Watch: New ‘Star Trek: Strange New Worlds’ Promo Introduces Nurse Chapel

And Paramount+ ends the month with their sixth Star Trek: Stange New Worlds character promo, this time for a familiar nurse.

Meet the new Chapel

Joining Captain Pike (Anson Mount), Spock (Ethan Peck), and Number One (Rebecca Romijn) for the new series will be a collection of new and familiar characters onboard the USS Enterprise. One of the classic characters is Nurse Christine Chapel, originally played by Majel Barrett-Roddenberry on Star Trek: The Original Series. The following social media promo introduces us to Chapel on Strange New Worlds, played by Jess Bush.

NOTE: this Instagram version should be viewable to all

More character promos

This Strange New Worlds promo follows Tuesday’s videos for Cadet Uhura and Security Chief La’an , Wednesday’s videos for Lt. Ortegas and Hemmer, and Thursday morning’s M’Benga. We have done an analysis of the first two promos already, and we will be doing the same for the others soon.

Coming in May

The series debuts on May 5th. Paramount+ has provided the following synopsis:

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds is based on the years Captain Christopher Pike manned the helm of the U.S.S. Enterprise. The series will feature fan favorites from season two of Star Trek: Discovery, Anson Mount as Captain Christopher Pike, Rebecca Romijn as Number One and Ethan Peck as Science Officer Spock. The series will follow Captain Pike, Science Officer Spock and Number One in the years before Captain Kirk boarded the U.S.S. Enterprise, as they explore new worlds around the galaxy.

And in case you missed it, here is the teaser trailer…

Find more news and analysis for Strange New Worlds.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This show really looks and “feels” like the TOS but today

Yeah it’s basically what many wanted Discovery to feel like. Just more proof they do listen to the fans and course correct as much as possible.

OR, alternatively, each Star Trek series has their own specific tone, and just like DS9 was different from TNG and VOY was different from ENT and vice versa, SNW has its own distinct tone from DIS and vice versa, which just happens to fall more in line with people’s TOS/TNG-colored preconceptions of what Trek should be merely because, like those two previous series, it takes place on the USS Enterprise (as opposed to the NX-01 Enterprise…).

Yes, more likely this, Michael. That said, I do believe that T2 is right in that they saw that DSC wasn’t satisfying every segment of the fandom, and rather than double down with a spinoff with the same tone (which they could have done seeing as DSC actually is popular and well-watched)– they did something different to appeal to someone new.

And believe me, it must have been very tempting to do a Discovery 2.0 spinoff. If something is doing well, you might want to just give people more of it. Doing something different can be fraught with risk.

Judging from comments and ratings on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes, Discovery is popular with about 50% of fandom. Those who want better writing and better storytelling needed to be served.

And we don’t really know how “well watched” it is. P+ hasn’t released any numbers apart from at one point claiming it was their most watched program. But of course, that doesn’t mean “well watched”. As I’ve said before. The highest point in FL is just over 300′ That is not a high mountain. Just high for Florida.

Yet it’s the 3rd most populated state.

People like him need to be ignored. Anyone trying to claim DSC isn’t well-watched is fooling themselves.

It’s on its fifth season, has a high budget, and more than ever before Paramount has all the data to show if there’s an audience, being on a DTC streaming service.

If nobody was watching, it wouldn’t keep getting renewed. Period. Now, we can debate how much of the existing trek audience is watching it, but I would never lean on IMDB for that. Heavily skewed.

And at the end of the day, if DSC is 50% Trekkies, and 50% new audience, well… you’ve just increased the amount of Trekkies by 50%.

Love it or hate it, DSC is Star Trek, and there’s a lot of people watching, and i’d say the people watching are now part of the fandom. Sorry if that upsets the gatekeepers, but it’s the truth.

Dude… I generally make it a rule to not respond to trolling posts but feel compelled to do so in this case.

Being the most watched in a group of 10 is not the same as being the most watched in a group of 100.

Another more direct example… A network with overall smaller viewership than the rest will for sure have a program that is their highest rated program. But compared to other networks that rating is still pretty low. So that network with overall smaller viewership numbers will probably not drop said program but will still work to come up with others that will help propel them in with the bigger networks.

Therefore, when someone just claims Star Trek Discovery is “well watched” one must realize that is true only from a certain perspective. To ignore that fact is akin to having blinders on.

Pretty much agree with all of your points, however I do enjoy conversing with ML31, who always does make a case to support their views, even though I don’t agree with all of them.

I’m not sure if you really missed the point or are being sarcastic.

They’ve been touting the numbers for the shows that have debuted since the rebrand as always setting new viewership records for P+, without actually giving specifics. Oh how I miss Nielsen ratings and box office tallies.

But I think it’s safe to assume Discovery still out-rates the rest of the lineup, the deal to claw back international rights from Netflix would only be worth it if it was doing well for them. But as you say, good for P+ is a different scale than good for another streamer. Like how Voyager settled into a “good for UPN” level of success which would not have translated as well on a bigger network.

those numbers are still visible and able to be seen, by those who work in the industry.


It seems like Discovery is doing very well on P+ and I would think has gained a lot more viewers since the early CBS All Access days when that site had just a tiny amount of subscribers. P+ isn’t exactly D+ yet but it’s gaining a lot more subs these days. I think part of that is all the new Star Trek of course along with everything else.

Again, we don’t know the numbers but they keep renewing the show and as you said they even brought it back from Nextflix. To me, that seems to indicate it’s at least doing well enough for that site. Discovery may even go a full 7 seasons like the 24th century shows or even higher than that. Honestly, I wasn’t sure if it would even get to a fifth season in the beginning and yet here we are.

Discovery is a real oddball to me. It seems like such a divisive show, at least online, that’s all we have to really go on, but people seem to really be watching it. And that’s all Paramount cares about.

Agreed on P+. It’s steadily become a pretty good service, and the inclusion of Paramount movies really helped. But there’s now quite a few really great exclusive shows on there, and they’re drawing subscribers who are now finding Discovery.

I’d be willing to bet that watches of Season 1 and 2 increased over the last year or two as people went back and watched it as new subscribers browsed the service.

Yeah P+ is definitely a HUGE improvement over AA lol. It’s not even close. AA was of course still young, but without the merger happening, it would’ve just been a niche site for CBS and Star Trek fans basically with little diversity. Now it feels like a real site and what’s crazy is we are paying the exact same amount we were paying for AA, but now we have thousands of movies on top of it.

And Discovery certainly has benefited from it. I think way more people has watched it since the changeover. But all the Trek shows seems to be very popular in general so while people may have originally hated a Trek show going on a streaming site, this was clearly the best decision for the franchise.

I will agree though P+ still needs better original shows outside of Star Trek. I have only still watch mostly just the Trek shows. I know there are better shows now like the Yellowstone shows and the one with Jeremy Renner, they just don’t appeal to me personally. I did watch the first episode of Halo and thought it was OK, but not great. I still plan to watch the entire season and will watch episode 2 soon. And I know a lot of people hate that show who are fans of the game, but I never played it or knew much about it so I don’t have any baggage going in with that regard at least.

“How I miss nielsen ratings”

I don’t miss the nielsen ratings. Neilsen ratings got great shows canned and kept terrible shows on the air longer than they should have. Horrible metric for a shows actual viewing numbers.

And it’s amazing that a Trek fan would miss them, since the original Star Trek is the PERFECT example of the flaw in Nielsen ratings.

Well, I am happy to be able to amaze you! I wasn’t alive in the sixties, but I can tell you the Nielsens prepared me for the cancellation of Enterprise and helped me come to terms with DS9 and Voyager not getting the movie treatment.

I just liked having a metric I knew the people who made decisions about the future of the shows would use. It was flawed, but it was also traceable data we could analyze and debate. I knew that X number of people were in it with me every week, even if the stats were off and the way that was monetized was antiquated.

Now the popularity of the shows is entirely opaque, with subscriber numbers hidden and factors like internet buzz being more important than ever. We technically don’t even know if a Star Trek show is the top performer on P+, let alone how it compares to other hits on other services. I can be told to stay in my lane, but I would really like to know, so sue me.

In the end, it’s fine to let go of the need to feel validated and be content with the shows doing well enough to be renewed on this semi-niche service, but that’s easier to say when we are in a boom period with 5 shows in production. It’s going to be harder when shows start getting cancelled or Paramount+ is absorbed or merged with another service with changed priorities. With no granular data to support why anything happens, it’s kinda just mindlessly absorbing content.

I think Enterprise would’ve lasted longer if they paid more attention to the DVR viewings than ratings, but that’s when all of that was new and the networks wasn’t focused on it at all. Now it’s a different story today. The best example of that today was Agents of Shield. The Nielsen ratings would’ve killed that show by the fourth season but they were super strong for DVR watches and how it lasted for seven seasons.

Today studios have a more direct approach with DVR and streaming viewings. Nielsons was really not an exact science to say the least but it’s still part of the industry standard, just thankfully not the only standard anymore.

Yes. That is my point. I have no doubts Star Trek Discovery is the most watched show on P+. But we have no way of knowing how those numbers compare to other streaming services. Quite frankly I have serious doubts they come close to other programming on the bigger, higher profile streamers. As you say, those numbers are not made public.

That doesn’t really matter since obviously DSC and the Trek franchise are doing very well financially on the service to allow for continual greenlights to new series, and very substantial budgets for each entry. Never so far have we heard of any budget constraints.

So it doesn’t really matter.

We actually have no idea how well they are doing financially. For all we know the streaming stuff is being propped up through other means. They could be willing to take losses for a while to get their service going. It could be doing fantastically well and rivaling Netflix for subscribers. We just don’t know. My theory is that if they were doing as well as the other we would be hearing it from the marketing side. But that’s about all we can gather unless someone has some sort if inside scoop on what’s going on inside the Mountain.

Nah, maybe if it was a private company with venture capital committed, but it’s publicly traded company with dividends to deliver and stockholders to answer to. Publicly traded companies simply don’t invest much in developments that don’t offer payback in 2.5 years…unless you are Apple, Facebook or Google anyway. So it’s extremely unlikely that your scenario could be the case over the amount the years that they are into this now. Can I prove this, no. But I think it’s extremely unlikely.

The only thing I will agree on is that we don’t know the financial goings on with P & specifically, P+.

Better storytelling and writing is subjective. I don’t like it, you may not like it, but it’s awfully haughty and obnoxious to sit there and claim “people who want better TV need to be served.”

Get over yourself, you’re not the barometer of quality storytelling. I mean, there are plenty of people out there who’d say the same about what you consider well-written Trek, who view it as poorly written TV, or who look down on sci-fi in general as populist tripe.

“Get over yourself, you’re not the barometer of quality storytelling. I mean, there are plenty of people out there who’d say the same about what you consider well-written Trek, who view it as poorly written TV, or who look down on sci-fi in general as populist tripe.”

I could not agree with you more. Besides the sentimental reinvention of history that is the foundation of his comment is that the writing on TOS, TNG and other Trek series was typically very good is just ludicrous. Look at the first two seasons of TNG, TOS season 3, most of Enterprise and a lot of Voyager and it’s hard to take his comment all that seriously without having a huge guffaw! LOL, give me a freaking break!

Well, yes, I’m more of a sci-fi fan than a soap opera fan. And I believe that a ship like Discovery should be run by folks who conduct themselves as professionals – rather than indulging in lots of kisses, hugs, tears and cheers, etc. Roddenberry once compared the operation of the starship Enterprise to the running of the aircraft carrier Enterprise. No one in their right mind would turn over the operation of that iconic aircraft carrier to the collection of emotional misfits aboard the Discovery (Saru probably being the only exception; perhaps the doctor as well). Credible characters help with that all-important ‘suspension of disbelief’.

Well, yes, I’m more of a sci-fi fan than a soap opera fan. And I believe that a ship like Discovery should be run by folks who conduct themselves as professionals – rather than indulging in lots of kisses, hugs, tears and cheers, etc. Roddenberry once compared the operation of the starship Enterprise to the running of the aircraft carrier Enterprise. No one in their right mind would turn over the operation of that iconic aircraft carrier to the collection of emotional misfits aboard the Discovery (Saru probably being the only exception; perhaps the doctor as well). Credible characters help with that all-important ‘suspension of disbelief’.

That’ll be Section 31 for sure.

Exactly! It just wasn’t working for a lot of fandom. It doesn’t mean everyone or even most, but clearly not enough. So I’m happy they changed gears with it even if I still don’t love the show. It is much better today IMO.

And I’m not trying to put down Discovery, I’m really just talking about expectations vs reality. If the show was the second or third show made, it may have been a different situation altogether. It was mostly being the first show after a decade of no other Star Trek shows and people wanted stuff like, well, seeking out strange new worlds again; and Discovery definitely didn’t deliver on that.

I wouldn’t say DIS isn’t working for “a lot” of the fandom. Outside of this website, the show gets an awful lot of praise and fans. It’s more likely that there is a small but VERY vocal subset of the fans who need to endlessly complain about the show and insist that it’s on the verge of being cancelled and Alex Kurtzman has been fired. Looking at online review sites such Rotten Tomatoes should never be taken as gospel since there have been shows and films that have been ‘review bombed’ there in order to purposefully drive down scores by angry fans- think The Last Jedi, Ghostbusters 2016, Batwoman etc.

I don’t know… I’m not as connected to social media stuff like my kid is. But I can say that I’m not seeing P+ stuff entering popular culture like TNG did or even other streaming shows do. I’ve asked my kid if he has seen anything in his social media usage and he has claimed hardly anything at all. Admittedly this is all very anecdotal so take that for what it’s worth. We very well could just not be seeing what is going on out there. But I will also add this bit of anecdotal evidence. I personally know about 5 others who were into Star Trek. None of them pay for P+ or were interested in watching these shows. Two of them went in with me the first season of Star Trek Discovery only to drop out after it. And none of them were aware of the new show until I told them. Two have asked me if Picard was any good. The worst thing I said about it to them was it was unfocussed as it tried to do too much.

Again, hardly scientific. Just adding my personal experience to the mix.

Star Trek has been used to break the ice for Paramount for ages. It got them a space in the sci-fi franchise business post-Star Wars. It got them lucrative first run syndication deals that cut out the middle men at networks. It got them guaranteed extra attention for their own network, then their streaming service.

As with what happened with UPN, eventually something, be it Halo or a Taylor Sheridan show or something else, will overshadow Trek, which they’ve probably squeezed about as much out of fandom as they could by now and now just need to hold our interest. Hopefully it’s something more prestigious than WWE Smackdown! or America’s Next Top Model this time. Star Trek tends to have a ceiling of popularity which is great behind a paywall, but they can’t expect it to be more than a building block to expand the service if they want to compete with the big boys.

“Outside of this website, the show gets an awful lot of praise and fans.”

100% agree!

Again, if Discovery was a huge hit from day one, then they wouldn’t have moved it 930 years into the future lol. What’s the saying,, if it isn’t broke…

I get it, you really like the show personally. But you have to also admit there was a LOT of acrimony about it, especially in its first season. And they clearly knew that but from season 2 on, they tried to course correct every issue fans were complaining about from giving the Klingons hair to just making the show feel a little more fun and upbeat. That’s why Pike and Spock was brought on, they knew they had to make it feel a little more ‘TOS’ as possible. Because also remember they said several times we wouldn’t even SEE Spock on Discovery and they changed course on that too.

Clearly this very small but vocal audience has had a profound influence on the show since it’s almost a completely different show now from first season. No Star Trek show has had so many changes since DS9. That was probably the most altered show in the franchise until Discovery showed up. At least DS9 was able to stay in its time period.

All that said, I think Discovery is much more liked today for sure. But look at all the work they done to achieve that. And this is all good IMO. I never understand why some people (not you) get upset when you simply point out the fact the show was changed due to fan pressure? A. EVERY spin off show was changed due to fan pressure of some kind and B. It proves the producers and writers care. They probably see the problems themselves and course correct. If you don’t want your show prematurely cancelled, you simply try to improve it.

But even now, Discovery still seems like a pretty divisive show today. And it’s not just THIS website. Again, this is my point. Go to ANY website where fans can rate the show: Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, Metacritic, etc. Discovery is the lowest ranked show out of all the Star Trek shows. Seriously, just click them on and have a look. Stop acting like people only hate the show on one website. I’m not trying to put down the show, I’m only looking at the data we can find and based on that, Discovery still has a lot of issues overall in the fanbase WHEN compared to the other shows.

It doesn’t mean more people don’t like it or even most people, but it’s also very hated on the other side to a crazy degree. If you can’t admit that fine, but this fallacy it’s really a super popular show that is praised doesn’t show up in reality.

“Again, if Discovery was a huge hit from day one, then they wouldn’t have moved it 930 years into the future lol. What’s the saying,, if it isn’t broke…”

The problem I have with this statement of yours is that Brian Fuller’s original concept for DSC always had them moving to a different Star Trek timeframe. That’s documented.

Bryan Fuller was talking about an anthology show. This is not remotely the same thing. That and the fact he was talking about moving era to era with new crews, ie, TOS era, TOS films, TNG era and eventually a post Nemesis era. Nowhere was it suggested it would just jump 900 years past everything we know lol.

The reason it didn’t fly was because he basically wanted a complete reset every season with new actors and sets and it would’ve been very costly. That’s apples and oranges. And nowhere has it ever been even implied they moved the show to follow what Fuller was thinking. If anything, they basically ignored everything Fuller wanted for the show from season two on and hence why Burnham is now a Captain when she was suppose to be a lower ranked officer.

“According to Entertainment Weekly, Bryan Fuller’s original pitch to CBS had the show starting in Discovery‘s time, but then moving through the eras of Kirk and Picard and then going beyond that, reaching a time period that hasn’t been seen in Star Trek before.”

I mean, we can argue the exact meaning of this, but you claiming the the sole reason they moved the timeline was to salvage a bad series seems a tad disingenuous given Fuller’s original concept involved “reaching a time period that hasn’t been seen in Star Trek before.”

So DSC, while not fully embracing Fuller’s concept, certainly followed through with a big part of it. It certainly seems that they ended up pretty much where Fuller intended, at least regarding the spirit of his long-term concept for the series.

LOL that’s literally what I just said. It DIDN’T do that. It skipped Kirk and Picard completely and just went to a new setting. This is just spin man, c’mon. Discovery didn’t move because of that or had anything to do with Fuller’s original vision.

And dude, you’re just cherry picking what his entire concept was suppose to be. This is full idea that he wanted:

 “Fuller sat with CBS executives to deliver his pitch. It wasn’t just for a ‘Trek’ series but for multiple serialized anthology shows that would begin with the ‘Discovery’ prequel, journey through the eras of Captain James T. Kirk and Captain Jean-Luc Picard, and then go beyond to a time in ‘Trek’ that’s never been seen before. “The original pitch was to do for science fiction what ‘American Horror Story’ had done for horror,” Fuller says. “It would platform a universe of ‘Trek’ shows.” CBS countered with the plan of creating a single serialized show and then seeing how it performed. It was a fair compromise, yet demonstrated the first conflict of vision between a powerful company and an inventive writer that would eventually lead to a dramatic falling-out.”

Fuller was suggesting what I said, have different characters go through different eras, one by one like in a normal timeline and eventually go to the post-Nemesis era which my guess is where Picard is currently at, not 900 years into the future lol. That was strictly what Alex Kurtzman came up with.

Nothing in this original concept has anything to do with Discovery. The biggest point that you didn’t cite being the American Horror Story angle. I don’t know if you seen that show but I’ve seen a little of it in different seasons and that show is an anthology show. Every season starts with a different premise, setting and characters. They all have a beginning, middle and end and then reset it next season. Some of the actors even come back but still play totally different roles from previous seasons.

THAT’S what Bryan Fuller wanted. An actual anthology show where nothing is connected season to season. It just sounds like he wanted to set every season in a new era and with different characters.

His idea went even farther than what I was suggesting because it sounds like he wanted multiple shows. But maybe all he meant was each show would just go one season and then restart it with another show? Either way he was talking about something much more ambitious (and expensive lol).

Discovery is not an anthology show. It doesn’t completely reset itself. It’s a continuation of the same show with the same characters and it’s not going to a different era every season. They simply jumped to another setting. It’s apples and oranges.

I don’t really disagree with much of your post here, but anthology or not, his endgame for the Star Trek Discovery series was “reaching a time period that hasn’t been seen in Star Trek before.” We surely both would accept that implementing this on DSC would result in a major series time-jump, right?

So they’ve fulfilled that part of his concept. Therefore, I just don’t see how you can claim that they independently came up with the time jump for the sole reason of saving a troubled series? And furthermore, there has never been any actual reporting or interviews that support your “we’ve got to do this drastic time jump to save the series” reasoning here on the time-jump.

My reason for the time-jump is at least loosely connected to what Fuller originally said. I don’t think you can back up your conjecture in a similar way with any info from the creators/producers that was reported, right?

Now is it possible Kurtzman or someone on the production team said, “the series needs an enema, so let’s leverage Fuller’s time-jump idea and do a soft re-boot?” Sure! But to say that the DSC series time-jump happened completely independent of Fuller’s stated time-jumping concept for this series I just have a hard time believing — I mean, that would be an amazing coincidence, right? :-)

It’s not the same thing man. It had ZIP to do with Fuller’s original idea. And no, you’re still wrong. Read the post again, the IDEA was for SEPARATE shows to be in a different era. Discovery was just going to be in the era it was originally in for one season. After that, then a new story with new characters would show up next in a different time period and setting. And then a new crew and time period after that. It would go on like that season after season. That was the idea.

It wasn’t about ONE ship “time jumping” to other eras. That was not anything remotely related to his idea. Based on Fuller’s idea, Discovery story would’ve just ended after it’s first season probably after it defeated the Klingons. And then the next season would have a new ship and a completely new set of characters doing something 20 years later in the Beta quadrant or something.

Anyone can read what the guy was envisioning. You tried to cherry pick the most basic idea leaving out the fact he was talking about an anthology show that would be set in various time periods and tell different stories with different crews and ships. That has nothing to do with Discovery. Again, apples and oranges.

Aaron Harberts, one of the original EP before he got the boot said back in season one when the moaning over visual canon started that they would reconcile the issue in season 2. His words:

“We have ten years until the original series comes into play. It is a challenge creatively because we have lots of choices in terms of how do we reconcile this [Spore] Drive? This surrogate daughter of Sarek? How do we reconcile these things the closer we get to the original series? That’s going to be a big discussion that we have in season two.”

SMG later said that season 2 will explain why Spock never mentioned his sister in TOS. Her words:

“Alex Kurtzman said ‘I know a lot of people are asking why he didn’t ever mention her.’ He was like, ‘Trust us. There will be an explanation.’”

So now we know what the ‘explanation’ was. They jumped 930 years in the future to keep fans from moaning about these issues for the next five seasons. Problem solved.

Trying to spin it had anything to do with trying to fulfill Fuller’s ‘vision’ because he mentioned other stories would take place in future periods is like suggesting Star Wars was actually Roddenberry’s vision because it took place in space and ships fought each other.


Actually you know what. we’ll just agree to disagree and call it day! Not a huge deal. And you could be right to some degree. Not the end of the world.

Yea, I appreciate that. I think at the end of the day it’s likely we are both partially right on this. The Fuller concept was an anthology and not just a time jump by one crew, but the time jump part of it gave Kurtzman and company an easy excuse to do a soft reboot of the series to improve it.

Actually I was wrong!

I looked at IMDB and I realize Discovery is no longer the least ranked show, Prodigy is! I haven’t actually looked at the scores since that show came on. But currently Prodigy is 6.9 and Discovery is 7.1.

Now, I’m NOT trying to spin this, but Prodigy is new and usually scores on that site raises higher in time IF the show is liked of course. This in fact happened with Lower Decks. That show was at an 6.4 from what I can remember in it’s first season. It could’ve been even lower, that’s just where I saw it at the time. It’s now at 7.3 a year later. So it was raised considerably.

But the fact Discovery is at 7.1 four years on is more proof this show is not exactly beloved in the fanbase. It’s not an awful score but it is the lowest outside of Prodigy. Even Picard is currently at 7.5 and that got a lot of scorn in its first season as well.

I would say that the show isn’t as well received with the “internet fanboy” types that include all of us who post on Trek sites daily. However, I know many casual fans, and nearly all of them are in the like-to-love DSC range of opinions.

Yes, but this is a fallacy. So does that mean when people praise a show online, that shouldn’t mean anything either? So should we not believe how much praise shows like TOS and TNG gets online? Because those shows gets plenty even today. In fact every classic show seems to be more liked than disliked now in the overall fanbase even if some of the shows are still more popular than others.

And as far as I can tell, Prodigy is getting the most praise from all the new shows and by people who don’t like Discovery either. Maybe just maybe Discovery isn’t as well liked as other Star Trek shows? I don’t think that’s a controversial thing to say at this point. That seems pretty obvious to me four seasons on now.

But I’m not saying Discovery is a hated show overall either. I think most people DO like the show, they are just more on the fence with it compared to others. This shouldn’t be a shock at this point. But people are clearly watching it at least.

But this idea people just have it out for Discovery online is kind of odd since the other Kurtzman shows seem to be at least be more liked if not loved. I think Discovery just started out on the wrong foot in a huge way and it’s taking longer for more people to accept it.

Exactly! Multiple shows that are bringing new fans to the table given each has a different fanbase niche. It’s a brilliant way to expand the franchise.


That too of course but I think Discovery would’ve been ten times more popular if it went this direction from the start. I think the real issue was being the first show since Enterprise ended and people wanting a more ‘traditional’ Star Trek show again. That’s why so many were excited when they heard it would be so close to TOS because they thought that was the type of vibe they were getting. And then became disappointed when they didn’t get it.

Now if it was the second or third show in the line up kind of like DS9 coming after TOS and TNG, then it may have succeeded better with different expectations.

It just didn’t feel ‘Star Trek’ enough and more like ‘BSG in the Star Trek universe’ and why so many fans had issues with it. Certainly for me but I had a TON of issues lol.

I think Discovery suffered from a bad start–the original showrunner Bryan Fuller had a totally different conception for the series and when he left the show there was a scramble to make do with what they invested in already instead of wiping the slate and starting clean. So many people were brought in, left, and were replaced again that the Executive Producer credits list is so laughably long.

Pike was a surprise hit–I think the only bright spot in Season 2, but since they pre-produce the series a season in advance, his exit had already been written, so they couldn’t keep him back in, and somehow appear in the 31st century. Smartly they decided to give him a series of his own.

True but they kept to his basic outline so this was always going to be the show. He made it clear the first season was going to deal with the Klingon war and he personally approved of the Orc-Klingons which went down brilliantly with fans. ;)

Maybe if he stayed it would’ve been a stronger and less eradicate first season but my guess the dark and cynical tone would’ve been the same regardless.

And your second paragraph is my entire point. People fell in love with second season BECAUSE they got Pike who just represented what people thought of Star Trek. People liked Lorca, but he isn’t a character that fans aspire to and for most fans someone like Pike are the type of characters they want in Star Trek. Even Michael Burnham, the main star started out as a mutineer first episode in. Not exactly inspirational or uplifting lol.

That’s why there was such an outpouring for a Pike show when Discovery was only in it’s second season. The show barely started and fans were already clamoring for something different. Because that’s exactly the kind of tone they wanted in both a main character and a show. If Discovery had Pike in first season as the main lead, my guess is it would’ve been a more popular show (even if not a better one) from the start. Fans wanted to see a more optimistic and Trek vibe season one clearly missed the mark on.

That’s really the only point I’m making.

Honestly I think there are a lot of things that caused Star Trek Discovery to be what it is. The bad start contributes for sure. But that was one of many many ingredients that ruined this recipe. They tried to put better frosting on the cake later but they just couldn’t hide the fact that the cake was badly baked.

These character promos are fantastic! And fun! I may just have to get Paramount+ before May gets here, lol! :)

Yeah they are great! :)

I think it’s rather each show has a bit of a different market, and when taken all together the fan base grows. I don’t really see this as the singular solution I think you are suggesting?

Cautiously optimistic w/ the Christine Chapel character. 😊

I wonder why they’re messing with the genome of someone who seems to be related to an augment.

Hmmmmmm…you may have something there!

Why doesn’t Nurse Chapel look like Number One? Not respecting TOS at all, epic fail.

j/k, can’t wait for SNW!

It would have been hilarious, if not practical, for them to have Rebecca Romjin playing Nurse Chapel in addition to Number One. And voicing the Enterprise computer.

Part of me hopes that it’s shown how Number One becomes the pattern for all computer systems. Not an explanation we need, but would be fun.

The again, there’s a bigger part of me that doesn’t want THAT kind of nostalgia — just handwave all the history, changes, and avoid trying to “explain” Trek’s past.

That would have been an expensive “wink” to the audience. But a clever one.

According to canon, Nurse Chapel and Number One cannot co-exist in the same episode ;-) so it’s wouldn’t be so impractical

Have to say that I am perhaps “cautiously pessimistic.” There are too many TOS characters and homages on SNW. Are they really incapable of coming up with something new, like ENT did — and like DIS did not (Sarek, Mudd, etc.)?

That said, I always liked the character of M’Benga on TOS. But why does M’Benga go from CMO here to deputy CMO on TOS?

Many reasons. He may have disliked administration and preferred being a doctor first. He may have left for training and came back – accepting a different position. He may have only been a visiting physician during TOS, studying Spock. Who knows.

Are they really incapable of coming up with something new,

Part of the point of the show is to explore known characters that were barely explored in TOS (Pike, Number One, M’Benga, even Uhura and Chapel are largely unknown). Clearly there are new characters also – Hemmer, Ortegas, etc.

I agree with you on this, in fact I mentioned something similar on the article about the new Aenar character Hemmer. I think the show needed to have more characters like Hemmer to start and slowly and gradually bring in the more familiar characters over the seasons. Maybe they don’t want to continue the show for more than 3-4 years that is why they want to bring back so many TOS characters so soon. I also don’t mind M’benga as he was only in 2 episodes of TOS and we basically didn’t know too much about him except for being a vulcan expert. I think if there are creative writers and easy explanation could be given.

I do like seeing the TOS characters but yeah I have to agree it is feeling a bit too much, especially now that we know Kirk is showing up too. And I’m pretty positive he will show up in the season one finale and not just in season two.

It’s obviously a good strategy to bring back iconic characters on all these new shows, but what I miss about classic Trek was every show did feel very distinct because all the characters were new. We would see a few old ones pop up for an episode in a season but the main characters were original minus O’Brien on DS9.

And now thinking about it, SNW easily has the most known group of characters by a mile. But I guess they know it’s easier to get people to pay for the show when they see as many familiar characters as possible. Something the old shows didn’t have to worry about (in America).

As far as M’Benga, I don’t see that as a big deal. Maybe he just decided he wanted to do more clinical research (his specialty was Vulcans right) and being CMO would get in the way of that taking care of so many patients; so he stepped down. Doesn’t take much. But I guess we’ll see.

“There are too many TOS characters and homages on SNW.”

That’s on purpose and I’d even go so far to say that the nature of this show as either a prequel or a reboot is yet to be determined by its popularity. If it’s a success, it’ll end up replacing TOS altogether. If it’s not a big hit, they can still sell it as a short-lived prequel…

Enterprise didn’t really do anything new, though? It brought back Klingons, Ferengi, Borg, Romulans, T’Pau, the Mirror Universe. On top of that the show itself followed the same format as TOS, TNG and VOY for it’s first two seasons (three even considering the amount of standalones in Season 3). In fact from what I remember most of the fan reaction to the show was “why are you bringing back these elements? Can’t you do something new?!”

Granted, Season 4 was novel in its structure- but even then it relied heavily on Trek lore and didn’t really do much in the way of doing anything new. Augments storylines, references to Babel, a strong focus on the Vulcans, the (aforementioned) Mirror Universe. The franchise was running on fumes by that point and was being micro-managed by Berman, who we’ve all come to learn was a sexist, homophobic pig.

It was new characters and because they came before the others they couldn’t lean on new-Trek (what I call the Berman shows) too much. And even then, the instances mentioned were not very well received. (Although I’m tired of the Borg I felt their episode wasn’t that bad) They didn’t even really dive into TOS much until Coto showed up. And when they did, adding T’Pau was pretty organic and worked.

TNG actually went the other way. They distanced themselves from TOS as best they could. They included the one cameo by Kelly in the pilot. The one “sequel” episode early on. Then over the years ended up finding ways to get two TOS characters into one episode and one 2 parter. And that two parter was mainly to promote a movie.

I mostly agree with this. They are using two legacy characters in this and one has a genetic connection to a villain that I feel has been given too much mileage.

AFAIC, if they wanted to use established characters then go with some we saw on “The Cage” and maybe MAYBE no more than ONE (1) of the TOS group. (I vote for Scotty as in my mind his presence is the one that makes the most sense.)

But it feels like nu-Trek just doesn’t want to make any kind of leap that doesn’t have a full on connection to what came before. It feels like they want that safety net. Those safety nets have worked for them before so they just aren’t going to take any more risks. Which I find unfortunate. I know it’s not my money on the line but I would just like to see them do something without a safety net.

And the funny part is from what I can see of that short character introduction on the new Aenar character Hemmer and the comments on that article, the single new alien character of the show is getting highly praised and rightly so. I think they could have included a few more characters in the vein of Hemmer but maybe they thought too much of them might take the focus off the human characters.

Yeah I agree. I love it’s a character that was already introduced on another show but we still know very little about. They were only in three episodes on Enterprise. So they can really develop the species and I always wanted to see more of them since they were introduced.

I think Hemmer is going to be a break out role.

That said, I always liked the character of M’Benga on TOS. But why does M’Benga go from CMO here to deputy CMO on TOS?

Well, isn’t it true/fact in canon that Kirk and McCoy were relatively close (friends) in the academy days prior to Kirk taking over the Enterprise? So, I would assume that when Kirk took command, he restaffed some personnel on the Enterprise, especially recruiting his “friend” McCoy …to be CMO.

There is nothing about Kirk & McCoy’s history at all. But from what I gleaned it seemed likely that they knew each other at least fairly well before Kirk took command of the Enterprise. And my head canon was that Kirk chose McCoy to be his CMO when he took command.

Very optimistic. Loved the promos so far.

She seems just a tad more assertive than Majel’s Chapel was.

This clip reminded me of the briefly flirted with idea that Chapel had a thing for Spock on TOS. I’m wondering if they are going to play with that here.

Due respect, it wasn’t a briefly flirted with idea. It was, regrettably, her sole character trait.

It was referenced in “Return to Tomorrow,” “Amok Time,” and “Plato’s Stepchildren,” at least.

Don’t forget Mudd’s Passion, where she used a love potion on Spock.

Yeah that’s basically what we seen with Chapel, her school crush on Spock and very little else minus the episode we meet her robot fiance.

That one episode gave her more backstory than Uhura or Sulu ever got!

LOL true!

LOL definitely! But really like her. I always liked Chapel but she was just kind of ‘there’ most of the time. This one looks very assertive and engaging.

Wow! Just wow! The casting for this show has been generally amazing. The only character that looks a bit out of place so far is Ortegas.

I’m curious, how does Ortegas look out of place? I really liked the video focusing on her character. She seemed to have some fun banter with Pike and seemed generally really cool.

Just my first impression — the character’s lines seem a little forced and I find her appearance a bit goofy looking. It’s only a teaser though, so I hope to be pleasantly surprised when the series starts.

Ortegas seemed to fit right in to me. I enjoyed her banter and attitude. I have a feeling it’ll bounce off other characters in interesting and fun ways.

Fair enough. We’ll see once the season starts. I hope my initial impression from watching this brief teaser are proven wrong.

Ok. It’s brilliant and I’m excited! But why is she wearing commander’s stripes?

THANK YOU! I thought I was the only one that noticed that.

This version of the character and their relationship (not necessarily romantic, of course, but it certainly reads as flirtatious in this promo) with Spock only makes sense if this is a reboot.


What’s the harm in this being a reboot?

it’s not a reboot – but – if they do end up rolling a Kirk Enterprise crew in a couple of years, there are enough adventures to weave into the existing canon of original shows without re-doing them

Star Trek: TOS Reboot, coming your way in about two years, folks.

You’re predicting two years Danpaine? Why so long? ;D

I love Discovery and the new aesthetic it introduced but feel it would have worked better in the post TNG timeline. Keeping a lid on a technology as impressive as the spore drive would be impossible in the 21st century, let alone the 23rd.

That was it’s biggest issue IMO. The show just did not look like it fit in its original time period. They corrected that in a big way lol, but I honestly think if they put it in the 25th century from the start, more people would’ve at least given it a chance. Once you remove the Spock sibling angle, the show really would’ve fit better in a post-Nemesis setting.

I don’t think they did anything to fix their original “too advanced looking for the era” problem. Moving their “too advanced for the era” ship 900 years in the future doesn’t fix that problem. It’s still there. And weirdly, their ship when it arrived looked like it fit right in with the the rest of the 32nd century. I will give you that the time shift moved that problem out of the spotlight and to the sidelines. But it was still a problem. I think they have a “32nd century doesn’t look futuristic enough” problem. But I guess that’s more a ‘me’ thing.

It is looking like they have done a better job with their version of Pike’s Enterprise. I think they could still do better but if the show is good it will be less of an issue. Still think they should turn the lights up on the bridge and elsewhere. That would help a TON. The 23rd century just wasn’t that dark. I think that’s a small thing that would go a long way to helping make it fit.

Yeah oddly Discovery still looks like one of the most advanced ships even in the 32nd century lol. BUT to be fair, we haven’t even really seen the inside of a 32nd century ship yet. And while Discovery still looks advanced, since it’s still in a century we never seen, they can take any liberties they want. Sure we can say if it’s not advanced looking enough, etc, but canon wise it doesn’t matter because we have zero to compare it to.

That’s the difference with the 23rd century, we know exactly what it looks like. We known it for 50 years now and Discovery didn’t try to adapt to any of it outside of the most minor elements.

So even if the 32nd century doesn’t solve all their problems, it definitely solved the biggest ones. Notice no one is even talking about the visual issues anymore, but they are complaining about everything else though lol. But that’s all everyone was talking about its first season.

Well, to be fair tech that far out would probably so far beyond our meager comprehensions no one here could probably consider what they are doing. But again, that is part of the problem with going forward THAT far.

And I did say moving the show’s era moved an early problem out of the spotlight. If sweeping the dirt under the rug is solving the problem then I guess they did.

Yeah I agree generally. But it’s all left to the imagination basically and that’s where Science Fiction takes over. But you look at videos from the early 1900s predicting what the year 2000 would be like, most were waaaay off the mark lol. They made the future too advance. I can’t even try predicting what the real 23rd century will look like, much less the 32nd century. My guess is though none of it will look anything like Star Trek. ;)

But I really love Discovery in this setting because it simply gives us something new again. I’m hoping season 5 delve into Starfleet a bit more now, but maybe they will save that for the Academy show if it takes place in this era.

Actually, The Cage (bridge, transporter room and captain’s quarters) was darker than TOS. It was Jerry Finneman who brought in the brighter look / color washes of TOS. The Cage Enterprise looks rather gray and moody.

I don’t think it is that big a difference. But even if they met The Cage half way I think it would make a great deal of difference on screen to conveying the “feel” of the era they are supposed to be in.


The designs are an interesting mix of TOS and 2001 Space Odyssey, which has proven to be timeless and modern at the same time. There are also some vibes from Space1999 and TMP minus some 70s flair.

On the scene with Dr.M’Benga wearing the blue uniform it feels like what Phase II could have looked like or how TOS could have looked like with the budget of TMP in the early 70s.

OMG. This thirty second clip was the best Trek since Star Trek VI. Good job all. Warp speed.

If you’re going to write her like your standard off the shelf quippy marvel character and not like the TOS nurse chapel, why have her be that charakter at all? Just give her another name