Watch: New Trailer For ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Season 3

At New York Comic Con CBS shared the first trailer for Star Trek: Discovery season 3 with the audience, and now CBS has released it to the public.

After making the jump in the second season finale, season three of STAR TREK: DISCOVERY finds the U.S.S. Discovery crew dropping out of the wormhole and into an unknown future far from the home they once knew. Now living in a time filled with uncertainty, the U.S.S. Discovery crew, along with the help of some new friends, must together fight to regain a hopeful future. Season three of STAR TREK: DISCOVERY is set to premiere in 2020 exclusively on CBS All Access in the U.S.

Trailer

CBS trailer (USA)

CTV Sci-Fi Channel (Canada)

Trailer from Official Star Trek Facebook (may work internationally)

NYCC Star Trek: Discovery Teaser Trailer

Discovery takes fans 930 years into the future http://bit.ly/NYCCDisco

Posted by Star Trek on Saturday, October 5, 2019

Press Photos


Star Trek: Discovery is available exclusively in the USA on CBS All Access. It airs in Canada on the CTV Sci-Fi Channel (formerly called Space) and streams on CraveTV. It is available on Netflix everywhere else. The cast and crew are currently shooting season three.

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

211
Leave a Reply

33 Comment threads
178 Thread replies
2 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
59 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify me of
Athus

Any similitud with Andromeda, is going to be denay by Disco Fanboys ;)

Thorny

Never watched Andromeda.

Mike

See if this sounds familiar to Discovery S3…

An advanced ship, lost to history, returns in a distant future where all of known civilization has fallen, and changed from what they were. The crew of the ship, takes upon them, the responsibility of rebuilding the civilization that once existed.

This was essentially the plot for Gene Roddenberry’s Andromeda. Another similarity being, Andromeda was engaged in a massive space battle (as was Discovery vs Control), and in the case of Andromeda, they were trapped near a Black Hole (slowing time around it to a crawl for hundreds of years). Discovery used a worm hole to travel into the future.

Ometiklan

MY guess is not that civilization has “fallen” but that “The Federation” has “moved on” somewhere/somehow else. It is now mythical history, but the Discovery and crew proves it was real and that it is out there somewhere to be found. Granted, just my guess.

Mike

Paraphrasing the intro to Andromeda…

“The long night has come..

The United Federation of Planets, the greatest civilization in history has fallen. But now, one ship, one crew, have vowed to drive back the night and rekindle the light of civilization.

On the starship Discovery, hope lives again.”

A34

I really doubt they will base season 3 on that failed show.

Well, they based Andromeda on ideas from the creator of the failed show “Star Trek”. You know, things happen in Hollywood.

Captain_neill

This is Kurtzman, stealing ideas is his talent.

Corinthian7

Something I called on here immediately after the season 2 finale.

Garth Lorca

Granted. There is no denial. Why should there be?

It’s Andromeda done right. It had to be. Andromeda was originally a Star Trek concept that could have happened after TMP if Harve Bennet hadn’t done TWOK. The Nietzscheans were originally supposed to be Khan’s offsprings. So it’s only natural they are doing this now…

DISCO took a lot of inspiration from original 60s-80s sources. The ship itself is based on an unused late 70s refit design, the uniforms were extrapolated from the old Starfleet uniforms worn by Garth of Izar and Commissioner Ferris in Galileo Seven. The Klingon look was inspired by TMP and TUC, though exaggerated on those changes. So now, we’re getting a treat on what could have been Series II back in the early 80s.

Sam

I’ve never heard that about Andromeda before. But I love your points on the design aspects of STD. I made the point on several occasions while defending STD S1 that TMP and TUC both had noticeably different styles of Klingons compared to their more standardized TSFS/TNG~ENT appearance, but at the time it felt like the observation mostly fell on deaf ears. And I had never considered that about the uniforms, even though I applauded the show for changing them from the more standard TOS model.

Captain_neill

It would have cooler if the TOS uniforms looked more akin to akin to The Cage ones.

As well as the bad writing DSC does not fit in for me

Muse

Reading OP and wondering…Is the universal translator broken??

Athus

You sure are racist misoginistic wihite man that judge me due to the fact that I am not from the USA and my natural leguage is not english.

Palizia

Well, that escalated quickly.

Cmd.Bremmon

That was the only place they really could go in the future. Andromeda would just be another Milky Way. They already have free energy that TNG made space travel as boring as possible. It was either war (done by DS9) or the fall of the Federation and the rebuilding to recapture some of that ‘wagon train to the stars’ feeling. Kind of sad to think the United Federation of Planets disintegrated or was perverted (kind of a Roman Republic to Roman Empire) but then again the Federation presented by TNG was already pretty stagnant – huge bureaucracy, sense of exploration gone, superiority over all aliens. Fits into an overall arc of Trek, TOS builds an awesome universe, TNG starts the steady decline with a over-bureaucratic all powerful state, DS9 is Bellarius trying to save parts of it, VOY just confirms it’s all over and boring where we aren’t colonizing but are just trying to hang out on Earth. The UFP was pretty much over with Encounter at Farpoint.

VZX

Andorians look cool. They’re avoiding the elephant in the room though: who is the next captain?

I’m Dead Jim

I don’t think they’re avoiding anything. It’s just a trailer.

Even more, I would say it’s a teaser, similar to what we got for Picard at SDCC. I think production-wise we’re also in a somewhat similar time frame as to where Picard was then.

Tim

Philippa Georgiou in a Standard-Uniform but her Insignia not visible.
She is not wearing Gold so first Mistake already in the Trailer . As Sektion31-Commander it makes no sense she weares Sciences silver.

Jimmy

Nice job bashing a scene without knowing the full context. (◔_◔)

Matthew D.

It looks gold to me…

Tim

youre right! on another screen its gold but her badge is interesting. Looks like from an Admirals-Uniform.

TG47

She’s got the epaulettes of a captain or admiral. The cap of colour at the top of the sleeve was reserved for admirals though.

And the colouring looks fairly dead on Admiral Cornwell’s uniform in this Memory Alpha entry:

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Katrina_Cornwell

Tim: I think you’re right — we’ve got admiral Georgiou for whatever reason….

The River Temarc

Well hell, given the costuming error, let’s just write off the entire third season as “Spock’s Brain” redux.

Jako

erm…. a section31 agent usually acts in disguise…no mistake here. Question is only: why and why is it nescecary in the future?
Prepare for stupid reason. (still no mistake)

Josiah Rowe

Or maybe she just hasn’t changed from the uniform she was wearing before the jump, because she’s had other priorities.

Archon_Mining_Co

WOW!

Vulcan Soul

“Now living in a time filled with uncertainty, the U.S.S. Discovery crew, along with the help of some new friends, must together fight to regain a hopeful future.”

Is this Star Trek still or pre-election season already? :D

Jako

So it is Part of Star Treks History that the Universe as we know it, the federation and all that basicly has gone to hell…. fine. I wished they had jumped into another galaxy. That would have all the freedoms they need. But now, all trek Shows are basicly leading to total anihilation.

MysticalDigtial

Nothing lasts forever, and empires fall.

Garth Lorca

I’m not worried about that… it’s the natural course of history. Not even Trek can defy history. I guess it has become clear in the Picard trailer, that even by the 25th century, the nature of Starfleet and the Federation has changed for the worse.

The only negative side I see in this is that showing the outcome takes away the surprise factor out of 800 years worth of storytelling for one more short season if it isn’t undone by the end of the season.

Trellium G

Going to another galaxy would have been better. It’s disappointing to find out that all of Kirk’s and Picard’s efforts to uphold Federation principles and values were pointless and it was all going to go to hell anyway. I would have expected the Federation to last longer than what the Discovery show runners think it should have lasted.

alastair87

In practice though that would have just been the same premise as Voyager. Is there really much difference between the ‘Delta Quadrant’ and ‘another galaxy’ as plot devices? This seems to be about reinventing the core settings and species more than it is brand new ones.

Trellium G

Voyager’s premise was about a ship that was trying to return home. Discovery can’t return home.

I can forgive the show runners for destroying the Federation if they make the story of how the Federation fell into an allegory of what is happening to the United States today. Perhaps a leader rises to power and dismantles the Federation’s institutions while cultish crowds cheer him on completely oblivious to what is actually happening around them.

jay

Star Trek ALWAYS used current issues and challenges in their plot and narrative. (^_^)

Garth Lorca

Sure, we all would have wanted that to be true but if Trek is supposed to reflect real-life developments AND stay in touch with viewers’ preferences today, it seems like a good choice to CHALLENGE that hopeful outlook into the future with a more dystopian overlayer that is eventually overcome by our valiant DISCO crew.
Think of those 800 years (from Picard to DISCO S3) as the “middle-ages” of Trek, with the Federation to be REBORN out of that darkness eventually. That makes it even more relevant. The “end of history” predicted in the 1990s didn’t happen in our time either. So it’s only natural for Trek to reflect that.
Sure, it’s a tad emotionally confusing to have Trek now look a bit like The 100, Blade Runner or Mad Max but that “Andromeda” concept is intriguing and can be a pivotal part of Star Trek mythology, even if that leads to some disgruntled, emotionally challenged YouTubers like SteveArts89…

Watching his video was a real shock for me. The way these creative choices tend to split up the fandom is incredibly sad. I can be VERY emotional when it comes to Trek and other major franchises and I’m still opposed to a Tarantino Trek movie. But in the end, the franchise comes first for me, not the individual expectations of some fans.

We’ve had these discussions about the end of Star Trek when DS9 was on, when the TNG movies didn’t live up to everybody’s expectations or when ENT “destroyed” canon/fanon, not to mention the KT movies. It’s a neverending story of unmet expectations.

SilenceKit

While another galaxy is interesting (especially if it was Andromeda/Kelvins), what Picard said to Burlinghoff Rassmussen was right, that for him history isn’t written yet. We don’t know how the plot will unfold. That said, was the miniseries Rome (or similar) less interesting because we know for a fact Rome falls some 500 years later (or 1500 years if you are thinking Byzantium)? It is the stories I’m interested in.

J.P.

Hundreds of years of peace and prosperity for billions of people is hardly “pointless”, I would think.

Legate Damar

That was always going to be the case. No civilization is eternal. Kirk and Picard and the others knew that the Federation would fall one day, but they still fought to keep it going for as long as possible. It seems likely that Burnham and the others will be help to bring the Federation back in the future though.

Alf in pog form

It was always clear that at some juncture in time that the aggregate quantity of evil Admirals in Star Fleet would reach critical mass and induce a terminal cascade of administrative collapse.

Sam

You can’t just keep expecting Starfleet to build Even Faster Ships century after century. That’s just predictable and boring. It may be the future that Berman Trek imagined (or rather assumed), but it’s also the stated reason why Rick Berman was rightly not interested in yet another sequel when asked to conceptualize a fifth series. If you do make that sequel you’ve got to do something different.

Babylon 5 similarly ends with the implication that humans will regress to a pre-industrial state due to an unspecified cataclysmic event, only to later recover their history and technology, evolve beyond physical form and leave Earth behind. None of this takes anything away from what the characters struggle to achieve during the series.

ML31

Yeah… That was in my head too. It would be nice if we didn’t know the long term fate of the Federation. Jumping to another galaxy would have been the smarter way to go, IMHO. That would literally free them from nearly every canonical criticism the show had.

Alex

That Disco trailer looks really DS9-heavy with the easter eggs. We got a Lurian (Morn) and a Cardassian and the Trill seem to play a rather prominent role. Burnham even takes a bath in what seems to be a Trill symbiont pool.

However, that Fed flag with only a few stars left makes me sad.

Tiger2

Yeah its pretty crazy how heavy so many DS9 species appears. I mean in season one of this show we didn’t get ONE all season even in just a cameo. And now in just a minute teaser we saw three of them. MAYBE four because some are suggesting a Breen is also with those guys attacking Burnham. I paused the video for a closer look and there is someone there with a mask that is similar to Breen but not 100% convinced its them.

That Federation flag did look a little sad lol but I have a feeling if the Federation isn’t fully intact by the end of the season it will be by the end of the show if Discovery stays in this period.

Vulcan Soul

I think it is another way to denote the passage of time and drive home the fact the ship now IS in a post-24th century universe where all those first contacts with new species that had happened by the time of TNG and DS9 have, in fact, happened a long time ago.

Tiger2

True Vulcan Soul and I love it more for it!! ;D

I’m honestly shocked they are going all in with all these familiar species. But they want butts in the seats. ;)

Legate Damar

Leland was disguised as a Trill in a little minisode that was tagged onto the end of season 1.

Tiger2

That doesn’t really count. A. He wasn’t actually a trill lol and B. It wasn’t part of the actual season (although I know it was originally meant to be).

bsan

There’s a female trill shown getting a tattoo in the Orion controlled sector on the Klingson homeworld in one of the Season 1 episodes. Can’t remember which one it is but if you Google “Trill getting a tattoo Discovery” you’ll see the image.

Tiger2

Ok thanks, I’ll have a look. But it has to be in the finale, that’s the only time they went there.

A34

Maybe The Sisko is returning.

Headcrash

Discovery arrives around a century after Daniels is born, he states he’s allied with the federation, but not a member….. so the Federation has crashed or shrunk within 100 years.

I wonder what happened?

Sam

That’s assuming this show’s continuity is even compatible with what is established in ENT. It wouldn’t be unlike ST at all to just miss a detail like that from a prior series produced by a different team of people. Maybe the Federation’s been gone for 500 years.

Tiger2

They actually been pretty good with keeping with bigger continuity and canon of the show overall so I would expect them to keep what we know about Enterprise since they have so far. Both Discovery and the Kelvin movies have done a great job lining up with Enterprise canon.

Of course things can always get retcon, not the first time in Star Trek lol.

You assume that Discovery writers suddenly know details from Enterprise when previously they mostly seem to have forgotten that Enterprise existed at all…

Tiger2

How did they forget it existed? Archer was referenced several times in first season. They named a ship after Shran.

The shows are 100 years apart from each other. TNG referenced TOS maybe a dozen times out of 176 episodes. DS9 actually referenced TOS quite a bit though.

I give the writers credit on this. They retcon some things but nothing from Enterprise. At least so far.

Raun

Sound familiar my friends? Discovery is using elements of a show that was pitched LONG ago.

I knew this all sounded familiar. This was a show idea that was pitched years ago and I swear to god they are stealing certain elements of it. A Federation in trouble. A future Kirk (Discovery’s new captain?). A computer highly advanced with emotions (Calypso). And a Federation with only a few member worlds left (the flag in the Discovery trailer.)

https://trekmovie.com/2011/04/16/exclusive-details-excerpts-from-star-trek-federation-series-proposal/

TG47

Raun…

Not sure why you are trying to be coy…

Especially as there is already an Andromeda discussion above in this thread…

For my part, I’m totally cool with a better rendition of Roddenberry’s own Andromeda concept being integrated with Discovery.

And given that it’s Roddenberry IP, it sounds as though the Roddenberry’s are cool with this too.

Gene Roddenberry himself demonstrated that he felt it was worth reworking an idea – Star Trek went through 2 pilots, the Dylan Hunt character was used in Genesis II and Planet Earth before Andromeda.

So, why do I think Discovery in the future would be better than Andromeda?

1) It is a whole crew going forward not just one Captain to save the whole future

2) It’s an established crew, not a motely bunch of wounded souls (Picard is covering that off….)

3) It’s a choice to go forward in time, which makes it fundamentally different from the ‘have to get
home’ sagas (Voyager, Farscape).

4). Discovery has shown itself to be the trippiest Trek, with some clearly Farscape-inspired out-there-ness that Andromeda would have benefited from to make the future seem really different…

5). Last….Our Sci-fi loving kids are actually interested in watching it….
Discovery’s trailer is deemed to be cool, while they ignore the Andromeda episodes accumulating in our PVR from CTV Sci-fi channel… for whatever reason.

There’s nothing to criticize in taking the idea into another context with wider appeal.

Garth Lorca

“Last….Our Sci-fi loving kids are actually interested in watching it…”

I envy you. I have to admit that in my place, kids are officially not even allowed to watch DISCO. It’s rated 16+. I used to be VERY emotional about this issue back in 2017 under a different moniker. I don’t want to revisit those awful emotions any time soon, but reading about kids even being allowed to watch DISCO in other countries really ripped an old wound within me wide open. No, not going to get there again… I killed that moniker in December 2017 for a reason and he has to stay buried.

TG47

Totally share your feelings Garth.

I really have been disappointed that Discovery wasn’t intended to be a family show.

Discovery generally gets a 14+ in Canada, but episodes are rated individually. Even some 90s Trek series episodes are 14+, even if most are 8+. Most of the time, the ratings seem appropriate.

Our middle grade kids only see Discovery with a parent in the room holding the remote. Our parental controls on our PVR definitely lock out everything PG 14+ and adult, and we view anything 14+ before sharing it with the kids.

We made the decision not to let our kids see season 1 of Discovery, and we did not let them see all of Season 2. Discovery captivated one of them quickly, and while the other still prefers the 90s series, they are looking forward to the 3rd season.

I can’t imagine being like the parent at NYCC who let their child watch at 8 – even with a parent. At that age, our kids were watching TAS on DVD, and then parent-selected episodes of TOS and TNG.

Discovery Season 1 had two episodes rated adult content 18+ in Canada – not something we as parents will let them see even with accompaniment and guidance. We felt exasperated to finally have new Trek and not feel we could share it.

As our kids are edging into their teens and showing us that they can handle a bit more in moderation and with parental engagement, we’re seeing what they can handle. Discovery S1 – minus adult rated episodes – is under discussion.

Garth Lorca

Thanks for the nice and insightful reply. You seem to be a very responsible parent which cannot be said for over 50 % of today’s parents.

On the other hand, these kids growing up on GOT and TWD at a rather young age (11-13) are a reality now, a mass phenomenon, and if it’s truly full of harm, the damage is done regardless of the official ratings applied by different countries, be it 14 or 16.

For all our sakes, I truly hope those avid youth protectionists are wrong about the dangers of those contents. Otherwise, we’ll have a really big problem…

Mel

That rating is not unusual. There are even countries which gave it a higher, only for adults rating

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5171438/parentalguide?ref_=tt_ql_stry_5

Definitely not a kids show.

Denny C

Once again the fate of the universe rests in the hands of Michael Burnham.

Yawn.

I watched all of seasons 1 and 2 but I can’t say I enjoyed it all and found myself frustrated more often than not.

With the excitement surrounding Picard (and Pike, for that matter), I suspect that if they had the chance to do it all over again they would have started with Picard and then expanded Star Trek from there.

Discovery era Star Trek, whether past or future, will likely remain the outlier of the franchise and there just isn’t enough of a hook to lure me into season 3. Having a continuation of the Next Generation era isn’t helping matters, either.

Luke Montgomery

“Once again the fate of the universe rests in the hands of Michael Burnham. Yawn.” So the fate of the universe is compelling and interesting if it rests in the hands, over and over again, of white men like Picard, Pike and Kirk? I’m pretty bored with what I observe is a racist and sexist double standard when pretty much every other show has the “fate of the universe” resting in the hands of the main character of the show. – who have all been white except one and all male except one. The implicit objection Burnham is that she is a woman of color. And don’t whine like a snowflake about how it’s just this character that you dislike, as it’s pretty clear a significant chunk of the crybaby white male fandom is simply bothered by her femaleness and blackness, even if they are not willing to say that is what it is.

TG47

Luke Montgomery…

Although I agree that some of the criticism is coded by those who are uncomfortable with a female and/or person of colour as lead…

…It’s way too far to say that’s the only reason why Burnham’s character has been hard to relate to.

The fractures in Discovery’s writers room have repeatedly taken a toll on the coherence of the character. And the hyperemotional episodes at the end of season 2 were a long way out of the range of grounded Trek series before.

But more than that, what’s been missing in Discovery is the sense that, as Patrick Stewart put it in the NYCC Picard panel ‘the ensemble is a character in its own right’.

SMG is clearly a great leader of the company and has the respect of her fellow actors.

But it seems that the writers haven’t had the same confidence in Burnham as a leader of the ensemble.

If I have a strong wish for season 3, it would be that the Discovery writers room stop giving Burnham the final line at the expense of other characters, and let her leadership start to naturally grow and shine from the ensemble.

Luke Montgomery

You have a valid point. I would ask that you consider that women are often derided, diminished and dismissed with the sexist trope that they are (as you point out) “hyper emotional.” I suspect that many men feel that their issue is with her being “emotional” when the real issue is that she is not a toxic masculinity character archetype of the “strong leading man”, but rather, a feeling, passionate and sometimes conflicted human woman. After being spoon-fed silly masculine ideals for decades of what a hero is, I can see how some would see a character being the centre of the show and the lead hero, minus these artificially-constructed “manly man” traits would be confusing. People react with hostility to what they don’t understand and are not accustomed to. How can she be the hero when she doesn’t act like a guy? She doesn’t act like a man on TV should act! Exactly. It’s 2019 and heroes no longer have to conform to outdated constructs. You no longer have to “act like a man” to be taken seriously, be respected and be worthy of being the centre of a show. :)

TG47

I have to disagree…

There’s a difference between emotional expression and lurid melodrama – which is where Red Angel and Perpetual Infinity took Burnham.

I’d also like to say that attributing hyperemotional, loss of focus on duty (e.g. not caring about Nhan under her command in Project Daedulus, denying her mother her time suit in perpetual infinity), to alternate female ideal of leadership could seem equally sexist.

Star Trek hasn’t been a hyperemotional show. Discovery is in many ways digging for more emotional expression, but lurid is pretty far beyond the comfort zones of most of its longstanding devoted nerdly audience.

Neither I nor my spouse were comfortable with what we saw in those episodes. We’d liked Burnham up to that point, but the inattention to the needs of others in those scenes really pushed us away.

It wasn’t about Burnham not acting like a man, it was Burnham – an officer with responsibility – being totally self absorbed.

I’ve followed women leaders and men, but I’ve never done it happily when the person leading is caught up in themselves to the point of forgetting about duty and care of others.

Denny C

That nails it. You expressed my perspective far better than I did. In my response to Luke I said that it’s possible to be critical of this series without having those criticisms stem from a perspective that’s sexist, racist or misogynistic. Her character has been mishandled and much of that likely stems from a writer’s room that has lacked stability since the series launched and a show that is still attempting to figure out exactly what it is.

Urban Turf

Denny, I thought you said you moved along. I’m all for constructive criticism, but to claim you’re ‘done with discovery’ but continue to yell about how bad it is at every opportunity seems like an peculiar life choice.

Denny C

I was responding to a comment on my post. That’s pretty much the norm around here, especially after Luke accused me of being racist and sexist. Kinda’ had to respond to that. Also, I would argue that my comments lean toward constructive criticism but, as I stated above, TG47 did a much better job expressing my feelings toward Discovery and the numerous missteps since the series launched.

They may find their footing this season and it may succeed in ways it failed to the first two seasons. With some stability behind the scenes this season that may happen.

Vulcan Soul

Denny, that guy is becoming unhinged, and he is starting to go after and harrass posters with his tired “wayyyycist” cries. Best to ignore him. Don’t feed the troll.

ML31

Best advice there is. There is still one poster remaining on my personal “ignore” list. I see the name and don’t bother even reading the post. I just move on. There were perhaps three others on that list but they are no longer posting here.

Even though I’m ignoring them, I’d STILL like to see an “ignore” function here.

Boze

Actually, I suspect YOU might be the racist and sexist here. Whenever someone mentions Michael Burnham being boring, unappealing, tiresome or unlikeable, you always immediately project your own racism onto them and start harping about “white men” and whatnot. ;)

I don’t care if she’s a “woman of color”, whatever is that nonsensical term even supposed to mean. She could just as well be a “man of cardboard”, a “giraffe of rhubarb”, or a “hermaphrodite of chopped liver” – it wouldn’t change anything, because the problem is in the *character*, not in the looks.
Somehow, even after two seasons, Michael Burnham the *character* is still the weakest point of the show – and since she’s also the central point of the show, the writers have to implement all sorts of nonsense to make it work around her. In the end, it’s as if she was some kind of singularity that bends the time and space around itself, causing spatial discontinuities and causality errors. It’s as if… do you remember that Trek episode of Black Mirror? It’s as if Michael Burnham was the nerdy owner of the simulation, and all the other characters were just programs whose only point of existence is to applaud Michael Burnham. For she’s a jolly good fellow!

Luke Montgomery

Only a racist would say “I don’t care if she’s a “woman of color”, whatever is that nonsensical term even supposed to mean.” What is “nonsensical” about being a woman of color in a world where racism perpetuated by us white people for our own benefit and sexism perpetuated by us men for our own benefit makes being a woman of color a disadvantage… so much so that even labeling obvious racism makes some people emotionally defensive as if to deny makes it not real.

So many of you whiny fanboys who just come for the phaser and ship battles miss the core principles of the franchise. Enjoy the blinking lights!

Garth Lorca

“Only a racist would say “I don’t care if she’s a “woman of color”, whatever is that nonsensical term even supposed to mean.””

Gosh, this is such a tricky question.

Some people believe that the awareness of racial identity is the very root of racism and that “races” shouldn’t even exist.

Others believe that racial awareness, mutual acceptance and pride is the countermander.

Same goes with sexual identity, gender equality etc…

Is progress all about emphazising on those differences or getting rid of those differences once and for all?
Is it all about equality between different GROUPS and group identities or about making every INDIVIDUAL equal by abolishing and overcoming those differences and devisive identities, making everybody part of one world culture that has only the liberated individual at its core?

I dunno what is true. But I believe both factions have a point.

Luke Montgomery

You defensively take issue with the term “woman of color” and mock it comparing it to a “giraffe of rhubarb.” Does doing that, in your mind, make you feel that by denying legitimacy to a woman of color, and all that means in our racist society, it somehow denies legitimacy to the fact that white supremacy exists all around us, and that by denying that it exists, that you don’t have to feel responsible for your own bias and privilege? Just curious (but not optimistic) if you can follow that thought and reflect on it.

Palizia

Michael Burnham is a fine character. The problem isn’t how she’s been written, but how she’s been portrayed. Sonequa Martin-Green is absolutely awful in the role.

Garth Lorca

It believe the idea is getting rid of the very idea of races and cultural group identities altogether. The “giraffe of rhubarb” comparison is slightly out of line but I get his point. It all depends on how you define progress and overcomig of racism.

If every individual was to reject his cultural, racial heritage or group identity – every last single one of both white supremacists and black supremacists alike – then everybody would be equal as an individual and race would simply not matter. Nor would sexual identity, gender etc…

I’d welcome that, but on the other hand, we would lose a lot of positive, affirmative aspects of cultural identity along the way. But then, as long as there ARE races, there will be racist supremacists on both sides who will always believe they have to fight for their lot.

So what is the better way to equality? Interracial marriage for two generations, turning every offspring into an individual that is neither back nor white? Or protecting the boundaries between races, only fighting for equal rights for all group identities?
What is more important: equality and freedom for the individual set free from the restrictions of race, gender and sexual identity? Or equality and pride for every group, culture, gender etc?

These are two concepts that completely contradict each other though both are meant to fight traditional racism and sexism in their own way…

The English language tries to eliminate gender suffixes like actress, waitress and stewardess, emphazising on the overcoming of differences. Using old-fashioned female forms is considered sexist.

The German language does the EXACT opposit. Here, emancipation is all about ADDING those suffixes, therefore emphazising on those differences. Skipping the female “-in” at the end is considered sexist!

I think that illustrates the core issue… a solution present to you I cannot.

Denny C

Well, if you had ever met me you would really be rethinking that whole ‘racist’ thing, especially since Sonequa Martin-Green looks a heck of a lot like my mother so, yeah, you’re way off base there. I’m male but pretty far from white.

Not sexist either. I was a fan of Voyager and was one of many who praised a series with a female lead and strong female supporting characters. Deep Space Nine took that first step, Voyager took it a step further.

So, with that in mind, it’s not that we have a woman as a lead or that she’s a woman of color. My complaint from the start has been that they took a great actress and placed her in a role that wasn’t fully realized and often mishandled.

I appreciate where you’re coming from but you’ve completely misread me. It is possible to be critical of this series without having those criticisms stem from a perspective that sexist, racist or misogynistic.

Mike

I’m a big fan of both Sisko (a black man), and Janeway (a woman), as well as their respective actors.

But “Michael Burnham” (the character) has never sat well with me. She’s the “Mary Sue” of the series, not far from being a Wesley Crusher type character, either being a know-it-all, or useful in every situation, to the detriment of those around her.

TG47

Mike, this is what I’m getting at when I say I’d like the writers to trust the character.

She doesn’t need all the super-special origins, or the last word in every discussion.

We don’t need a 3 minute break in the action, paralyzed by emotion when every second counts, in order to grasp the depth and power of the intense emotions she’s experiencing.

I keep coming back to Avery Book’s view that it was crucial for Sisko to be a fairly ordinary black human male – no privileged family – just a black guy who pursued a career in Starfleet. It was a big discussion in the early 90s.

Michael Burnham as a woman of colour likewise shouldn’t and doesn’t need all the ‘extra’ to be a hero or a leader.

Mike

“We don’t need a 3 minute break in the action, paralyzed by emotion when every second counts, in order to grasp the depth and power of the intense emotions she’s experiencing.”

This was very off-putting throughout Season 2. When something crucial was happening, where every second matters… they instead show us Michael, “ranting” about her emotions for what seemed like minutes. Most notable example being when they deliberately put the ship in-between regular space, and mycelial space.

Actors can achieve a lot, sometimes with just a look, without having to resort to lengthy speeches when a look would suffice.

GermanTrekkie

@Garth Lorca

You propose an opposition between embracing you culture and heritage and getting over our differences. Fair enough. But why should there be opposites?
In my view the truth is somewhere in the middle. But some thoughts here are deeply troubeling.
E.g. the thought of breeding out differences like skin color to “prevent“ racism is wildly absurd. And moving over to sexual orientation, gender etc. How would you even begin trying to “breed those out“?
I think the term Equality is wildly misunderstood in your comment. And breeding out differences is not only borderline facist, it is deeply racist in itself. Why even bother “crossbreeding races“? Why not just whipe out all but one Race and then racism will be “over“’…
People are flawed anyway. They are power hungry and self centered. Even in a society of “same looks“ they will find reasons to deem others less worthy and building power structures upon that which benefit them and “their people“.

So, why should we get hung up in the “interracial marriage“ question. Does it not come down to individual choice? If one wants to marry that way, let her/him. If he/she does not want to, do not force him/her to.
For me it is all about inclusion, as racism is about exclusion. It is fine if you are a certain way or decide to be or behave a certain way or decide to do a certain thing as long as no harm is done (which of course is the point where “-ism“ and “-phobia“ people tap in and propose abstract harm to society)
Who is harmed, when we add a third sex is established? Who is harmed by same sex marriage? Those are just things most people are able to decide, do, express, but now we INCLUDE some more people which can now do/decide/express what most of us are already granted.

So. In my view fighting “-ism“ and “-phobia“ is not about abolishing differences. It’s reflecting on how they influence our judgement and how our societies still have this preconceptions working in institutionalized form. How certain groups benefit and certain groups suffer from the way things are structured right now and how we can Change that and how we can recognize in ourself ware just afraid of losing power as a group.

Of course pride, especially hereditary pride, is a whole new complex. I get where you are coming from. Its the “why is white pride worse than black pride“ discussion. I find “pride“ problematic for many reasons.
I can be two things: proud of something that was hard to do and can now be presented. I can love where I live and feel at home with traditions of the people I grew up with. But I cannot be proud of my country/race/accomplishments of people from my country/heritage. I can maybe be happy for them or something. But I can certainly not cheer and be proud if “my“ team wins a soccer game.

Now, “Gay Pride“ for me is fine, because the “pride“ does not reflect that one is proud to be gay (im my view you cannot be proud on something you had no power over) but one can absolutely be proud of having stood up for yourself in a societies that partly disregards your very existence.

About hereditary pride… for me it is fine to identify with your heritage and love the place you live in and the people who raised you and the people before them.
But in my opinion, this should also happen in a self reflective manner.
You should embrace the good things but also acknowledge bad things. You should be able to constructively critizise the thing and the people you love.
When pride leads to blindness and being selfabsorbed, self ridgeousness and the disregard of other groups, it becomes dangerous.
So. White Pride may be considered objectively worse than Black Pride because it fails to acknowledge the apparent damage it has done for centuries. As a german I can like Beethoven, Goethe, the Brothers Grimm but also hate the Nazis and dislike the GDR. And as I am not proud of anything “my country“ has done or does, I am also not ashamed of things I have not committed. BUT as I always try to learn from the past and my own and other peoples mistakes, I feel a responsibility to let certain things never happen again and try to take part in informed discussions regarding themes of equality.

Vulcan Soul

@GermanTrekkie – There is an enormous blind spot in current discourse regarding the fact that ALL races, ethnicities, nations, cultures have committed atrocities and genocides of enormous scale throughout human history. It is, sadly, a universal human “quality”. Neither is slave trade a unique “white” concept. Not to go off a tangent, some quick keywords: Rwanda, Golden Horde, Barbary slave trade. The idea to single out white/western people is radicalism, plain and simple. By the way, it IS true that Western culture is the only one that developed the concepts of democracy and human rights, without which many of us would not even participate in this discussion (just look at the state of things for minorities and dissidents in some of the societies that are apparently revered by some of those white-haters). The current era of self-hate and one-sided guilt will hopefully prove a fad.

Urban Turf

I am really tired of the term ‘Mary Sue.’ if you don’t like her, ok. but can we please stop trying to put every character into a little box like that? so annoying.

Vulcan Soul

@Urban Turf – Would calling her a “Wesley” be more acceptable and politically correct for you?

The problem in both cases is the character is written unrealistically. Vast parts of Hollywood have no idea how professionals in science or military act or look like; to their mind they are either unlikely superheroes or childish incompetents (à la Prometheus). Trying to delegetimize that criticism by insinuating nefarious motives is not going to change that.

Denny C

That’s pretty much where I’m coming from. Having a kid wasn’t an issue and Wil Wheaton was never the issue, it was how they handled the character which was an issue. Wesley Crusher didn’t really work, Jake Sisko did. It wasn’t the talent behind the character but the approach to the character by the writer’s.

ML31

” Wesley Crusher didn’t really work, Jake Sisko did.”

I have never been a fan of kid characters on Trek. (even when I was a kid!) But the above quote I found to be spot on. Jake DID work. And I think part of it was that he was just a kid with kid issues. Whereas Wesley was a super genius who was often presented to be better than others in the crew. They even got him to leave the show by using that aspect of his character.

Denny C

And he was an ANNOYING super genius. Will Wheaton worked with what he had but he deserved a lot better. Jake was just Jake. His father was a Starfleet officer and where dad went he went (and he also gave is one of he greatest Star Trek episodes of all time with “The Visitor”).

Urban Turf

it’s also a common fallacy to believe that a minority can not be racist against minorities. I do not think you are racist, but that’s a commonly used argument that is simply not true. I am jewish, and I know at least one jewish person in my community who dislikes and is bigoted towards other jewish people. it’s a common form of self-loathing. an interesting psychological phenomenon you should read about.

Vulcan Soul

Not only that, a minority can also be racist against a majority! Which is why the ongoing Orwellian attempt by certain radical factions to change people’s thinking by changing our language (Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) and redefining the meaning of words is so nefarious. Racism is universal in history and cultures and has nothing to do with “power structures”, period.

German Trekkie

People are people, I am aware of that. I am aware that any group of people can fall into tribalism, we do not need to look at ethnic groups for that, just look at gatekeeping fandoms. But do not start with me on “Selfhate“ and “White Guilt“ and “White People Invented Civilization“.

Certain traits are inherent in any human / society of course. I think I tried to hammer that point in.
But what does it help the discussion here when looking at american history, the colonisation, WWII and saying “Well, africans kill children, too“? Does this help to explain the historical contexts?

Please correct me if you must, but the old greeks and romans who “invented“ democracy still excluded slaves and all nongreek and nonromans from being worthy of the concept.
In modern day, women hat to fight for their right to vote andund black people had to fight to end seggregation. You ever heared of certain civil right movements?

If you acknowledge that the current state of the world evolved from its state 50 years ago (you sure wont deny that notion), you may be able to at least entertain the idea, that laws and structures which perpetuated inequality in our societies still have effects today even if they are not longer the law. Discrimination is forbidden.
Murder is forbidden. Sure you do not wonder why there is still murder.

Vulcan Soul

GermanTrekkie, to stay with yout murder analogy, it does not matter if a poor person murders a rich one or vice versa for it to be “murder” and carry appropriate punishment. It is the same with racism. Yet this is exactly what is being denied by some loonies nowadays (see below). I fiercely reject the notion that anyone carries any guilt whatsoever because of their skin color, for historical atrocities they and their families had nothing to do with. Likewise, nobody is automatically a perpetrator and “privileged” solely because of their skin color, neither is someone automatically marginalized and discriminated and in need of special assistance because of their skin color. Because we are all INDIVIDUALS with different innate abilities, experiences and life paths. To see a group of people not as individuals but solely as representatives of a certain skin color (such as the nonsensical term ‘woman of color’ implies), is racist thinking, which we primarily find today among those who claim to be the speakers for these allegedly “disprivileged” (handouts for votes, to say it more cynically).

In Star Trek, we are supposed to have moved beyond all this racial nonsense, as one poster above rightly stated, yet in reality we are regressing to more racial division, and this toxic religion called identity politics is a major reason for that.

Michael Hall

Oh, nonsense. Racial hierarchies are, in fact, entirely enforced through existing power structures — how the hell else would you do it?

Vulcan Soul

What “racial hierarchy”, man! I suggest you get off whatever mushrooms you been smoking since the 1960s. Anyone can be a racist. Even you, Michael :)

Michael Hall

If you think there’s never been a hierarchy based on race in these United States, magic mushrooms are the very least of your problems.

(And yes, it’s entirely possible I have an unconscious racial bias, having lived in this society my whole life. What of it?)

Vulcan Soul

There certainly isn’t one today. And the world is so much bigger than the US, not everyone hails from it or is bound by its cultural limitations. I suggest you broaden your horizon, and start living in the here and now. It’s not the 1800s anymore :)

Denny C

My great grandmother preferred one twin son over another. One looked strikingly anglo, the other not-so-much and Great Grandma made her preferences known. It happens even within families but, again, my issue is not with Michael or her being a woman of color. It’s about HOW they’ve handled her character. Taking a step back and looking at this show objectively seems a near impossibility since the response by far too many seems to be rooted in a belief that any criticism must stem from racism or sexism.

CBS was eager to get Star Trek on All Access and they did but for two seasons it’s felt like a work in progress. This season may turn that around if they’ve figured out who Michael is and if they’ve finally lock down a concept for this series.

Vulcan Soul

I never had an issue with Sisko, Tuvok or, for that matter, Worf! That said, Discovery IS becoming worryingly “black-and-white” in its casting. Somebody needs to tell these folks there are more ethnicities on Earth (and in America even) that are hardly ever featured, especially in high-profile roles. Makes for some easier belief in “United Earth”.

ML31

Denny, I’m sure you are aware that there are some people who make race an issue no matter what the subject matter. Weather it was there or not. They love to assume (more often than not incorrectly) every comment has racial undertones and feel compelled to point it out. I’d love to point it out but others have done that for me so I try to keep my comments on the subject to the bare minimum.

Vulcan Soul

This has been said many times but what this place desparately, urgently needs is an ignore/block function. Some discussions and posters are just a giant waste of time. The Second American Civil War will come regardless in 10 or 20 years (100% sure of that) and those who consistently put the needs of the few above the needs of the many in their religious zeal will be able to claim responsibility for it…

German Trekkie

What the hell are you talking about? Thats kind of a semi religious apocalyptic scenario there isnt it?

You obviously do not read my comments thorougly as i stated again and again that i do not believe in inherent guilt (original sin nonsense too).

I also stated several times that anyone can be racist or is even inherently so because of human Psychology. Heck i see myself as left leaning and reflect on moments in my life where i had unconscious racist reactions.

One last time i want to propose to you that former inequalities constituted through the state (any state) have effects on today.

Nazi Germany and the Holocaust are the cause of the fact that today there are still very few jewish germans living in germany.
The native americans today would not exactly say the past went well for them and they benefit fully from todays society.

Of course any individual is (mostly) responsible for what he does and decides what to do with its life.
But you wont ever convince me that everyone gets the same chances or anyone can make it if he/she/they just try.

Some are rejected by systems just because their are a certain way.

But people who are argumenting in your vein will always blame those people for inventing excuses and being just lazy.

Vulcan Soul

“But you wont ever convince me that everyone gets the same chances or anyone can make it if he/she/they just try”

I never asserted that, and nobody knows that better than myself :)

“Some are rejected by systems just because their are a certain way.”

Some people are rejected not for the color of their skin or sexuality but their way of thinking, and that’s harder even because you can’t easily see it.

German Trekkie

BTW one would think you want to engage in discussions with people who do not share your opinions. Who would you like to block?
Isnt that an accusation normally directes to left commentators, that they cant handle other opinions and would rather block and censor other talking points?…

Vulcan Soul

GermanTrekkie, calm down, I was not at all referring to you! You have stayed with the subject matter and argued calmly, which can not be said about a small number of other posters who started with ad hominem instead, and THOSE I was responding to. And no, I do not need to accept other people go after and harrass me on here. I’m not calling for their general blocking, that is up to the mods, but I want them out of my sight, out of my mind, because discussion with them is clearly a waste of time, and I have better things to do than read their personal insults.

Legate Damar

Was that a Trill? I wonder if Dax might make an appearance. Has it ever been confirmed how long symbionts live for?

Luke Montgomery

THAT would be awesome

jay

Dax will be a nice surprise!

Tiger2

Someone on Reddit said 20,000 years so that would cover their bases lol.

GermanTrekkie

Who spotted Morn?

Legate Damar

How long do Lurians live for? Its got to be Morn and not another Lurian, since most Lurians have hair. Unless this guy’s also got a stomach full of latinum.

GermanTrekkie

You got your trek lore down, hats off :) maybe it is just a mistake… like the photo of bald young Picard in Nemesis ;)

Tiger2

Wow, I LOVED this trailer! I’m not too surprised by it, everyone was predicting the story would go toward the Federation falling but I am super intrigued. But I am pretty surprised how many familiar species showed up. Trills are one of my favorites, its so cool we are going to get them again! I’m hoping, REALLY hoping one of them is Dax. Everyone seems to want that lol. That would be an amazing tie in and a great reminder of the ‘past’. And we (sort of) get another familiar character and not feel forced since they are so far in the future.

And it looks like Discovery will be in the thick of trying to help whatever is left of the Federation. Again if true no big surprise of course, but it may explain how the ship won’t feel like a total relic if few starships are still around in this period (even a thousand years into the future and Disovery still manages to be the most advanced ship in the franchise lol). Its amazing where this show has come in just three seasons. It now looks and feels like a totally different show and for the better IMO. Hopefully it will be good.

I wish Star Trek could go back to episodic storytelling. Having the crew time-travel to a dystopian future is fine for a one-off adventure, but I can’t get hyped over a full season of this.

And based on dialogue in the trailer and Georgiou’s role in the new Section 31 series, it seems very likely that they’re going to fix this all with time travel and it won’t even be the “real” future anyways. That makes it hard to feel invested in anything that happens.

Tiger2

I don’t think its going to be that simple. They JUST did a big time travel story last season, two in a row would start to feel a bit lazy. Although it would be funny they had to go to the future to save the past in season 2 only to go to the past to save the future in season 3 lol. Man, if that does happen I can already hear the moans all the way to the Delta quadrant.

albatrosity

Kurtzman himself on the panel said that they have no intentions to bring Disco back to the 23rd century

Tiger2

He did? OK, THANK GOD!!!! I want to see the show thrive in this period. They can really make it a home for themselves and go crazy with the story lines. This has me even MORE excited for the future of the show. :)

For people who want 23rd century Trek again, I’m guessing they will do something with Pike in the future.

TG47

He also said firmly that they were in the timeline.

So, no ‘go back and fix’ solutions.

Tiger2

Yes even more good news. I love Star Trek time travel stories like most fans (most of my favorites come from TNG and DS9 and enjoyed all the film time travel stories) but I don’t want to watch an entire season of something just to know at the end they are going to just go back in time and *poof* back to normal. It’s fine for a movie or an episode but an entire season of it is something else.

Last season was fine since obviously the point was to put the show in a new setting and none of us even knew the story was really about time travel until halfway into the season. I will say that was one of the more unique things the show did because we’re usually told upfront its a time travel story. To discover it as the story went made it more interesting.

But I really like the idea Discovery is staying in the 32nd century and whatever they have to resolve won’t be wrapped up by episode 13 like the Klingon war was. It sounds like the show will be about reviving the Federation and Discovery’s place in this era.

I still think they will bring Georgiou back to the 23rd century, though, potentially causing/setting that last red signal that Spock sees months after Discovery jumped…

ML31

But they also said we would never see Spock. So I think we need to take what they say with many grains of salt.

Tiger2

This is different though. Clearly this is just a big reboot of the show in general. They might come back in the last episode or something but they have made it clear this what the story is now. Maybe something will change but my guess is it won’t be for a few seasons assuming Discovery stays on that long.

And I don’t see the point of coming back since we were told over and over again this was done to resolve the canon issues they kept promising. Well this is it. If they go back it would be the exact same issues again.

ML31

Except I really don’t think it resolves a their canon issues. Perhaps some of them at best. But there will still be issues that will be impossible to remove unless Discovery is somehow erased from existence.

And again, I don’t have a HUGE problem with canonical issues IF the show is well written and has a good story line. Canon issues only get big when the overall quality of the show is poor to begin with.

Tiger2

Well it resolves the two biggest ones:

How come Spock never talked about having a sister in Starfleet (“It’s classified to talk about her, NEVER TALK ABOUT HER AGAIN!!!”)

Why we never saw the spore drive pop up in other shows. (It ‘blew up’ with Discovery, darn.)

I mean end of the day those are really the only ones that matter long term. But either way if the ship was really coming back, they wouldn’t have had Spock say those ridiculous lines and created a ‘cover up’ over it. I’m still baffled why they went this route that they had to pretend everyone died and mentioning anyone’s name will get you some time in the brig but it’s still Discovery I guess.

ML31

I never saw the adoptive sister thing thing as a canon violation. I saw it as a bad creative choice. So in that sense, they were fixing something that didn’t require fixing. The spore drive really is a thing because there are still a TON of people at Star Fleet who know about it and I cannot believe there is no one who didn’t start working on it again even if they were unaware of the Discovery time shift. For me, the biggest canon issue was the amazingly advanced tech for the era. That issue was still not solved in any way.

A34

The Spore Drive was an above top secret system that has the potential to end all life in the multiverse. Starfleet would be insane to announce its existence. Just imagine if the Cardassians had a fleet of Spore Drive warships.

Edward Samuela

My guess is this season will involve finding out what caused the fall of the Federation and the crew finding a way to return home in order to make sure it doesn’t happen.

And if the Section 31 show is still a thing, that will have to happen in order to get Empress Georgiou back in order to be a part of it.

Legate Damar

That could make sense, given the line about trying to find the first domino.

Tim

I have a feeling that the Kelpians are the Enemys of the future and Discovery is responsible because they speeded up her evolution in the past. Saru cant hold back his instincts any longer and in a wise sense he retired as Captain.

TG47

Tim, I think that there’s more to the Kelpians’ story even back in the 24th century.

Reflecting on the season finale, I’m really wondering if the time tsunami that Discovery escaped sped up time on Kaminar.

This would explain the Kelpians having advanced, acquired the Ba’ul ships, and learned how to fly and fight them while only a few months at most had passed in the broader timeline.

Every time someone asks Doug Jones or Kim/Lippolt about after effects on Kaminar, the response is : nope, that’s all done now.

But Kim and Lippoldt have been among the Discovery writers who are more careful with continuity and most into time effects and time crystals…

They are also the leads in creating the S31 show…

I note that Doug Aarnowski is directing the episode currently in production (Ep 4 or 5)…and he has been the one directing their scripts, so I’m looking towards a major plot development with Georgiou, Saru and/or time travel a third of the way into the season.

ML31

Tim, I think that is a GREAT concept! What a pariah that would make of the Discovery and her crew to the folks in the future! That idea can’t possibly be what they have in mind for the show because it’s just too juicy and rife for great storytelling by competent writers.

Luke Montgomery

Looks super exciting. Trill! Andorians! Was that Morn? Will we see a Dax? I bet that the federation guy with the flag is a hologram… as is the guy with Burnham on the planet (Look at his jacket… is that a mobile emitter?) Taking a dip in the Trill cave hot tubs seems fun. Glad to see these DS9/Voyager elements brought back. Also, I love how they rock Michael’s black hair. No straightened hair to made to conform to white beauty standards. So excited!

Tiger2

I think you hit all my sentiments! Its just cool to see so many known characters again and bringing in elements from the other shows. Its doing its own thing but still bringing in things we are very familiar with. And we will probably see all these guys in a new light. Who knows, maybe it’s the Romulans who are now the peacekeepers of the galaxy (I know know perish the thought ;)).

And you’re also right that maybe some of the newer characters are actually more than just normal humans. The actor who plays Booker (the guy on the planet with Burnham) said that next season was going to show a huge advancement of technology and SMG basically said he was a representation of the new world they were entering. She could just be talking about his motivation or personal place in the universe but it does sound like something much deeper than that. He could be a hologram as you suggested or maybe even an android. I’ve always envisioned we would see a story on Star Trek of finding an entire race of androids. Who knows maybe they have cracked Data’s positronic brain and built more of them where they finally became fully self conscious and have their own race Picard predicted could happen in Measure of a Man.

Or maybe not lol. The point is the possibilities are endless now.

Tim

0:38 Birth of Commander Michael DAX or a kind of mind melt with the Dax-Symbiont ?
0:57 Georgiou is wearing a gold Uniform. The piece of her Badge thats visible looks like from an Admirals-Uniform. Saring trange!
0:58 Michael is wearing a gold Uniform so she is first Officer or maybe the Captain at that time.

MysticalDigtial

“0:38 Birth of Commander Michael DAX or a kind of mind melt with the Dax-Symbiont ?”

Freeze framing, it doesn’t look like Michael at all imho

TG47

Agree that the figure in the pool doesn’t look like Burnham.

On the other hand, Tim is correct that Burnham – with long hair – is in a gold-trimmed uniform at .58.

I’m reading that as First Officer for 2 reasons
1) she doesn’t have gold on the shoulders (no epaulettes)
2) as far as I can tell in a freeze-frame, there are only 3 pips on her band.

That would sound logical. I expect the whole Discovery series to end with Burnham becoming captain and until then, having a different captain every season.

Tim

Discovery looks intact and fully repaired.
So finding ressources seems not to be a problem in the future.

Well, Burnham could acquire a shuttle and quite a bit of possessions in the year where she let her hair grow out, apparently…

PEWDIEPICARD

Thank goodness for Picard.

331dot

Saw the Lurian, near the end.

albatrosity

I just wish Disco had done this from the get-go, been in the right place at the right time, as it were, instead of two seasons of stumbling trying to figure out its place in the universe and its relation to canon. Disco is now this Time Trek vehicle, and the Trek universe is now the only franchise that I can see where every series takes place in its own timeframe. You’re gonna need an encyclopedic knowledge of the timeline to make sense of it all, I fear.

Legate Damar

I think, for the most part, casual fans won’t need to know or care how the different shows relate to eachother.

Sam

They don’t really care nor need to know, no. If you give them a good enough Trek that’s worth their attention, they’ll know it. But they’ll also know that’s the exception and not the rule.

Tiger2

Agreed albatrosity, agreed! I think DIS wouldv’e gotten bigger fanfare from the start because we wouldn’t had spent 2 seasons arguing about why everything look so advanced, why being someone’s sibling makes no sense, why the new uniforms look so different, why the Klingons look so different (OK, that would’ve stayed lol) instead of just ENJOYING the story it was telling (of course if the story was actually better, well…).

I can feel there is a lot more excitement for this show after the trailer (although to be fair there was certainly when the season 2 trailer hit) but this feels a little different. Discovery is on her own now. They can’t bring in Spock or a young Picard ancestor to get people’s attention. Its going to be its own thing now and most importantly has 800 distance between all the other shows so that gives it all kinds of leeway no show has ever gotten. Its going to be REALLY fun to see where it all goes. :)

dswynne

The show should have been post-NEM from the get-go, with its own world-building.

Sam

I can’t agree. It should have been the series Fuller was preparing, instead of his getting fired from the series because CBS didn’t realize how much time/money would be involved. The show lost its identity at that point and has been stumbling ever since. Whatever show it was going to be never got realized.

Legate Damar

I thought he left because he was trying to do Discovery and American Gods at the same time.

Trellium G

I thought he wanted to do an anthology series, but the suits rejected it because of costs.

Tiger2

As someone who really likes Fuller and was excited to see him working back on Star Trek I’m pretty happy he’s gone now. I think he just went too far in some places. He was the one who wanted the Klingons changed to what they were and that was just a disaster IMO.

And the show could’ve stayed in it’s original setting if it at least emulated some of TOS and not completely ignored it. And clearly the producers recognized that and basically just rebooted the show putting it somewhere else.

But I don’t think that’s the reason they put it a thousand years into the future. I think they just wanted the freedom to do their own thing and it’s more fun to come up with advanced tech and concepts while shaping the universe how you like. They clearly want to do more of that judging by what we got the first two seasons.

Now it can have it’s own identity away from all the shows while creating the 32nd century anyway it wants and not feel pigeon hold to it like it was being so close to TOS.

But yes it should’ve been post Nemesis on day one. It doesn’t mean the show would’ve been better of course but it would’ve saved them a lot of headaches lol.

Vulcan Soul

Then again, Tiger, we would never have gotten this stellar Captain Pike ;)

Tiger2

True, but I think if Fuller stayed on we wouldn’t have got him at all. And I also think if Pike was introduced in the first season along with the Enterprise, it too probably would’ve looked and felt a lot different than how he was in season 2. Maybe not bad but I doubt better.

And Pike really worked because they realized all the mistakes they made in season one and used Pike to make it feel more ‘Star Trek’. And yes it was indeed a huge success.

My guess is we WILL see something Pike related in the future outside of Short Treks. I still don’t think a full on show but maybe a miniseries or TV movies. And more so now that we know for a fact Discovery isn’t coming back to the 23rd century.

TG47

I’m a bit anxious about Pike after Kurtzman’s reaction/response to the inevitable question at the NYCC Discovery panel.

He seemed to be somewhat anxious and less coy this time as compared to SDCC.

I’m not convinced that he’s managed to get as far with the CBS powers that be on this as we’ve hoped.

On the other hand, strong and positive fan response to the 3 Pike’s Enterprise Short Treks may be what’s needed to convince the CBS executives.

Perhaps it’s time for those of us who haven’t added our names to the petition to get on board and generate momentum.

Vulcan Soul

I also think the Short Treks are a “test bed” for more Pike (or not). They certainly kept all options open by constructing a real bridge set (and maybe also to convince TPTB that many of the expenses of more Pike are already covered).

Urban Turf

proof you can’t please everyone. they did exactly what fans wanted and still people moan.

Dswynne

The Federation could still exist, but it is either in a state of decline or it has been changed into something un-Federation-like. At least, they did not wound up in the distant past, so that they can be the reason the Federation come into existence…

Legate Damar

If they had, at least it would have been a good way to see Archer and the others again. I do hope that they find a way to bring back some Enterprise characters some day.

Tiger2

But everyone has been yelling to go forward again. I don’t think most would’ve been happy with another version of Enterprise.

And the Kelvin movies already had someone from the future going to the past permanently, I don’t think they wanted to repeat the same idea.

ML31

I’d just like to see a movie special or a one season series with them just to get some sort of closure. But yes, that ship has indeed sailed it seems.

Legate Damar

Yeah, I’m not asking for Enterprise season 5, although that would be awesome. A movie or a miniseries would be good though.

Vulcan Soul

How about a Short Trek on Enterprise with a few guest stars from the show? Virtual sets have come a long way since Babylon 5, so the additional cost (compared to other Short Treks) could be minimal.

I’m really thankful for this format, both its length and its openness to experimentation (especially since the “open script policy” went down together with the Berman era), and I hope they only keep expanding it in that respect.

Palizia

Daniels on Discovery. Make it happen, showrunners.

Tiger2

YES PLEASE YES!!!! But Daniels was born in the 31st century IIRC, that’s a century too early. But yeah, I know, the guy is a time traveler, so…

jay

I would like to see Daniels and Archer. Very unfortunate ST Enterprise was not able to continue with the story.

Legate Damar

I think Storm Front was supposed to be the conclusion of Daniels’ story anyway. The Temporal Cold War was over, and Archer was on track to take his place in history, so Daniels wouldn’t need to visit him anymore. It would have been nice to get some closure on Future Guy though.

Sam

Feels like the 1st season of a potentially good series. Though I strongly doubt the serialized format with its two seasons of character development and emotional backstory would allow for such a clean re-start.

Adama

I hate that this group of terrible writers get to shape the canon future of Star Trek. Hate it. It wasn’t enough that they retconned the OT and Spock to make Burnham the one to thanks for Spock and Kirk historic friendship. Not they have freedom to bring his terrible decisions to the post-Nemesis Trek. Nice one.

Please stop right there. Not liking people’s work is fine, hating the people themselves is completely anti-Trek, and is the stuff wars and destruction are made of. Please criticize the output of people’s work but not the people themselves, esp. when you don’t know them in person.

Palizia

It’s perfectly fine to draw conclusions about people from their words, we do it all the time in these comment sections below the articles.

Urban Turf

I feel like I’m the only one to be disappointed it’s leaving the prequel era. if they wanted a show set post nemesis, create something new. I liked the prequel aspect of it. I’m actually less interested in Picard than I expected I would be, having grown up on TNG. I’m just not interested in seeing where these characters went after the movies. Those characters stories are done, in my eyes.

whereas, the time period before TOS I find really interesting. discovery needed a lot of work, but I really liked the time period.

Trellium G

You aren’t the only one, Urban Turf. But we are in the minority it seems. I prefer to think of Discovery season 3 as a new show without a name change. Similar to the retooling other shows go through when the studios aren’t happy with the ratings but have too much invested to just cancel the show.

Hopefully a Pike series will happen.

ML31

I’m in your group. I don’t mind shows in or near the TOS era. Although my first choice would be post TUC, there is room to make interesting stories between Enterprise and TOS. I just think this crew seriously dropped the ball on the show from day one. All the changes didn’t help either and now this show is starting to look like Seaquest. They were moved to the future in an attempt to shake up and revive the show. That didn’t fare too well for them. I’m not hoping for failure here but I honestly don’t think this move is going to help Discovery either. I hope I’m wrong because in the end I just want to see good Trek regardless.

TG47

I’m hopeful that the much-desired untitled Pike series will allow us to explore more in the time period before TOS.

Discovery was predicted on a more trippy post-Farscape concept of what a sci-fi show can be, and seemed to struggle with the TOS era.

So far everything we’ve seen with Pike, Spock Number One and the Enterprise has worked – including the latest Short Trek.

If it’s the vehicle that works for this era, I’d be fine with it.

Tiger2

Well I would be lying if I said I was disappointed lol. But same time I had basically resigned to the fact that this was the show and expected season 3 to stay in the 23rd century, just with a new mission or some mystery to solve like season 2. I was really getting use to the idea it was in this setting, especially as they made changes to feel closer to it and added Pike.

No show has ever radically changed its premise like this before which probably tells you Discovery wasn’t the big hit others wanted to proclaim and they wanted to shake it up a lot. But yes I can certainly understand others would be disappointed.

But they probably will come back to the era at least in a year or two. The Section 31 show does seem to be the biggest contender but I am feeling more and more that Georgiou may not make it back there and maybe even stay in that period. We’ll know by this season I guess. If not a Pike show is still possible and at least the most likely to succeed so I’m sure its being heavily considered.

Or something else entirely.

Cmd.Bremmon

Agreed (on the awesome TOS era). Wish we could get that Pike / Number One series. And Final Frontier (the novel) made into a Robert April movie.

Bart

My, my, even 930 years into the future Michael Burnham is the chosen one to save everything and everyone… sigh.

Legate Damar

Well…yeah. Its her show. It would be weird if the fate of the galaxy rested with Keyla Detmer this season.

Vulcan Soul

“Its her show”

And that’s the major thing that is still deeply wrong with Discovery for me and many others. Yes, it’s called DISCOVERY and not THE BURNHAM CHRONICLES. TNG was NOT “Picard’s show”. Yes, he was the Captain, but the Captain of an ensemble of Starfleet senior officers (and Wesley, yikes!) Even the TNG movies which kind of deviated from the formula were not Picard only but had Data as equally important part. Voyager had Janeway, Seven and the Doctor. DS9 had Kira and Dax next to Sisko. TOS, of course, was the triumvirate of Kirk, Spock and McCoy. I just feel this was an important aspect of Trek storytelling least necessary to jettison in order to ‘modernize’ the show. And Burnham is simply not interesting and well-played a character enough for many of us to justify such a pivotal focus. It’s kind of the same problem as with the singular, season-long arcs: if you dont like it, you have no alternative and are out. No variety, no diversity (teehee). So I don’t think this is smart storytelling both from a narrative and business point of view!

TG47

I really hope that Alex Kurtzman and Michelle Paradise were taking note when Patrick Stewart talked during the Picard panel about the importance of the ensemble – and that in TNG it almost became a character in its own right.

Discovery has treated the ensemble poorly in (I think) an absolutely unnecessary effort to raise up Burnham.

Burnham does not and never has needed for other characters to be put down to shine.

It also really goes against the Starfleet values, and success of the crew as ‘family’ anchor in Trek across 5 series.

Vulcan Soul

“Discovery has treated the ensemble poorly in (I think) an absolutely unnecessary effort to raise up Burnham. Burnham does not and never has needed for other characters to be put down to shine.”

We totally agree on that! Making your hero stronger solely by making companions and villains weaker ultimately undermines both.

Legate Damar

Its her show in the same way that TOS was the Kirk and Spock show, or Enterprise was the Archer, Trip and T’Pol show. The ensemble is there, and plays no small role, but some characters are more important than others.

Vulcan Soul

“Its her show in the same way that TOS was the Kirk and Spock show, or Enterprise was the Archer, Trip and T’Pol show”

You kind of made my point now though by admitting that all other shows had MORE THAN ONE main character. We can’t all like the same people and things, so more choice is good and prudent business.

Legate Damar

Is there really a huge difference between having one main character and having two or three?

Vulcan Soul

Yes, yes, there is! Watching Burnham literally lead the show all the time while she’s technically never the captain is straining disbelief, while much of the bridge crew has been pushed to the background (especially in season 1) and even someone like Pike plays second fiddle to her. Several main characters makes for a better balance and more interesting interactions.

Mark Calcagno

And if you don’t like her, which after S2, I don’t, then there’s not much more meat on Disco’s bones. She touches everything.

Mark Calcagno

The problem lies in people’s opinion of Burnham. People who like Burnham like Disco, but if you don’t like her, there’s little more to the show. She overshadows everyone else just enough to where she’s integral to every episode’s plot.

ML31

The really disappointing thing about Burnham is there is such GREAT potential there. And it is just squandered. Wasted. Not only were the shows overall plot and story elements badly done but her character was amazingly mistreated. Given everything about her that character should have at least been interesting if not fascinating. Hence my low opinion of Discovery’s writing staff.

jay

The first seasons are rough, for all Star Trek shows. We need to wait and see. The change of show runners are part of the issues we see in Discovery. Hopefully Season 3 will be in better shape.

Danpaine

I was hoping for something better as well, Bart. And reading this thread is exhausting. I’m moving on to Picard. Enjoy Star Trek: Burnham, everyone.

jay

Different shows for everyone, Danpaine. Enjoy!

Vulcan Soul

I don’t know about Danpaine but I preferred the “old model” where one show had such a diversity and broad appeal with its characters and (episodic) stories that it could be watched by more than a laser-focused subsection of fans: this week a Picard-show, next week a Worf-show. A comedy, hard science fiction, political show, bottle show, horror (even). It is really unfortunate all this has been sacrificed on the altar of “premium TV” dogma.

ML31

That is what you give up when you abandon the episodic concept in favor of a season long story arc. You COULD still get some stand alones IF the season were longer. But with 10-14 episode seasons you really cannot take the time to do anything extra. So it is also a casualty of the short, or “mini” seasons shows are turning to these days.

Danpaine

Agreed, VS.

Jay

Same as Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, and Archer. What is the problem with Burnham!?

A34

LOVE this show

Tony

Inquiry: has anyone figured out which stars are represented on the flag? That feels like something someone out there would know…

Legate Damar

I think for a while it was Earth, Vulcan, and Q’Onos before it became clear that the Klingons were not a part of the Federation.

Cmd.Bremmon

I actually had a FASA officer manual that said just that, that the Klingon’s were part of the Federation. I think Wesley even said something like that in an episode. Glad the writers came to their senses and let the Klingons be independent-watered-down-viking-Romulans-filled-with-honor.

Legate Damar

Its really weird, because by the time that Wesley gave that line there had already been several Klingon episodes that wouldn’t really have made sense if the Klingons were members of the Federation.

There’s always been 3 stars in the Federation flag that were larger than the others. Not sure what exactly they symbolized, though. Interestingly, in this one, it’s now 2, plus 4 others shown. In general, the flag shown in the teaser looks to me just like a stylized, modernized Federation emblem, simplified in the same way that all kinds of logos are updated in our current decade.

Vulcan Soul

I’m sure it’s meant to mean more than a stylistic update. With only 2 main stars left, maybe the Vulcans left the Federation to reunite with the Romulans at last?

Edward Samuela

As far as I know, there’s never been an official explanation, but my favorite theory is one I saw on Reddit a while back.

The three big stars are meant to represent the founding members of the Federation (i.e., Earth, Vulcan, Tellar, and Andoria). How do three stars represent four star systems?

Well the three stars are Vulcan, Tellar, and Andoria as seen from Earth, since it’s the capital world where everything is headquartered.

Trek in a Cafe

There is nothing necessarily wrong with this concept. But… it does seem like the writers of this show feed off of versions of Starfleet: mirror, control, and Now “after the fall” – all very alternative.

Will characters stay “in character”, advance or evolve — within this new future environment? And will we see themes that we have seen before played out again, yet slightly differently? Or something new?

Seeing that moment in the trailer with the mixed alien force reminded me of the rebel group in the mirror universe – completely made of aliens we know. I can’t shake it out my mind that maybe this is a way to build from that moment.

Or is this a beginning to a whole new way of seeing the trek universe?

ML31

Doesn’t really tell us much. Just hints of the Federation being a thing of the past. My theory… Optimistic group from the Federation’s past show up and show the people of the era where they went wrong and offer them hope for a renewed and even great United Federation of Planets. Which was my theory before seeing the trailer. Not saying it can’t be done well. Only that the idea I find to be a bit hackneyed. In that aspect, I hope I’m wrong.

Michael K

I can’t help but thank the Discovery team for acknowledging and accurately representing some of the mythology DS9 built, that alone makes me way more excited for the season than I was. They could have scraped all of that and forgotten that ever existed, but the trailer is saturated with things we can immediately recognize. As a DS9 fan, you always feel like Star Trek has been running away from the rich world DS9 created, so it’s nice to see anything (besides Section 31) used again.

Tiger2

Actually I think that’s why I’m really excited all the things we are getting next year because Kurtzman seems to get it at least and that ALL of the franchise is important and that fans love when the other shows are acknowledged. It doesn’t mean you have to make it overstuffed fan service and throw in every character you can. But its nice to see the consistency and the universe as a whole being integrated. That’s all canon really is.

Because of Picard and Lower Decks, its clear we are going to get a lot of easter eggs and references to TNG, DS9 and VOY so I thought that would be covered. But to see Discovery, even in the 32nd century, using some of these elements is really nice to see. I personally think just having those characters in the trailer made it a lot more popular.

Between all the shows and Short Treks, we are getting every spectrum of the franchise, from tribbles to the Borg, Captain Pike to Seven of Nine, dealing with the explosion of Romulous to the death of Data. It’s pretty wild!

A34

DS9 was the best show in the 90’s era.

Scrypher

I am not sure as to how I feel. Star Trek: TOS was a literary examination of the past. Some of the franchise’s themes include: cold war, WWII, native Americans, hippies movement, Roman and Greek mythologies, mobsters, etc… (Pre-1960s themes). Star Trek: TNG Era was about: religion, WWII, slavery, end of the Cold War, end of capitalism, philosophical examination of ‘what it is to be human’, etc… As with everything in Star Trek, the overall themes are about rebuilding society. Trek examined the past and present, so it can show us the flaws in extreme liberal and conservative ideologies.

Trek was not about just one set of philosophies. Trek was not about progressiveness. Trek was about human evolution. Progress, real societal progress, is a balance of liberal and conservative ideologies. Unites States is falling apart because two extreme movements are tearing up society. As a result of taking a side, CBS’s new Star Trek has destroyed the foundations of the franchise. I have zero problem with rebuilding the Federation. I do have a problem with the lack of balance.

CBS’s Trek is all about pushing a very narrow minded agenda.

Roddenberry’s and Berman’s Trek was all about balance. Although the franchise writers had an agenda, they showed us the dangers of extreme liberal and conservative philosophies. Can you be a Conservative and Environmentalist at the same time? Absolutely. Can you be pro-choice and pro-abortion at the same time? Absolutely. Can you be pro-war and pro-diplomacy at the same time? Absolutely.

Kurtzmen and CBS does not understand the balance in which defines the franchise. Trek’s version of wokeness is ‘the balance’.

Vulcan Soul

“Trek was not about just one set of philosophies. Trek was not about progressiveness. Trek was about human evolution. Progress, real societal progress, is a balance of liberal and conservative ideologies. Unites States is falling apart because two extreme movements are tearing up society. As a result of taking a side, CBS’s new Star Trek has destroyed the foundations of the franchise. I have zero problem with rebuilding the Federation. I do have a problem with the lack of balance.”

Exactly! People are so dug into their partisan positions now they fail to understand “conservative” and “liberal” are per se morally agnostic positions. Conservatism can be good or bad depending if you want to preserve/bring back a prosperous, unsplintered society that works for every citizen, or slavery and class society. Likewise, liberalism can be good or bad depending what kind of change you deliberately or inadvertently look for: true progress for the majority of society, or anarchy and division. A balanced society needs both: the brash idealism of the young to try new recipes, and the experience of the old who know what doesn’t work and is a road to misery. Trek has been the same, a melting pot of ideas, not just skin colors. Unfortunately, the current guard has lost sight of that.

ML31

I will 2nd that response. Very well put.