing with the cast that started his career and with Roddenberry. In fact, nearly everyone who posted a birthday wish posted something from the show or movie they actually worked on.

Good to see you dropping in Tiger2.

And I share your take on this as I often do.

My reaction to Berman’s tweet was that it was great and appropriate that he shared a rarely seen behind the scenes photo from the earliest days of TNG.

I suspect Buzzcagney’s comment reflects their own struggle to accept that for many fans TNG was their first and defining series.

Yes, Star Trek day is set for the original premiere day of TOS and TAS in the United States. BUT it’s celebrating the 53 years of Star Trek as a global cultural phenomena that encompasses 7 series at this point.

One’s Star Trek experience didn’t have to start with TOS to be authentic… as Kurtzman’s message clearly says.

Like many here, I started with TOS as I stated in my OP. But most of my friends didn’t start watching Star Trek until TNG came on and where most of their fandom stayed. My own brother watched TOS sporadically but it was the TNG era that he really became a fan. But he was never a huge Trek fan like me and only seen some of the shows although he’s seen every film. He’s really excited about Picard though and plans to subscribe to AA when that arrives. He’s never seen Discovery and has no interest in watching it since its not about the TNG era.

So yes that’s certainly true. That’s the beauty of Star Trek, it has grown at such a phenomenal rate, especially after TNG was born that it wasn’t just one show for everyone anymore. There are people out there now (to the dismay of some here) who think of the Kelvin films as their Star Trek only and that’s great (well not TOO great if they don’t make anymore ;)). Others truly love Voyager! In fact I just saw yesterday this amazing interview with Stacey Abrams (she ran for Governor of Georgia last year for some who don’t know her) where the entire interview was about her love for Star Trek and also started watching when TNG first started and stated Voyager is her favorite show (and Discovery is her third favorite show after TNG which shows shes open to the new stuff too). That’s why while I love this website and most of its members, its not representative of the overwhelming fanbase out there in terms of which Trek show is more important than the other. Because I doubt there is a true consensus on any of it.

But yes thats what I love about Star Trek personally now, that its expanding in ways that everyone may not love (i.e. Section 31) but trying to appeal to many different people as possible as it expands again. The birthday is not just a reminder of the show that started it all, but really represents the global entity its become today. And I give Berman a lot of that credit. And it looks like Kurtzman is doing it again but in ways I feel could be bigger than Berman because he’s willing to push Trek in multiple eras and directions. We’ll see how it works out but in a decade Star Trek could not only be in new centuries but maybe even new galaxies and universes. This is what excites me as a fan!

I had no idea that Stacey Abrams was a fan. That’s pretty cool. :-)

While TOS will always be my favorite for aesthetic as well as nostalgic reasons, there’s simply no denying what a cultural powerhouse TNG became after its third year. I knew for certain that things had probably changed forever when Beavis and Butt-head (a favorite of Patrick Stewart’s) donned virtual reality glasses that allowed them to appear as Picard and Riker rather than Kirk or Spock. The torch, for the younger people at least, was clearly in the process of being passed, for better or worse. TOS purists — and there are fewer of us every year, I suspect — had best get over it. No one should ever have to apologize for what they like.

I found out she was a fan before when she given a small interview discussing Voyager last year to a paper. But it wasn’t until yesterday that I realized she was a fanatic lol. Like so many here who has seen every episode and can really talk about the franchise in extraordinary detail.

In fact the interview referenced a book she wrote last year about leadership and she actually used a TNG episode in the book, Peak Performance, and goes into detail how each character is portrayed in terms of their leadership performances and stresses how it was a good takeaway for her in her own political career and leadership. A. I really want to rewatch this episode now lol and B. that it shows she’s not a panderer like some people who say they ‘love’ Star Trek does because they saw a few episodes of it back in the 90s. That interview really opened my eyes to not only how smart she is but its clear Trek helped influenced her to be a leader today. She admires Janeway and Picard the most as I imagine most people did who grew up with these characters as did I.

As far as TOS purists needing to get over it, that’s certainly true for some, especially these boards lol. But I do think MOST long time fans have a healthy grip on this stuff and accepted it all even if TOS will always be their favorite. But as fans we should all be recognizing Trek’s importance as a whole even if we’re not fond of every part of it. That’s how it survives for another 50 years.

And for the record NONE of this has anything to do Buzzcagney original post, this conversation just took a life on its own lol.

“TOS purists — and there are fewer of us every year, I suspect — had best get over it.”

I swear to you we aren’t finished yet. Skip a generation or two and we will still be talking Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise 1701 while everything that came next is long forgotten. Discovery had Michael being a badass, Pike and the 1701 that it got somewhat watchable but it still was no Wagon Train to the Stars. Writers today just want Star Wars with 7000 starships going Warp 9.99999999 with 20 quantum torpedoes when they aren’t jumping or beaming across the galaxy and then wonder why they come so close but like a poor marksman they keep missing the target.

Cmd. Bremmon, I’m just not convinced.

I can honestly say that for every TOS fan from childhood who has continued to say TOS is their favourite, I know another who says that once TNG came on, they really found TOS hard to watch.

And I am including older TOS fans who were members of the fan clubs in the 70s and 80s and were part of the base that yearned for the movies and Tree’s return to television.

So, while for many their first series is their favourite, it’s not always so.

Personally, I can say that each series has its standout episodes that stay with me. They’re all Trek for me, and while I have nostalgia for TOS, I’m anticipating new Trek series and stories that address today’s issues and have higher production values.

TPTB were unexpectedly successful in bringing back Pike, Spock, Number One and the Enterprise in S2 of Discovery. For me, and it seems many others, that is the best option to bring TOS forward to new fans.

Last, as noted by others above, this board seems to have a larger proportion of TOS devotees than is representative of Trek fandom overall.

It’s not easily to say I’ve moved beyond TOS on this board, but it doesn’t mean that hasn’t happened for some fans.

I just don’t see it, I see more Firefly fans than TNG fans. Now that you have options TNG looks and feels boring. All I hear on Picard is how insulting it is that the future has private family owned wineries, and these were those I consider actual TNG fans and not those like me that were desperate for anything Trek. And as the writers move more and more away from a wagon train to the stars the less and less relevant the show will be.

To you, maybe. Your personal preferences aren’t universal, sorry.

Maybe this is a case of 4lights/5lights happening to me, but I agree with Brennon on the FIREFLY/TNG thing. I find folks still mentioning FIREFLY and its cancellation on sites that have nothing to do with entertainment, sometimes comparing it to a recent tragedy in the real world. It seems like a wound that is still open for a lot of people who choose to remember.

Totally off-topic, but I finally saw JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG all the way through for the 1st time. Absolutely mesmerizing movie, highly recommended. It does have Shat in it, but it is a very modest role. Max Schell is incredible in it, absolutely incredible. And Lancaster has presence like Harry Belafonte, where the slightest movement is electic.

Cmd Bremmon you seem to think your own particular views on Star Trek is a consensus for most Trek fans. It’s not. Certainly not on other boards where 24th century Trek is vastly popular. And please stop acting like it is.

People enjoy Star Trek for many many different reasons. I have been watching Star Trek as long as you have if not longer. I have never remotely cared about those things and doubt I ever will. I love Star Trek because its about the unknown and the fantastical at the same time. Thats what draws me in and will continue to do so.

Let’s agree to disagree, rehash this in 50 so years when TOS turns 100. May we all still be there to do so.

Or lets not and say we did. We can just move on completely. I’m just excited for the future of Trek and hoping in another 50 years I will be worshiping more than one show as I do today!

I was in front of the television watching Star Trek on that night in 1966. I never thought at the time that Star Trek would become the phenomenon it is today. At 60, I’m still a huge fan; and I want to thank everyone involved with the franchise – past and present – for inspiring me and so many others to celebrate our diversity and aim for the stars. Happy Star Trek Day!

I wish that Trek future of 53 years ago wasn’t so threatened by the ills of today. Between rising authoritarianism and the worsening climate crisis, the 23rd century feels further away than ever :(

It does, and it’s plenty depressing. But even Trek didn’t predict a peaceful, prosperous early 21st century. We’re on the cusp of enormous change, which almost always causes a lot of unpleasant disruption. Hopefully we’ll emerge on the other side the better for it. Keep your fingers crossed; I suspect it will be a close thing either way. 🖖

Let’s hope we can get there without World War III.

Yes, 53 years ago all we had to worry about was being nuked by socialist authoritarian types… now we have to worry if we ARE the socialist authoritarians.

Actually we have to worry if capitalist profit-driven extractionary society will fill the oceans with plastic, cut down the rainforest, drive millions of species to extinction, melt the polar ice caps, and bring about the demise of human civilization within my own lifetime. But, ya know, socialism is evil, right? yawn

He got the part about encroaching authoritarianism right, anyway.

Even if you’re good with increasingly progressive taxation and other “socialist” economic policies, the growing authoritarianism of the left — over the past five years or so, especially — is still alarming. Britain, which is often looked to by the American left as being more advanced in terms of social progressivism, is now jailing its people for speech crimes at a rate of around 30,000 per year, according to Reason (Magazine) and The Times (of London). Local police are encouraging Britons to report their neighbors, even for infractions such as insulting people with non-racist, non-ethnic, non-sexist, non-religious language. And, also, of course, for insults comprising any of the aforesaid attributes. Britons are arrested these days, under their “progressive” hate-speech laws, for acts such as unwittingly posting rap lyrics that happen to contain “the n-word.” Here, in the land of the free, we have people being banned from social media and losing their livelihoods for speech crimes that don’t even involve insulting anyone, but merely discussing concepts that have been deemed verboten by the so-called “social justice” movement. And, that’s by no means the extent of it. But, I’ll leave it at that and assent to the validity of Cmd.Bremmon’s point. This is not the future that TOS strove for; it’s a twisted, Orwellian bastardization of it. And if you read Nineteen Eighty-four today, you may be shocked by how apropos it is of daily American life.


Re: Speech crime jailings

I don’t think you can lay the jailings for speech solely at the feet of modern Progressive Britons. The country’s had a long history of the practice through various and sundry regimes which is why they may be far more too comfortable with the practice on the whole than either you or I would care for. It’s the reason the United States’ Founding Fathers found it necessary to spotlight freedom of speech in their Constitution’s Bill of Rights. There’s nothing “modern” or particularly progressive about it.

I still recall from my teens Britain’s Conservatives clamping down on speaking against its occupation of Northern Ireland under the guise of fighting Irish terrorism. And I believe the “T” word is still at play in the justifications for the jailings that you lament.

Britain hasn’t had a liberal government since (such that it was) Tony Blair. The idea that “hate speech” laws (which, as you note, are far more routinely accepted in European governments of all political stripes than they would be here) are some recent innovation of the “Left” is just absurd.

Michael Hall

Hate speech laws in Britain ultimately date back to 1986. Which, you’re right, was a conservative era. But, it’s only over the past few years that they’ve seen such a drastic increase in application and enforcement. I can’t lay claim to expertise in British politics, but the social justice movement’s methods and ideology are not necessarily limited to the left any longer. As I mentioned above, the left and right have recently joined forces in the US Congress to curtail free speech online in aid of protecting us all from words, thoughts and concepts that might hurt our feelings or make us feel uncomfortable. I would agree that the left did not invent speech policing any more than they invented authoritarianism. Both are tools historically employed by both left-wing and right-wing movements. Today, however, it is the social left in the US that is, far and away, the greatest champion of “social justice” dogma and purveyor of its methodology. There have been elements on the right in America — religious factions come to mind — that dabbled in speech policing during the post-war era. But, the scope, severity and ideological foundation of the social justice movement’s recent effects on free speech in the US date back only a few years. And we have seen nothing like it in modern American history. As for whether the cause of Britain’s speech policing is ultimately left-wing, right-wing or neither, I can’t say with certainty. Just as trickle-down economics began as a right-wing concept that soon infected moderate liberals, my intuition is that Britain’s recent increase in speech policing is motivated by sensibilities that ultimately derive from the social justice movement and a singular dogma that has infected Western culture generally. But, there may be more to the cause. Putting Britain aside, I have no doubt that the social justice movement is the cause in the U.S., and I’d be surprised if Britain were insulated from it.


I agree that jailing people for speech crimes is neither modern nor progressive. It’s an aspect of authoritarianism that cycles through civilization, and now it’s back in the first world nations. The curtailing of free speech is, however, a direct consequence of the growth of so-called “social justice” dogma, which the two most recent generations (Y and Z) have grown up with as normal. Jonathan Haight, one of the top social psychologists in the world, has been leading research into the causes. He was a guest on Bill Maher’s show recently, and there are plenty of other videos of his presentations over the past several years on YouTube, if you’re interested. Yet another attempt to curtail free speech that I’ve just learned of — a joining of forces between the left and right in Congress, funnily enough — is the move to repeal Section 230, a.k.a. the First Amendment of the Internet. The cause of protecting the feelings of the most emotionally frail is the ostensible motive for an increasingly authoritarian sociopolitical movement to increase its power and control — so that they can make the world a better place for everybody, of course. We need the authoritarian left to protect us from words, thoughts and concepts that might hurt our feelings or make us feel uncomfortable. Did you know that speech is violence? According to their dogma, anyway.

Off-topic, since the original post mentioned socialism, which is an economic system and has in itself nothing to do with the “hate speech” laws you decry (and I myself would largely disagree with). And if you genuinely believe that leftwing authoritarianism (which I would never deny is a real thing) is the main challenge facing humanity in 2019, when extreme right so-called “populists” like Trump, Boris Johnson, Jair Bolsanaro, Giuseppe Conte, Rodrigo Duterte, and Viktor Orban are running the world’s greatest democracies straight into the wall of illiberalism, you must be living in the Kelvinverse. Have fun with that.

As to “1984,” I’m willing to bet that I’ve read that novel, as well as the rest of Eric Blair’s ouvre, way more times than you have. And the truth is that, thankfully, the contours of life in Orwell’s dystopia bear very little resemblance to that in the current United States (for all its problems), aside from the issue of surveillance, which in the West has more to do with new technologies and the approach of late stage capitalism to social media than political ideology.

Michael Hall

Yes, that’s a nice caricature of my concerns that you painted there. I never said anything with regard to “the main challenge facing humanity.” As for Trump, I do not support him, but neither can I think of any instances in which he has effectively curtailed free speech. He has repeatedly expressed interest in stifling the fourth estate, specifically its criticism of him and his statements, but he doesn’t appear to be gaining any traction in that effort. As such, I do not feel that he is much of a threat to free speech at this point. Though that could change were he to win re-election and the Republicans regain the House, a scenario that I think is unlikely but certainly within the realm of possibility. As for Nineteen Eighty-four, I have discussed it with friends of mine who are still firmly inside the bubble on the left, and even they were able to see modern life imitating that story. But, if you’re as familiar with the book as you say, and you still can’t see it, then I’m not going to change your mind.

So when in TOS the Federation was mining dilithium, trading with worlds for the dilithium and building starships out of steel it was an evil organization? And no socialist countries emit greenhouse gas emissions (funny only people I see trying to deploy electric cars are private companies)?? Also doesn’t that make Star Trek TNG where they destroy the galaxy to go over warp 6 evil??? And the rainforest is going to be all cut down within your lifetime?

*Yawn* Since there’s no evidence that the Federation ever invaded a dilithium-rich planet to exploit its natural resources, or even allied itself with a repressive native regime in order to do so (as the United States has repeatedly done throughout its history), no, I wouldn’t call it evil just for mining and trading. Those activities aren’t in-and-of-themselves harmful, though they do need to be regulated for the benefit of everyone and not just the profits of oil, coal (or dilithium) barons. Socialist countries most certainly do emit greenhouse gases, but like every nation aside from the U.S. have made commitments to reduce their carbon footprint. Starships in the Trek ‘verse are constructed of duranium or tritanium, not steel (at least get your nerdy ‘facts’ straight), and I’m not sure what that has to do with anything in any case. TNG postulated a discovery where an economically and militarily vital activity (i.e. starship travel over warp 6) was found to be harmful to the environment, which resulted in that activity being immediately curtailed outside of emergencies until a solution could be found, which is exactly what conservatives like yourself decry doing in the case of AGW.

Cmd.Bremmon & Michael Hall,

I think the Horta of Janus VI would vigorously disagree with you. When the Miners destroyed their eggs thinking they were mineral specimens, they weren’t looking for every useful mineral EXCEPT dilithium.

Apparently that is a-ok because it was for a massive bureaucracy working for the benefit of the collective good. They were just adding their biological and technological distinctiveness to their own. Resistance is futile. Nothing to see there comrade.

So that’s to be our choice: ultimate collectivization or unbridled tooth-and-claw individualism? Sorry, I choose neither.


You mean as a-ok as the less massive mini-“collectives” of corporate shareholders robbing indigenous peoples of their collective mineral rights?

It’s almost like if anyone wants to make an ethical living they need to get off this rock and go on some kind of wagon train trek to some un explored frontier where no one has gone before….


Re: get off this rock

The likes of Kaku, Hawking, etc. certainly think so.

But I think Roddenberry rightly pointed out, that we aren’t liable to get far if we go tramping around strange new worlds with those same old antiquated unenlightened excuses for arbitrarily reallocating resources.

Define ‘ethical living.’ If that involves ruthlessly exploiting the people who work for you, or passing along your costs by fouling the environment at everyone else’s expense, I don’t think ‘ethical’ means what you think it means.

Ayn Rand — a hero to our Cmd., I’d venture — once gave a speech at West Point where she flatly stated that there was nothing wrong with the white European settlers dis-appropriating the Native Americans of their land, since the natives themselves didn’t recognize private property rights. You can’t make this stuff up.

So you equate mining an asteroid with no people on it to European settlers settling North America where there were aboriginals?!? Sorry, I don’t see the analogy.

Where do you get that I ever wrote any such thing?! Of course I have no issues with mining, so long as no one is hurt or exploited in the process, as I clearly and previously stated.

The miners on Janus VI didn’t know that they were disrupting the habitat of a sentient native species. When they became aware of it, they changed their methods (and still made a profit, if a presumably lesser one). Our fossil fuel barons obviously feel that they should not be obliged to do any such thing.

Yes, it’s like they want to make an ethical profit…

Yes, an ethical profit. The miners backed down and changed their practices immediately, either because they were genuinely sorry when the Horta’s motives for murder were revealed, or because they realized that Federation law wouldn’t tolerate the exploitation of an alien sentient species. Either way, they understood that they were answerable for more than just maximizing their bottom line. Unlike, say, Bob Massey or the Kochs, who obviously feel they shouldn’t be answerable for anything.

Michael Hall, Kirk told the head minor that letting the Horta loose to dig would make their mining more profitable. And in their last communication it could be presumed Kirk was right. Although I thought it might mean a lot of guys losing their jobs…. But shhh…. ;)

See, I don’t think in black-and-white binary terms. It isn’t just capitalism and socialism and only one is good; that’s incredibly inflexible. And you really would be surprised just how quickly we are losing our ecosystems, and the rainforests of the world worst of all. And yes, it will happen in my lifetime. It’s actually happening right now, in your lifetime. And you’re like several decades older than me, so you can imagine just how much worse things are heading for my generation.

Capitalism has no answer to the climate crisis. It is too busy loosening regulations so corporations are free to pollute our water and atmosphere so that rich people can get richer. It has no solutions, and its electric cars by our “philanthropist” visionary CEO overlords are only motivated by one thing: $$$. That’s capitalism. And it is threatening my civilization, the civilization your generation built for us. We have no civilization without the ecosystems that are unraveling at a record pace, the soil being worked to death, a mass extinction underway. You might not be around to see the worst of the damage, but I will be. And what does capitalism have to say about it? Buy more stuff.

I think your in for a nasty shock when capitalism brings you electric cars, renewable electricity and carbon balanced biocrude. And then after the energy transition you’re going to have to self assess why you are so mad that global warming has been ‘solved’ (very much like the ozone layer crisis being solved by Dow developing a better refrigerant, that development pissed a lot of (pseudo)environmentalists off.
You know who destroyed the environment, the USSR rushing out poorly built nuclear reactors when they weren’t on numerous occasions debating nuking half the Earth to end capitalism.

That’s a very cute rhetorical trick: assume a hypothetical event will take place (capitalism brings us electric cars and renewable electricity all on its own without regulation), then further assume an unreasonable reaction to that hypothetical event on the part of your political opponents. Well, for the record I’d be perfectly happy if private industry were capable of self-regulating when it comes to pollution; the trouble is that there’s virtually no evidence whatsoever historically of that being the case. Back in the ’70s Lake Erie would routinely catch fire due to the waste manufacturers routinely dumped into it, and the air quality in Southern California where I grew up was so routinely poor that old people and children were encouraged to stay indoors during the worst smog alerts. (If you’re over the age of forty there’s really no excuse for you not knowing this.) That the situation in both cases is vastly improved now is entirely due to legislation like the Clean Air and Water Acts (signed into law by a Republican president whose administration also created the EPA), and had nothing whatsoever to do with industry voluntarily stepping up to solve those problems, since it had no financial incentive whatsoever to do so until laws were passed that it had to follow. Indeed, laws that cover everyone are the only fair way to address pollution issues that aren’t economically disruptive, since companies that wish to do the right thing will always be at a competitive disadvantage to the bad actors otherwise.

The ozone crisis was solved by the world’s governments banning CFCs, which were used in propellants for things like hair spray as well as refrigerants. Industry was not at all happy to retool, but the law said they had to, and so they did, and life went on. The ozone hole will eventually close, and little kids in Australia will hopefully be able to play outside without risking skin cancer once again, which is a win for everybody.

Yes, the bad old Soviet Union was indeed probably the world’s worst polluter. That has nothing to do with socialism vs. capitalism per se, but rather that the polluter, i.e. its dictatorial government, was not accountable to the people being harmed. Here in the U.S. in 2019, Republicans and conservatives apparently don’t want private polluters to be accountable to the people they harm either.

Regulation does not equal crown control of the means of production. That’s a little black and white, I’m not saying there should be no government. Who is going to protect all the ethical workers from the authoritarian collectivists after all? And I’m sorry – no acid rain anymore (amine fuel treatment) nor ozone depletion (new refrigerants) with no quality of life cost due to technical achievements of capitalist countries… better luck next time. That those accomplishments upset you should have you looking in the mirror.

Heh. It’s people like you who always caterwaul that every attempt to meaningfully regulate commerce is just the thin edge of the wedge of communism/socialism, so please spare me your pearl clutching about respecting nuance. As to acid rain and ozone depletion, those technical fixes by the private sector only came about because of new government rules meant to address those problems, which made those fixes necessary and profitable. And again, I have no problem with government and the private sector coming to such arrangements so long as both people and profits (in that order) are protected, so you can save the strawman arguments for someone interested in playing that game. Better luck next time, sorry.

Your the one that doesn’t seem to understand how regulators decided to set targets. Regulators in both those cases calculate the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) based on the private sector. The private sector then responds and tries to beat those targets that they are the BATEA to capture market share. That strategy is how the market can be used to deliver public good using individual gain as the driver rewarding innovation. Without BATEA they would have just banned refrigerants and then we’d all be short refrigerators, buying ultra expensive refrigerators and/or using toxic refrigerants with regard to CFCs while the price of power would be through the roof in the 80s.

Nothing in my previous posts disputes any of that. My point was that without the regulators setting the rules, businesses would have no reason to spend the funds necessary to innovate to meet such targets. Which nothing you’ve written disproves.


I think you are in for a nasty shock when you realize that people invent things because it is the nature of the beast, and they were inventing things for millennia before the invention of capitalism, itself. Capitalism, which lost all claim to be a system responding to the tangibly “real” world when it went from the gold standard to the easily manipulated “numbers” standard.

Awww, our very own Khrushchev. “We will bury you”, how cute. I wasn’t around in the 60’s but I am feeling the vibe now!!

You may feel it but you clearly don’t get it.

I had no idea Krushchev had anything to say about the gold standard. Perhaps you should study the ’60s more, since by your own admission you weren’t there (I was).

Michael Hall,

Re: ethics

While Bremmon’s throwing the “ethical” word around let’s not forget that the American Aboriginals had a perfectly serviceable set of ethics working for them before the crown spurred capitalists landed. Schooled in the rhetoric of St. Ambrose, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”, the capitalists somehow found it “ethical” to forget that lesson, time and time again.

sometimes reading cyg, Hall and dis, I feel like a semi-literate at best. (But in a good way, like you’re challenging me.)

Coming from a pro writer that I never managed to be, that’s much appreciated. :-)

So what’s your take on Dr. Zefram Cochrane? Is he EVIL in your beloved TNG…
Dr. Zefram Cochrane : You all look at me as if I’m some kind of… saint, or visionary or something!
Cmdr. William Riker : I don’t think you’re a saint, Doc. But you did have a vision. And now we’re sitting in it.
Dr. Zefram Cochrane : You wanna know what my vision is? Dollar signs, money! I didn’t build this ship to usher in a new era for humanity. You think I wanna see the stars? I don’t even like to fly! I take trains! I built this ship so I could retire to some tropical island… filled with
naked women. THAT’S Zefram Cochrane. THAT’S his vision. This other guy you keep talking about, this historical figure? I never met him. I can’t imagine I ever will.
Cmdr. William Riker : Someone once said “Don’t try to be a great man. Just be a man, and let history make its own judgements.”
Dr. Zefram Cochrane : That’s rhetorical nonsense. Who said that?
Cmdr. William Riker : [smiles at Cochrane] You did, ten years from now.

Very late back to the party, but just a quick response: no, I don’t think the FIRST CONTACT version of Cochrane was a villain, just something of a jerk. (Though I’ll state that the retcon of his character from the far more thoughtful, soulful person seen in “Metamorphosis” is one of the reasons I’m not as big a fan of that movie as some.) The discovery of warp flight would be a significant achievement by any standard, regardless of motive. I’d only call Cochrane a villain if he exploited people to get his ship built, and there’s no evidence of that in the film.

Hell, as a Jew I’m willing to acknowledge Werner Von Braun’s contributions in moving our species forward, and he was a friggin’ Nazi. And just for the record, retiring to an island filled with naked women sounds just fine to me.

Michael Hall,

While many of history’s world wonders were accomplished with slave labor with hordes worked to death, I don’t think I’ll ever credit WvB with anything other than usurping US rocket researchers’ works for his own Nazi rocket plans. And I definitely don’t think the deaths of his slave laborers and the targets of his Nazi missiles were costs we simply had to bear for him to bring it back to its US origins and take us to the moon.

Besides, the Russian rocket program successes that scared us into the race to the moon didn’t come from Nazi rocket science.

I agree. See my note about Ayn Rand’s speech at West Point, which addresses that very issue.

Michael Hall,

Re: Ayn Rand

Indeed, know her far more well than I would have cared from college Philosophy studies.

I found the exploits of the ilk from whence came the Historical definition of the plural noun, filibusters:


far more illuminating.

Happy Birthday to the show which has made an indelible positive imprint on my life over 53 years. Without Trek, I literally wouldn’t be the person I am today. Thank you.

I still remember my first episode. It was fall of 1970, my family had come to America a couple of months earlier and we were all at the home of one of my parents friends. While they talked at the kitchen table, my brother and I sat in front of their TV that was tuned to a random channel which just happened to be playing what I would later discover was The Doomsday Machine from Star Trek. I was only 5 years old at the time and we still didn’t speak English but the imagery stayed with me. The planet killer was terrifying and Decker’s expression of horror as he flew the shuttle into the maw gave me nightmares. A few weeks later we had our own TV and my brother and I quickly put 2 and 2 together as to that show we watched that night. After that Star Trek on Channel 56 in Boston became a nightly ritual, to the point where we practically learned to speak English watching the reruns.

Happy Birthday Star Trek! Here’s to the next 53 years.

That’s a cool story, Tony.

For the nit-pickers, Star Trek actually premiered on 4 September on CTV in Canada, two days before NBC showed it.
The quote below says 1 week, but in reality, it was 2 days for at least the first season.

From “Star Trek The Real Story”…. “To make matters worse, NBC subsequently advised us they´d placed the show on Canadian television. “One small detail,” they added. “Canada will be televising the series one week before the States. We hope this doesn´t give you guys any delivery problems.” (In a twist of fate, in order to meet the Canadian schedule, an almost wet-from-the-lab 16 mm print of each week´s episode was air-freighted to NBC in New York, hustled by messenger across town to ABC facilities on West 66th Street, and then fed into Canada via NBC competitor´s transmission lines — an unsusual practice for those, or any other, times.).”

Thanks for that bit of history Stimpy.

Yes, we did watch it on CTV.

What’s amusing is that BellMedia still gets the jump on broadcasting Discovery on Space at 8:00 pm ahead of its streaming release on CBSAA. (CTV is a division of Bell Media Inc.)

Wild coincidence!!

Space channel (Space.ca) has just been branded CTV Sci-fi Channel.

Just noticed that my Space app’s icon had morphed, and checked out the website to find this:


The video may be blocked, but it’s full of clips from Discovery and Picard.

BellMedia is going all in with its Trek heritage.

If Trek turns 53 today that would make me. . . nope. That can’t be right.

Actually you’re supposed to scream, ‘that’s impossible!’ (wrong franchise, I know.)

Yup, it’s like we’re living our own version of The Deadly Years.

Whoa! You’re both right, though I surely wish you weren’t.

Wagon Train to the Stars that showed today’s humanity could succeed in the future!!! How I wish they had been given at least two more seasons (and the production team had put the same energy into seasons 1 and 2 as season 3).

Happy Birthday, Star Trek! We look forward to Discovery, Picard, new animated shows, Section 31, and hopefully a Captain Pike series!!

Gotta admit… That little video of the Discovery corridor set is pretty darn impressive!

But here are my belated birthday wishes to my favorite franchise.

Happy B-day to ST from myself…we share the same birth year at least :) .

Still remember my 1st episode…watched “Amok Time” with an older neighbor who was babysitting for me sometime in the early 1970s when the show was just beginning to “take off” in syndication. For some odd reason, I also remember that the preview for the next episode (which they were still showing even as part of the syndicated episodes at the time) frightened me…it was for “Who Mourns for Adonais?” My young but very active mind at the time got the distinct impression that it would be about a really big bad mean guy who would appear and proceed to terrorize women during amourish (is that a word ;)?) encounters. Go figure… :)

And then my recollection is that a few months later, I was bored and looking for something to watch on TV. So my mom pulled out the TV Guide and went through the listings, mentioned that ST was on which I remembered from my previous watching with that babysitter, and as my love of science fiction was continuing to develop, I switched to the appropriate channel and was subsequently hooked.

My 2nd episode that night?: “Whom Gods Destroy.” Not a great one to be sure, but to my younger self, the fact that they were traveling through space in a very cool-looking starship, orbiting planets, and encountering aliens was enough for me. That and even then I think that I could tell that the characters really shined through it all…Both Kirk and Spock in particular, though they were fictitious of course, quickly became my role models.

And dare I say it that my present career in the biological sciences was very much inspired by my loving “The Immunity Syndrome” episode.

And of course as I matured over the years, I continued to watch and would often find myself discovering the more mature themes that were often being explored in a given episode as I, too, got older and presumably acquired more knowledge and wisdom ;) .

Not a fan of the Kelvin movies I must say (I’ll be kind and just leave it at that), and I still haven’t caught Discovery (already pay too much for TV) but hope to soon via borrowing the disc sets from either a friend or maybe from my local library. And I know I’ll be somehow/someway watching the new “Picard” series :) .

Anyway, long live ST!


Where is Trekmovie’s coverage of Walter Mosley’s shabby treatment in Discovery’s writers room and HR Department, and his subsequent resignation?

I know folks want to keep things positive here, but the man is an author who has made a significant contribution to preserving some of the uncomfortable truths of racism in the US, and his loss due to sheer chicken-sh!ttery is a significant one.

Losing him before his impact could have made a mark is a terrible shame.

I imagine they’re waiting to see if more info surfaces. We’ve already discussed it at length in the replies to what I think is the next newest story.

A really disheartening tale to be sure, given my love of Trek and Walter Mosley’s work. People will endlessly pick this debacle over in an orgy of confirmation bias; that’s just the way things roll these days. But I’ve lived in the corporate world for decades now, and learned the hard way that people take offense at all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. I wish Mosley had been more circumspect, and I really wish that his co-worker had taken their discomfort to him directly instead of doing it through HR as a first resort, which has always struck me as counterproductive if not downright cowardly. At the end of the day this is a very typical workplace dispute where everyone loses: Discovery and Trek fans miss out on the great work Mosley likely would have produced, while Mosley loses the income and the opportunity to work in a genre he really loves. (Check out “Futureland” if you think he’s only good for hard boiled noir.) It’s a real shame, and no two ways about it.

Michael Hall

From Deadline, September 6, 2019, re: Walter Mosley firing

I was in a writers’ room trying to be creative while at the same time being surveilled by unknown critics who would snitch on me to a disembodied voice over the phone,” Mosley asserted, while never naming the Sonequa Martin-Green-led Discovery he had a short stint of less than an month on. “My every word would be scrutinized. Sooner or later I’d be fired or worse — silenced. … We cannot be expected to thrive in a culture where our every word is monitored.”

You’re a bright fellow, Michael Hall. I find it hard to believe that you really can’t see it.

was it a good idea for him to be dropping the n-word in a ‘trek’ tv show writer’s room?


In the United States of America, I’d be shocked to hear that any word in the Oxford or Webster’s English Dictionaries uttered in a closed door Writers’ Room as part of a pitch or other explanatory exposition would be reported to HR by any writer who understood how precious the freedom of speech is here.

Now, if the door was open and young interns were milling about delivering coffees, teas, lunches and whatnot I would hope for a little more awareness of ears around that may not be as comfortable with such tales’ lingo – and if that was the case not so much surprise on Mosley’s part that HR heard about it.

Mosley calls the person who reported it “someone in the room” and “some unknown person” which seems to cloud that the person reporting it had to be a writer for me.

Good points Disinvited.

As Michael Hall says, one wishes that Mosley was more circumspect.

None of us in the public are in a position to fact-find, which is essential in such a case.

We don’t know if anyone in the room did try to express their discomfort and were shut down.

But your point about interns or junior writing staff is important. Co-worker may not be the best word to describe the power relationships in that room.

Speaking out against a behavior is hard enough among equals. Given previous problems, the complainant may have feared retaliation regardless.

As an author with a strong reputation, Mosley came into the room with power, but perhaps less experience in how his seniority would impact more junior members of the team.

I could see how someone needed to manage that dynamic, and make sure Mosley understands that his stature means that he needs to model behaviour that supports a positive dynamic.

Again, I come back to the question why it wasn’t Michelle Paradise who leads the room day to day who was tasked to have the conversation face-to-face rather than some unfamiliar HR staff. Or, Kurtzman himself since he recruited Mosley. It seems that the legal separation of roles and responsibilities between CBS and the production company are getting in the way of sound management regardless of titles like ‘executive’ for the senior writers.

If Mosley came with the power of an established author, then perhaps those junior members should’ve familiarized themselves with him and his works. If you’re going to work with someone who wrote a series of pulp novels about a black protagonist living in the ’40s and ’50s, then you should probably expect him to drop the N-word from time to time when telling a story.

the n-word is not just any word and something that a show like ‘star trek’is trying to put behind us.


Balderdash, if the twaddle that you are peddling was even remotely true Mark Twain would never have been introduced into Trek canon as a character.

It is a total fantasy rewrite of history to claim Roddenberry and his writers in the 60s weren’t constantly battling censorship, but, instead were actively practicing it.

I find it totally absurd that you would have us believe that when Roddenberry and Heinemann were discussing THE SAVAGE CURTAIN where they have the Uhura character say, “But why should I object to that term, sir? You see, in our century we’ve learned not to fear words.” that they were NOT discussing how to battle NBC to get that word into Lincoln’s mouth so as to bring about an end to the very thing that you are experiencing that has you trembling so.

Next, you’ll be telling us Kirk never used the racial slur, “half-breed”, to provoke Spock.

you can’t compare the OS era of production with the recent, current mindset of those who are writing the shows now.
sorry but that word does not belong in that environment.
used once, maybe, not constantly.


Either you believe in the first Trek series’ not fearing words ideal or you don’t.

And I missed the part where Mosley said HR called him for constantly using the word, because he never said that he did. Stop creating strawmen to justify your fearful reactions.

You’re right, it’s not just any word. Which is why it was used in the DS9 episode “Far Beyond the Stars.” Star Trek trusts – or at least used to trust – that its audience can handle this kind of language, its meaning, and context.

a word used once and not recently in any ‘trek’ shows made afterwards.
it served a point and didn’t need to be repeated.


Re: didn’t need to be repeated.

Sez who? And for your information it is repeated every time HEROES AND ICONS airs the episode. FAR BEYOND THE STARS wasn’t a one air like Takei’s TWILIGHT ZONE racism episode, THE ENCOUNTER.

meant the word has never been used in any other ‘trek’ show written since that one was aired.


Re: written

Then you are so out of luck. DISCOVERY’s HR clearly said it could be written and IS the current Trek policy.

Mosely’s issue is with his freedom to speak it.

Yes, Tony, and perhaps Mosley was making a point with the story he was telling in the writers’ room. You know, a 67-year-old man who is half black and half Jewish might have something meaningful to say about the subject of bigotry, and about the language used. Language. Feelings. Stories. Writing. History. The human condition… Star Trek?

Again, context. It’s not just for kings.

Yes, TechNoir context is important, but we only have Mosley’s perspective on that.

What makes me most uncomfortable about your view is that it seems that your saying that because Mosley is an author with a certain stature, he should be able to join the work team and disrupt it any way he feels if he wants to hold forth with a story.

He has stature, but he’s not the only African-American in the room, and certainly not the only representative of a diversity group.

From his opinion piece, he clearly felt he should have power in the room right away. And his choice to go public rather than work it out with through Michelle Paradise or Alex Kurtzman indicates suggests he wasn’t committed to be being a leader or mentor to those less established writers.

When I think of all the great TV writers that got their start on TNG (Moore, Echevarria, Bragg, Shank) and their influence in SF and Fantasy television/streaming, one would wish that Discovery’s writers room could be a place where brilliant young writers from minorities can be found, contribute and develop.

But nothing in Moseley’s op ed piece makes me think that he saw himself that way.


He said it as part of a quotation during the process of condemning an incident of bigotry that he had witnessed. He said it in order to be faithful to the seriousness of the incident that he was recounting. I think there’s a reasonable standard of critical thinking that people should be held to. And if you can’t see the difference between repeating a nasty word in order to condemn its use as bigotry and using that word in a bigoted fashion, then the problem is your* lack of ability to think critically about moral issues.

* Meaning “you” understood, not you, tony, personally.

he didn’t just use that word once, it was repeatedly used and that was what caused offense.


You are genuinely confused. The offensive use of the word was generated by the white cop saying it who he was quoting.

The word was given its historical hateful distasteful pejorative connotation by founding WHITE American Entrepreneurs seeking to self-justify the changes to slavery they planned to implement in their economy for their substantial financial gain made possible, so they believed, by narrowly focusing their slave markets on an African supply chain.

While it is true there were Blacks who owned slaves in the Americas, I find it nonsensical that you apparently believe that there is some way that a Black person speaking that word conveys the same White Supremacists’ self-deluded superiority while hissing it out dripping with hate so they can sleep soundly at night believing they were actually “improving” the plight of kidnapped Africans?

I first watched Trek about 13 years ago. I was thirteen at the time, and I was just starting to move on from cartoons to more “adult” shows. My dad talked me into watching TV Land’s Star Trek 40th anniversary marathon, and I was immediately hooked.

And, reading what I just wrote, I just realized that I’ve been a Star Trek fan for half my life.

At 26, you’re probably one of the youngest commenters on this board ;-) Nice to see that Trek managed to draw new fans even during its hiatus (after ENT was canceled).

It was actually a good time to get into the franchise. I was able to catch up on the first 49 years of Trek without worrying about keeping up with the new stuff. By the time Trek XI came out in 09, I was all caught up.

JJ Abrams is officially headed to Warner Brothers and leaving Paramount. The Abrams Trek era is over.

It’s not an exclusive contract Salt.

Abrams can still do projects with Paramount.

According to the industry newsources, he turned down a much more lucrative offer from AppleTV precisely because it required exclusivity.