Today Paramount+ has released new poster art to hype the fifth and final season of Discovery. Paramount+ commissioned five separate season 5 posters to honor how the show has run for five seasons.
5 posters for season 5
Here is how Paramount+ describes the series of posters…
The final season of Star Trek: Discovery will be commemorated with five pieces of art… honoring the five seasons of the groundbreaking series that marked the return of Star Trek to television.
Here are the four new new pieces of art released today…
These join the poster released in January completing the set of five. Like that first poster, some of the above posters also feature the mysterious symbols from the puzzle box that can be seen in the Discovery season 5 trailers…
Disco at WonderCon
The weekend before season 5 arrives Paramount+ will be screening the season premiere at WonderCon 2024 in Anaheim, CA. The screening will be on Saturday, March 30 in Room North 200A at 3:30 pm. It will include a Q&A with executive producers and co-showrunner Michelle Paradise along with executive producer and director Olatunde Osunsanmi.
Two weeks away…
Here again is the latest trailer
The fifth and final season of Discovery debuts with two episodes on Thursday, April 4 exclusively on Paramount+ in the U.S., the UK, Switzerland, South Korea, Latin America, Germany, France, Italy, Australia, and Austria. Discovery will also premiere on April 4 on Paramount+ in Canada and is also expected to be broadcast on Bell Media’s CTV Sci-Fi Channel in Canada. The rest of the 10-episode final season will be available to stream weekly on Thursdays. Season 5 debuts on SkyShowtime in select European countries on April 5.
Keep up with news about the Star Trek Universe at TrekMovie.com.
Star Trek: Burnham
That would be a great name for the follow-on series.
Can you imagine the outrage if they greenlighted that, but still no Legacy…lol, that would be hilariously awesome.
It’s a good thing you changed your handle (for the fourth time). You’re a whole new you now!
Speaking of being back to their old selves….
Yeah but my old self isn’t being a jerk.
Oh, my. A reveal without a full-on reveal. Well, now we know.
I made a comment two weeks back here I would be immediately changing my handle since it was pointed out to may that it came across as offensive to some LDS fans. I said I would pick something more positive and forward looking.
So, no, I am not trying to hide in any way that I changed my handle.
Posters are nice, my favorite is the last one… However other characters than Burnham should have been included.
Agreed, since she’s the show’s worst character.
yet she is the main character and who the show is about her journey
The fact the show is so much about her is one of the many major issues with this series.
Which is saying a lot considering you have Gray and Adira.
Is Burnham walking on a Dyson sphere in the one poster?
That ring of symbols keeps making me thinking Stargate!
looks kinda like iconian
I had that thought too.
Except unlike Stargate, here there’s about 5 different icons. Lots of copy and paste. Reminds me of Picard S1 finale.
You mean the evil machine race that the Romulans were scared of?
I love the first and the forth ones. Nice job, P+
Star Trek: Burham is right.
They’re so hyper-fixated on Burnham that they forgot to develop the rest of the crew or showing them being competent at anything. So Michael is the only person who can realistically do anything. Oops.
Same with Mariner on Lower Decks. She literally did everything in the past season, Boimler stood around for the latter half doing nothing, except when he was acting captain for all of 60 seconds.
That character that was badly injured with augments and had to reboot her memory daily was a really great sci fi concept and quite original to Trek. There are some really good sci fi ideas in Discovery now and again. Unfortunately not too frequently. The ending of season 4 was an interesting subject and a proper Trek concept and way better than anything that SNW has done considering that series just gets a total free pass here because it reboots TOS legacy character and I really mean reboots and is light hearted.Is canon so hard if you do a prequel but Tbh they just can’t be bothered.I can’t recall SNW doing anything original or particularly interesting apart from stupid gimmicks.
Mariner, the most irritating Trek character of all time and people complain about MB.
To each his own.
It makes me laugh they’re so obsessed with pushing Mariner and making her the star and the only character to get things done, even though the vast majority of fans seem to prefer Boimler, who gets nothing to do.
Mariner, the most irritating Trek character of all time and people complain about MB.
TELL ME ABOUT IT…LMAFO
Maybe that’s why Saru is my #1 DSC character and Boims is my #1 LD character IMHO.
The show is literally *about* Burnham. When it was announced it was made clear that Burnham was the *focus* of the show. Your criticism does not even make sense because you clearly misunderstand- or are choosing to ignore- the entire premise of the show.
And your Lower Decks literally makes no sense. Are you just going to gloss over Tendi’s major moments on Orion? Or Boimler discovering his inner leader across the season? Or T’Lyn coming to terms with being in Starfleet?
And yet, Mariner solves the problem in every episode. Boimler NEVER does. You’re right though Tendi had a fair bit of development this year, but it’s always Mariner doing everything. Sound familiar? Boimler literally just stood around for most of the last season doing nothing.
As for Discovery, read any official synopsis and you’ll see a focus on the ship and crew, not Burnham specifically. It’s called Star Trek Discovery not Star Trek Burnham.
I’m sorry but you are just being obtuse- this show has been marketed *since its announcement* as being about Michael Burnham’s journey. Nothing has changed about that- complaining about the fact five seasons in is completely redundant and simply smacks of you wanting to complain about the franchise for the sake of it, especially when your argument hinges on “but the show is named for the ship”. Yes, the show is set on a ship called Discovery, but the show is still about Michael Burnham and her journey to find her humanity and her place in the universe.
What are you talking about? You’re literally making things up. Nowhere was this show advertised as “Michael Burnham’s journey”, not at release, and not now.
This is how Paramount Plus describe the show these days: “Taking place almost a decade before Captain Kirk’s Enterprise, the USS Discovery charts a course to uncover new worlds and life forms.”
You’re trying to defend the showrunners and writers who can’t craft a likeable, well developed cast of characters to save their lives.
You so so confused. Whether you like the show or not — THE SHOW HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT MICHAEL”S JOURNEY AND WAS PLANNED AND DESCRIBED THAT WAY FROM THE BEGINNING.
Case closed!
Great.
Not true. Fuller’s original concept that kicked off DSC was centered on Michael doing multiple serialized anthology seasons through the eras of Captain James T. Kirk, then to the era of Captain Jean-Luc Picard, and then go beyond to a time in ‘Trek’ that’s never been seen before. The common theme on each different time frame, serialized season would be Michael Burhnam.
FACT!
Next?
Ummm, so? You said it yourself, an ex-showrunner’s original concept from ten years ago that was quickly abandoned.
When Paramount+ start posting a synopsis of Discovery describing the show as “Michael Burnham finding her place in the galaxy”, let me know. Hint: it won’t happen, because that’s not the pitch of the series.
Hardly — they did go into the far future and Michael has always been the central figure.
Your obtuse, doubling down schtick makes no sense here???
It’s OK to once in awhile just admit you were not correct on something. Really, it’s all going to be OK. :-)
When Paramount+ stop writing the SERIES SYNOPSIS of Discovery describing the show as “Taking place almost a decade before Captain Kirk’s Enterprise, the USS Discovery charts a course to uncover new worlds and life forms.” and start posting it as “A series about Michael Burnham finding her place in the galaxy”, let me know.
The show is not meant to be the Michael Burnham Adventures, the show is about Discovery.
That was BS as much 2 hours ago as it is in your cut and paste again here lol.
You’re just plain wrong. I’m game to go back and forth as many times with you here, so keep blabbing the same BS if you want and I’ll keep telling you how you’re wrong and M1701 and I are right – with silvereyes serving as your groupie. You’ll find that you will tire out way before me.
How childish. I post facts. You post “you’re wrong, just coz”.
Not even close! I posted the facts about and how the show was originally conceived by it’s creator, based on an interview with him — which confirms M1701’s understanding and info on the Burnam’s journey as the original arc for the series.
Your response was to casually dismiss our information just because Fuller didn’t stick with the show, and then provide a strawman argument challenge to us that would lead us on a wild goose chase for information that does not exist in the format you prescribed.
You may fool Silvereyes (who’s just doing his grudge match thing with me here and doesn’t really care about this issue), but you are not fooling M1701 and I. You simply just don’t want to ever have to admit you are wrong on anything here, and logic and reality are just minor inconveniences for you to brush aside with a juvenile platitudes as you seek to record a win on the board here…lol.
Now that is all truly childish
It’s not about being wrong or right Albert. You need to be right because you’re an insecure child. Normal people debate and accept that there are going to be contrary opinions. You can’t take contrary opinions, so you keep trying to hammer in your point as if it’s truth, when it’s just your opinion. And referring to my previous point, that’s why you’re wrong.
Albert? Lol, WTF? Are you drinking?
Nah, you’re overreaching on this one. M1701 provided the basis, and that is consistent with my understanding — and further I provided information from my Brian Fuller interview that I went back and read that supported our positions. Her response was to freaking dismiss the information we provided on how the show was originally set up and instead insist we present some marketing slogan from a CBS AA ad synopsis which does not exist.
You’re behaving kind of weird and obnoxious here. Serval of us had an argument a few days ago and all of us have walked away from that now except for you, who just can’t seem to let it grow.
How about this, grow up and attack me when I deserve attacking (and there certainly are cases when I deserve that), but not when you just feel like it like in this case.
Drop it, you’re wrong. Deal with it.
How am I wrong on this issue which is not even related to whether any of us like the show or not? You provide two throwaway sentences with ZERO info here?
You are just being annoying for no real reason other than you get a kick out of piggybacking on someone else I am having a disagreement with — tell me I am wrong on this (be honest now!)?
You’re wrong. I find your way of presenting your points childish and obnoxious. You always act as if you’re right and the other party is wrong. That’s not how it works. People disagree, it happens. It doesn’t make one right and the other wrong.
The two posts you’re referring to were made on purpose. I won’t waste anymore of my time trying to explain them to you.
I won’t waste anymore of my time trying to explain them to you.
Promise? Because what you’re saying is complete BS given M1701 and I clearly provided the reasoning — and I even included information which I got from a Brian Fuller interview — while Emily‘s only response is to send us on a “wild goose chase” for a CBS AA advertisement-like synopsis that doesn’t exist, and when we can’t find it (because we all know it doesn’t exist…lol) she gets to say she’s right— that’s how that’s hilarious her argument is.
But please fulfill fill your promise you just made — I think M1701 and I would like nothing better than for you to shut the F up on this and stop trying to troll us on this.
And again I’m perfectly fine with taking any criticism when I deserve it as you know. This is not one of those cases — you should know that and I think you are better than this.
And that’s why it’s a failure.
So now you are like effing Yoda, with me just failing in my force powers to bring my X-Wing fighter up from the swamp? Lol
It wasn’t supposed to be about Michael’s journey. As envisioned by Bryan Fuller, each season was supposed to explore a different era of Star Trek, with each season building to a convergence of those storylines (pre-TOS, post Star Trek VI, post-TNG). Once Fuller was fired, those plans were shelved. There’s a reason season 1 feels as disjointed as it does since what played out wasn’t what was originally envisioned for Discovery.
I respectfully disagree. At the start of this discussion, having agreed with my understanding of what M1701 was saying about Michael’s journey being central to the series, I went back and read several of the Fuller interviews from when he was starting the series to after he got fired. The one common thing you read in all of those interviews of the importance of the Michael character to the series. In fact, in one interview, he says his entire concept started with the idea of Michael, a black female captain, being the key character in the series.
In other interviews, he talks about Michael being the common glue holding things together as the series makes those time jumps between differing periods of Star Trek history. And, M1701 and I are not saying that the crew and ship are not important, but rather that Burnham is the central character to the series — and I think not only has that been the case from the beginning, but they’ve doubled-down on that over the seasons.
Thanks for you comment — I must say that it is so refreshing to get a substantive alternate point of view disagreement here versus someone just posting five times that I am wrong while providing ZERO information that actually covers the Star Trek point that Emily, M1701 and I have been having this discussion on.
I’m sorry but you are just being obtuse- this show has been marketed *since its announcement* as being about Michael Burnham’s journey. Nothing has changed about that- complaining about the fact five seasons in is completely redundant and simply smacks of you wanting to complain about the franchise for the sake of it, especially when your argument hinges on “but the show is named for the ship”. Yes, the show is set on a ship called Discovery, but the show is still about Michael Burnham and her journey to find her humanity and her place in the universe.
Exactly!
The show is literally *about* Burnham. When it was announced it was made clear that Burnham was the *focus* of the show. Your criticism does not even make sense because you clearly misunderstand- or are choosing to ignore- the entire premise of the show.
Well said!
Well she is the star just unfortunately a really bad one.
Hot damn you all need to get over it already! This unending posturing and bickering is verging on pathetic.
Sorry…. that wasn’t aimed at you, Tiger2…. but to the fighting in the thread
No worries but thanks for clarifying.
I like that last poster.
You’re a man of taste and distinction.
You are a man of and
;-)
Yet Rudyard would still call me a man.
They look nice.