Trailer proves the existence of 'Star Trek: Discovery'

Talk about mixed feelings. When I heard Fuller was creating and running this show, I was cautiously optimistic. When I heard they brought on Nicholas Meyer, I was full blown excited. My excitement has drifted off the last six months or so, and boy oh boy does this trailer reinforce those thoughts. Way too Abrams-y for my money. But of course, I will still be watching. Here's to hoping that my reluctance is misguided.

Not impresed. I don't mind the changes in uniforms etc but i do mind the wooden acting and dialogue. And it seems that this will be a show about klingons or at least the first episodes (btw the new klingons are horrible). It's not bad (the visuals are really good) but nothing really inspiring. There is a phrase that Yeoh says at some point: "inform starfleet command. we have engaged the klingons" . Perhaps that was their mission?
Anyway not what i hoped for after 1 and a half year of waiting.

I like the visuals and the tone. I really don't mind that some features (especially the Klingons) in the trailer look like they do in the new film series. It would be confusing for some people to revert to the look from Enterprise or the original movies again. The franchise is on different platforms now (movies = Paramount, series = CBS), so some consistency is welcome. You can blame JJ Abrams for changing them in the first place, but the Discovery team shouldn't be blamed for sticking to them in my opinion. As for plot, we'll have to wait. It does look like it's much more character oriented than the previous incarnations, but we'll have to see about that as well.

More character oriented doesn'say much. It depends on the actual characters and if they are interesting it doesn' seem to me that they are ( of course we must wait to see). And star trek is not a show primary about character development, it' a show about the human condition as it's revealed through the contact with alieness. Characters of course help in that but they are not the focus of trek.
As for the klingons they were free to do whatever they wanted to do, they have no obligation to follow the new movies.

"I really don’t mind that some features (especially the Klingons) in the trailer look like they do in the new film series."

They don't look alike, though.

Similar design, yes, but they are still quite different. So apparently, consistency with the films wasn't the reason for the change.

Example of dialogue:
"Starfleet does not fire first"
"But we have to"
Well this is the dialogue that could be written by a 10 years old screenwriter.

Looks promising. Production wise, it's a feast for the eyes, from the weathered, bronze Starfleet insignia to actress Sonequa Martin-Green's everything.

Well it looks friggin movie-quality visual wise but I'm with you guys I don't know how to feel about it. This captures none of the same feelings TNG, DS9, or even VOY did with me. And you're right for as good as these actresses are that acting wasn't so hot.

BUT at least it's finally out in some way now.

Yeah, the visual quality is amazing. I'll give them that.

This trailer was a little too Abrams-esque for my taste, but I'll reserve final judgement until the finished product. To be honest, and from a pure storytelling perspective, I would rather have had someone like Ron D. Moore at the helm than Bryan Fuller but this is where we are. At least there weren't any more shots of the great flying pizza cutter.

It looks like a fan-made trailer. They filmed it on location and it still looks like a fan-made trailer. Copious lens flares to cover up the weak green-screen, lame dialogue mixed in with a couple of interesting lines, awful line editing even by trailer standards. The shot of the ship at warp is something I'd expect from someone's basement effort on Youtube, with "fraps.com" showing at the top. We didn't even get a good clear shot of the ship.

There was one interesting idea in there - a species being groomed to sense the presence of death. That smacks of Fuller. The actor portraying Mr. Forehead was interesting. But that's the only thing that sticks with you.

Most ominously, did anyone else notice that the material in that trailer looks to be pulled from a single episode? In fact, it could well have been pulled from five minutes of screen time. That is probably the one thing I noticed more than anything else. It does NOT betray the idea that there is a large body of work behind this effort. I get the distinct feeling that the production is behind schedule.

I think the death Mr. Forehead senses is of this series.

Welp, that looked terrible. Hackneyed dialogue, hyperdramatic acting and framing, emphasis on extreme visuals and fighting and....

Yeah, you can feel the influence of Kurtzman here. The Bad Robot crew has poised the Star Trek well.

Was that the ship coming through the clouds? It didn't look much like the one in the teaser we got 6 months ago.

Ugh, this looks way too Jar Jar Abrams-y for my liking, from a purely visual standpoint. The tech looks far too advanced to be pre-Kirk in any sense. Does everything have to be dark and dingy? And the dialogue seems way too wooden - my 7 year old nephew could write better than that!

Furthermore, I checked the YouTube like/dislike bar. Currently sitting at 11K likes and 5K dislikes. Most trailers have no problem getting more than 90% likes.

On the positive side this still does have potential from what little we get of the plot. But we'll just have to wait and see. Maybe they don't want to give too much away, but they had the same dilemma with the Force Awakens trailers and those still brought the house down.

Then again the first Beyond trailer was disliked by a lot of fans and the movie itself did fine, but not spectacular. (I didn't watch Beyond)

Apparently this is a highly serialized series. So expect this to be a single long arc about the Federation meeting the Klingons, fighting the Klingons, and then learning to love thy neighbour.

The black Vulcan officer looks half human and seems to be an outcast at odds with other Vulcans. There are also pics of the new ship floating around online; apparently a bad Ralph Maquarrie design from the 1970s.

Personally, I don't like the aesthetic of Nu Trek. Meyer's Trek and TNG Trek had a sense of sleek utopinism, the former drifting toward 19th century nautral adveture, the latter to slick modernism.

Finally a trailer! Though not for international audiences, for God knows what reason. Wouldn't want too many people watching, I guess... I had to go out of my way to actually watch it!

As others have said, the show looks great; very cinematic (those lens flares, on the other hand...) Personally, I don't give a f*ck about canon or whether Klingons or uniforms or this or that jive with whatever established Trekkian "feel" someone thinks Discovery should adhere to.

On the other hand, I am unpleasantly surprised by acting and dialogue, what little we saw: expository, wooden, and very amateurish. It's hard to have any sort of informed opinion with so little to go on, but, man, it sounds bad. Both Yeoh and Martin-Green behave and speak like lobotomized Vulcans. I'd like to think that's how they are supposed to come across in the final product.

Note to myself: PROOFREAD before posting. Note to Jammer: editing option would be welcomed! :)

The last sentence of my post should read: "I’d like to think that’s NOT how they are supposed to come across in the final product."

@Brandon
"Most ominously, did anyone else notice that the material in that trailer looks to be pulled from a single episode? In fact, it could well have been pulled from five minutes of screen time. That is probably the one thing I noticed more than anything else. It does NOT betray the idea that there is a large body of work behind this effort. I get the distinct feeling that the production is behind schedule."

I read that they are filming something like episode 6 right now, so all that you see in the trailer is probably taken from the first five episodes or so.

Interesting to read comments here suggesting that the dialogue could have been written by children. When I watched the trailer (before visiting here) I wondered if the show was MEANT for children. Visuals- not bad; dialogue- ugh.

'We HAVE to shoot first, you fools, because how else can we demonstrate that we're darker and edgier than Bakula?'

Darker and edgier than Bakula?

How will they manage that? Torture aliens in airlocks every Tuesday?

@Omicron...

They'll have to torture the pet dogs!

It's interesting that they always want to go for 'edgier' when you remember that, in TOS, Kirk's solution to the war being conducted by computer (with painless death) was to insist that it should instead be conducted by destroying people horribly together with their infrastructure. Seriously, do we today think he was some some sort of soft touch?

Not to mention the infamous "General Order 24" threat that Kirk gave in the very same episode...

No wonder Janeway said in "Flashback" that Kirk and Co would have been arrested had they pulled their usual stunts in the 24th century (of-course, Janeway herself would have been arrested too, had she not been conveniently lost in the Delta Quadrant... but that's another story).

I hated the trailer for Beyond, was convinced it was going in a horrible direction. And that turned out to be a way truer trek movie for me than Into darkness. So I will reserve judgement and pray like hell they don't screw it up. TV is trek's real home, make it so!

Agree with majority here, the dialogue is terrible and the look is, well, just what I expected - a glossy rip off of all other recent and mostly mindless sci fi outings (abrams crap in particular). But I would also add that what they're really getting most wrong is that trek was primarily about avoiding war, a time when war (and money) will no longer be part of our civilization, and if you look at TOS as a whole, it accomplished that remarkably well. Kirk was a hero to my young self because of how he always came back to "let's find a peaceful solution" even in the face of obvious provocation.

To people pointing at things like general order 24 and claiming ToS was about violence, I say you have a poor grasp of history. Trek was made in the 60s, which was a time when manifest destiny was accepted by Americans as dogma, the idea that we were just better than everyone was not questioned and our future plans were to show up at any damn planet we might choose, kick ass, and take it for our "colonization." This was a time when the Tuskegee experiment was still going on for chrissakes. Given the context, Trek was a towering herald of a different possible future.

Yes, the show often resorted to making reference to war or being on the brink of war, but these were either distant historical events (Balance of Terror) or were narrowly avoided (Errand of Mercy). No one was killed in Taste of Armageddon, the entire point was to end the war.

So, you can identify the really lazy, bad trek as that trek when the foundations of Roddenberry's concept were dumped overboard and the subpar writing staffs began to rely on actual wars to propel their otherwise empty shows. Out of the gate, it sure looks like they're setting STD up to be firmly in this camp. Hey, I'd love to be surprised by seeing it go a different way, but most of us here are seeing the same portend. Nuff said.

Wow, how disappointing. It looks exciting, but in a generic, blockbuster sort of way. The sort of thing you've seen hundreds of times and always forget after. All style and no substance.

I'll probably watch it in a few years. Or not, I can tell you now I'm never going to pay for CBS All-Access B.S. and I don't fancy piracy so unless they'll eventually put it on a legitimate streaming service I'm out.

Looks like they're rehashing the "racist Vulcan dad" thing from the original. We don't need another Spock, we have Spock. Give us a different character, or a different family dynamic. Why do Vulcans marry and mate with humans anyway if they're just going to universally scorn and abuse the children of that union? Give us a suprisingly nice, patient Vulcan parent who actually exhibits all those good traits we're told Vulcans supposedly have. You can still have the kid striving to prove her Vulcan-ness, just for different reasons. I hope I'm wrong about this being a repeat of Spock and Sarek.

I'm stunned by all the negativity. I thought it looked cool, I'm very interested in seeing more (while cautiously prepared to accept it may be bad, as any TV show might be). If you genuinely think that maintaining visual continuity with TOS should be given higher priority than making the show look visually compelling from a contemporary standpoint, I am here to tell you that would be death for the show. It wouldn't last three episodes. It needs to look modern and believable as a future of our society. That doesn't mean it's not in continuity- it means film-making and science fiction has moved on from the 80s and Trek needs to as well.

Didn't Enterprise already cover this period? Do we really need another prequel? Seems like they could do so much more, and avoid any continuity problems with TOS if they set it after TNG. TNNG or something. People have said "But there are no enemies left", what about the Kevlins from TOS? Some intergalactic level war... who knows but choosing to set it right before TOS with such a difference in style and tech seems pretty stupid when there's plenty of other periods they could go for.

Anyway, I'll give it a chance with low expectations. It looks like it's going the effects and rehash route rather than something genuinely new and interesting but we'll see after a few episodes. No doubt, like TNG it will take a few episodes to get going. Unfortunately, in this era of TV it can't afford to have several terrible episodes in the first half-season. There's no way TNG would have had a second season if it was shown now.

To expand on my point above, it's difficult to make a proper Sci-Fi series set pre-TOS now. In various trek series we had mobile phones, touch screen interfaces, ipads, VR computer games, computers with voice recognition. That stuff isn't sci-fi any more and by setting Discovery pre-TOS it offers no scope to predict new technologies. Effectively they are limiting themselves to technology that existed in TOS and removing the ability to make any kind of predictions in the way TOS and TNG did. Why would they impose that on themselves?

@Bufo

"To people pointing at things like general order 24 and claiming ToS was about violence, I say you have a poor grasp of history."

Oh, I agree.

I think you misunderstood Trajan and me. We weren't criticizing ToS. You say that the show is a product of its time, but quite frankly I think that Kirk's 2260's would be a much better place to live in than present-day Earth. It mostly aged well (the only part that didn't - in my opinion - is the sexism that crept in from time to time).

It's just funny that modern Trek tries to market itself as "edgier", as if Trek and edginess were always strangers in the past. The difference is, that in ToS the edginess was incidental. It was never the actual point of the show. The actual point was a positive outlook to a (mostly) peaceful future.

Kinda reminds me of a Discovery treated the diversity of their cast: Look, a gay crewmember! We know almost nothing else about the guy. Just his last name, rank and profession. We don't even know his first name, yet we already know his sexual orientation. How twisted is that?


@Destructor
"If you genuinely think that maintaining visual continuity with TOS should be given higher priority than making the show look visually compelling from a contemporary standpoint..."

First of all, the visuals is about the least problematic thing about this trailer.

Secondly, I don't really see why the two things you've mentioned should be at odds with each other.

TOS looks campy today because the props were low quality, and not because the designs themselves haven't aged well. If you rebuilt the original Enterprise's bridge with new materials and tweak the design just a little bit, it wouldn't be out-of-place in any modern sci fi TV show.

Thirdly, nobody is forcing them to set the show in the 2250's. If this creates a clash between aesthetics and continuity, then they should've set the show at a different era.

And lastly, making a show visually compelling isn't the same thing as blindly following the latest trends in film-making. Lense flares do not make a show more visually compelling. Dramatic visuals which favor "wow-ness" over substance don't make a show more visually compelling.

In short: It's a TV show, not a damn fireworks display. The visuals should integrate seamlessly with the other elements, rather than overwhelm them. And just because this kind of crap is popular today, doesn't mean that Star Trek needs to go down that route too.

(funny how they market Discovery as "different", when it seems to be the most conforming Trek series of all. Their trailer looks like a dozen other trailers of generic sci fi shows, so how - exactly - is it groundbreakingly different?)

@Destructor

I don't have a problem with the visuals - I just think the quality of that entire thing is on par with Prelude to Axanar.

Wait...no. That one had better dialogue.

I've seen a lot of comments regarding this show and I have to say that I am ashamed to call myself a Trekkie today. I have loved Star Trek since I was four years old (I am 38 now) but the "fan" and "non-fan" overreaction to this trailer is simply beyond the pale. Whatever happened to Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations? Does that mean nothing now?

@Ian,

We are all pretty hard core Trek fans which is why this looks so disappointing:
Because we know what it could and should be, and not what it appears to actually be.

I for one am stoked! Love the look, love the casting.

Had some BAB5 vibes looking at the aliens :-)

Klingon sarcophagus ship!?!?!?! YEAH! We could see the entire history of the Klingon race!

15 episodes now vice 13!!

Come on folks.... lighten up!! All shows grow.... all Star Trek shows grew.... this one will too.

The only thing that made me tilt my head a bit was the lense flares :-)

I can't wait!!

Just happy to have trek back on tv where it belongs. As long as they keep it interesting and have vaguely original stories.

I'm not really bothered about the visuals

The absurdly darkened bridge is really quite demonstrative of the problems with nu-Trek (which is now fairly clear includes Discovery). Here you have a bridge of a starship where lighting is an absolute necessity and could mean life or death. TOS and TNG accounted for that. But then lighting and cinematography "experts" step in and tell you that bright lights don't make for an appealing aesthetic or visual style. Eventually this comes to apply to all areas of the show. Appearance takes a priority over substance.

@Destructor

"I'm stunned by all the negativity."

I'm not.

We were only given two minutes of footage, but reading the above comments one might think that we'd seen an entire movie's worth of garbage. The same panting and moaning by the same crowd graced the initial reaction to the first Beyond trailer. Beyond turned out to be pretty good. I'm going to give this one a chance, because I am a Star Trek fan. It will only be after having watched the finished product that I will be able to conclude whether it was terrible. Heretical as this may sound, I am rooting for the show to be good.

@johnathan,

Re: darkened bridge, google CIC Arleigh Burke or any other modern warship and tell us what you see. Maybe CBS should darken their starship's bridge a bit more, eh?

"This video is not available."

Hmm.

May check it out, may not. I do find myself looking for excused to not watch the show. It may be time to let Star Trek go to rest within my younger self, regardless how good or bad the show is.

not only are we getting a mary sue galbrush threepwood captain, we also get one that's a commander?

welp, it could work. if neither of those characters are important. that would be a first. certainly more likely than either of them being presented as reasonably flawed and realistic as people.

@ Dejinry
"I’m not.

We were only given two minutes of footage, but reading the above comments one might think that we’d seen an entire movie’s worth of garbage."

But It isn't just these "two minutes of footage".

What about all the promotional material we had in the past few months? "Darker and grittier"? All the signs of trampling over continuity? The leaked photo of the unklingon Klingons (which the trailer confirmed as legit)?

Some people just don't care about these things, which is perfectly fine.

But for those who DO care about these things (like me), the negative reaction is quite understandable. One certainly does NOT need to wait for the actual series to come out, in order to say these things. The odds of "Discovery" respecting continuity or being an optimistic thoughtful show are exactly zero.

And again, if this doesn't bother you, that's cool. The show may well turn out to be a decent sci fi series, just like ST2009 was a decent sci fi movie. But it sure won't have much common with "Star Trek" as it was in its first 40 years, and for some of us this is a deal-breaker.

It seems that this show tries to do the same thing that the new movies tried to do. Ignore the fans and go for a new audience.But a tv show is not a movie. It needs it's audience to come back every week and in this case pay for it. A generic new audience is not likely to do it, only the fans would do it.
Anyway i hope i'll be proven wrong and Discovery will be a good star trek show.

@ Karatsiospa
"It seems that this show tries to do the same thing that the new movies tried to do. Ignore the fans and go for a new audience."

Well... yes and no.

They are obviously following the same trend of the new movies, but they don't need to look for a new audience. The same audience that loved the films will probably love Discovery as well.

Of-course, you're 100% right that this generic audience is probably not going to subscribe for a show that hides beyond a paywall. Why subscribe, when they can get their generic sci fi fix for free in a dozen other places?

Heya Jammer

Any way to put this on the Comment Stream? That is where I keep up with stuff, and will probably not visit this every day to see if someone commented on it.

I don't know if it's possible, but just a thought...

Thanks for your great site... RT

I have no optimism for this new Trek series. It comes off as a cynical cash-grab. And no f'ing way does it fit the continuity of the "Prime" universe. (Shouldn't the Klingons look like normal people with goatees?) The ship is poorly designed, and more to the point, the show is going the "dark and edgy" route. In fact, there's nothing in this trailer about the wonderment of going out into space and facing the unknown. It's all about death and destruction--something fanboys eat up.

Check out this series launch trailer as a counter-point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtmsI07AMsE

Star Trek, for me, was life-saving escapism for me when I was younger...and now it's gone. CBS and Paramount have concluded that Star Trek has to be like to be the same style, the same subject matter, and fit in the same mold and ultimately slopped out on the same trays for consumers who give it as much thought as the one-time used of a paper towel.

*sigh* At least I've got TOS and TNG on HD on Blu ray...

By the way, did anyone here notice that the viewscreen of the Shenzou is actually a window?

I just noticed that now. Hmmm, I wonder where they got they idea for that...




Ano

I'm not sure that my hopes for Discovery would be any better had it taken an optimistic tone rather than "darker and grittier".

Remember Enterprise and its opening theme music? "Faith of the heart..."

I kinda liked "Faith of the heart" XD

Seriously. I thought it was very fitting for the theme of space exploration.

(cue in gasps of horror from everyone, who vow never to speak with that weirdo Omicron ever again)

It looks fine. Not much to go on here, apart from the look, but somehow I get a better vibe than from the new movies.

I look forward to watching it, and hope everybody gives it a fair chance.

Oh good, ST predictably resumes its continuing mission to seek out new and exciting politically correct captains to helm it's show. Finally they can claim the first black woman captain of a ST tv show! I'm so relieved! Perhaps the next captain can be a gay Muslim! That will really show how forward thinking they are!

What's wrong with a black woman captain? And how did a bigot like you end up on a Trek site like this?

The diversity of the crew is the one thing that Discovery did right. That's the one core idea they kept from all the previous iterations of Trek.

And the funny thing is, she isn't even the captain of Discovery. The captain of the eponymous ship is a guy named Lorca who is portrayed by Jason Isaac. I'm sure you'll be relieved to know that Isaac is white on the *right* side, just like all civilized men.

(Also, a gay Muslim captain would be a wonderful idea. The fact that this combination irritates so many people pretty much sums up everything that is wrong in our current society.)

I am a little underwhelmed... Also seems to be following the reboot style of uniforms etc.
Whilst I'm not expecting a dial back to the Trek look of Kirk... Keeping it in the same ball park wouldn't have been too hard would it?

whera are the other comments? i can only see the last two.

Wow OmicronThetaDeltaPhi, who were you talking with? :-)

I for one loved everything about the trailer aside from the lens flares. Hopefully they won't go the the JJ level in the series.

15 episode now!!

Love the look, love the casting... we get to see the Klingon sarcophagus ship!!

I am officially reenergized!!

I get the feeling that she will be the Captain of the Discovery (lead military) but Issacs will be "in-charge" as a civilian?

We'll see.

I thought this show wasn't going to take place in the JJ-verse, but everything about this trailer (technology, weird Klingons, friggen lens flares) says otherwise...?

Mixed feelings for sure. Most fans (including myself) seem to really want a post-Nemesis show and CBS is all like "Nah, we'd rather keep milking the TOS nostalgia train without actually committing to doing that era right."

While I'm happy to have a new Trek show in general, this early footage is not what I expected.

@Yanks

"Wow OmicronThetaDeltaPhi, who were you talking with?"

Is that a serious question? Surely you can get the gist of the comment I replied to, from my response.

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
for some reason the comments previous to yours have dissapeared

???

What the heck happened to all the earlier comments (including my original comment)? Jammer, we have a problem...

Hmm, I think this comments thread may have been hit with red matter...

Looks like there's a comment limit of 50 that is imposed by the software configuration, and after that it starts a new page. I will need to look into it. The comments still exist. They just aren't being shown.

Fixed.

@karatasiospa

"for some reason the comments previous to yours have disappeared"

Yeah, I know. Which is why my reply to Yanks was:

"Surely you can get the gist of the comment I replied to, from my response."

I mean, that post of mine started with "what's wrong with a black human captain?" You can kinda tell that I didn't write that in response to a comment about warp propulsion...

Oops... I wrote "human" instead of "woman".

Funny, given the circumstances.

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Monday, May 22, 2017, 10:40 am (UTC -5)
@Yanks

“Wow OmicronThetaDeltaPhi, who were you talking with?”

Is that a serious question? Surely you can get the gist of the comment I replied to, from my response.

karatasiospa
Monday, May 22, 2017, 1:35 pm (UTC -5)
@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
for some reason the comments previous to yours have dissapeared

==============================================================

Yup... why I asked the question.

When I posted the question, there was only 2 other post on this thread.

I don't think Eric was being bigoted; I think he was just expressing how minority casting has become rote and obligatory in Trek, rather than a boldness.

Not a point worth making, in my opinion.

If it is so "rote", why even mention it? Why complain about it?

It's not like the creators of the show yelled "Look how bold we are! We have black woman lead!!!!!!" in our faces (like they did with their gay dude, a fact that annoys me to no end). So yes, if a person has such a reaction to the mere appearance of a black woman officer in a trailer, then he has a problem.

As for a diverse crew "not being bold", I agree. It isn't bold, but given what we know about the Star Trek Universe, a diverse crew *is* necessary.

As non-American, may I just say that from what I can see on them interwebz, you guys have gone totally batshit insane with SJW and alt-right hijacking every f*cking single conversation in the known universe and folding space around you like pro melange chewers straight outta Herbert in the process.

Jesus, vast swathes of the net have become downright unreadable due to bigots using every single venue as their grandstanding platforms.

Paul M., you are so right.

I'm a bit annoyed with CBS, the fan film guidelines, and the 'All Access' thing. I'm not a fan of the JJ Trek stuff. I was fully prepared to abandon "Discovery" based on those issues alone. I'd be quite happy skipping it and watching "The Expanse" instead.

However, after seeing the inane alt-right take on the show, and reading how suddenly these white men (like me) feel 'excluded' from Star Trek because only 50% of the announced cast are white men... (And some of them are in alien make-up! Or minor roles! Or playing a gay character!) I think I shall sign up for CBS's pay service when "Discovery" airs even if I choose not to watch it!

MRA anger aside, the show will live or die on whether or not they can tell engaging stories well, and while I remain concerned, the jury is still out on that for now.

It is incredibly disappointing to see that the alt-right has already taken to the Internet to write bigoted garbage about this show. Why don't they get get some money and a filmmaker to finance their own white-male-only science fiction show? How difficult can that be? It's not like the writers for such a show would actually have to be paid to.. You know, think.

I was thinking of getting CBS streaming just for Star Trek. My mind has been changed. Another prequel with altered Klingons? Couldn't we just have a Next-Next generation and do great stories (and not worry about JJ's universe). TNG left a lot of fertile ground for followup stories.

Just wow......how disappointing.

And now we have new variable in that equation - fandom debate (not a shitstorm.. so far) ST: Discovery vs. The Orville. Menosky on one side, Braga on another, etc.

@E2

"After seeing the inane alt-right take on the show, and reading how suddenly these white men (like me) feel ‘excluded’ from Star Trek because only 50% of the announced cast are white men… (And some of them are in alien make-up! Or minor roles! Or playing a gay character!) I think I shall sign up for CBS’s pay service when “Discovery” airs even if I choose not to watch it!"

Really? You're actually going to support a show you don't like from a company who treats its fans like dirt, just because a group of bigots complain about the diverse cast?

I'm all for diversity, but we don't need a bunch of medicore TV shows that get a green light just because their cast is diverse. This is a terrible idea, not only due to the obvious reasons (bad TV is bad) but also because it sends a dangerous political message.

One of the most popular claims of these bigots, is that minority casting has become more important than actually making good TV. Surely you don't want to prove them right?

@Q

"And now we have new variable in that equation – fandom debate (not a shitstorm.. so far) ST: Discovery vs. The Orville. Menosky on one side, Braga on another, etc."

Holy sh*t! This is the first time I've ever heard of "The Orville".

I googled it and found a trailer. That thing looks absolutely amazing...

And the really wonderful news? The simple fact that it is actually LEGAL to produce such a thing. The visual feel is so similar to the (pre-Abrams) Star Trek, it gives me goosebumps. I know it 's a comedy, but still... wonderful. Just, wonderful.

I'm going to watch the heck out of this series...

It must be said that the trailer for Orville looks way better than the Discovery trailer! Now, whether the comedy factor can be sustained over a series remains to be seen.

"trailer for Orville"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy9sKeCE8V0

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi

Even more so, The Orville is apparently going to be more than just a comedy. According to Seth MacFarlane himself, though the comedy aspect is being emphasized, it's also nonetheless going to be serious science fiction ... even allegorical sci-fi, and optimistic sci-fi. Indeed, in the article linked to below, he actually compares it to TOS and TNG in those regards (as well as being an hour-long show, where each episode must therefore tell a story).

Really, considering that MacFarlane is a big fan of Star Trek and has even spoken before of being open to creating a Star Trek series, I really feel that The Orville is his way of doing that. And while the comedy / parody / spoof aspect of it may seem "off" a bit, well, perhaps he had to do that in order to set it sufficiently apart from the Star Trek shows (and, of course, comedy is kind of his thing), but besides, why couldn't a Star Trek series be funny, or even delve into self-parody? I mean, with so many series already created, and with the varied tones and genres that Star Trek has always delved into, for once, rather than the "darker and grittier" angle, why wouldn't comedy work besides?

http://trekmovie.com/2017/05/22/seth-macfarlane-the-orville-will-be-more-star-trek-than-futurama/

http://www.ifc.com/2011/10/seth-mcfarlane-star-trek

As of 30th May (Australian time) I get a 'video unavailable' message. Is this universal, or just that Australia has copyright laws that can block overseas videos being displayed!

I think the video has geoblocking. It can't be viewed from anywhere outside the US.

Mind boggling, given how they've heavily targeted the international market until now.

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi

"Really? You’re actually going to support a show you don’t like from a company who treats its fans like dirt, just because a group of bigots complain about the diverse cast?"

I think I understand your point; let me respond with a story Nichelle Nichols tells (that probably everyone who reads this site has already heard!)

Back when they were still filming TOS, she was invited to attend a NAACP dinner, and they sat her next to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He asked her about the show, and she told him she was leaving it. She was unhappy with the production, her character had very little to do. Frequently, she'd reherase, sit there all week, and when it came time to deliver her only line in the episode, they'd chose to cut it to save time. She was done, she wanted to try to find a job where she'd be able to really do something. Dr. King asked her to reconsider. He told her that just sitting there, on the bridge of the Enterprise every week, she was doing more for their cause than his marches! That convinced her to stay.

I have a wife and a daughter, neither of which are white. Seeing people that look like them onscreen in an optimistic future- that still matters. That still has the power to affect how they see themselves, and how others in our society see them.

So yes, you're darn right I'll pay to encourage that, even if CBS has done nasty things to the fan films, and even if the Klingons look like they've been JJ'd.

(I also plan to watch the heck out of Orville as well, Since I love 'Galaxy Quest' and usually like McFarlane's stuff...)

Orville sounds like one of those shows where all the good ideas are used up in the pilot.

I mean, Galaxy Quest was epic, but a sequel would have sucked.

The latest rumor I've heard is, as of now, Star Trek Discovery will take place in NEITHER the Prime universe, or the JJ-Abrams (Kelvin) movie universe. It will be another reboot.

Worse, in order to attract JJ movie fans, the look of the new series will borrow heavily from his work (i.e. lens flares, look of ship's interiors and consoles, etc). It also looks to be borrowing from Star Wars, to attract that crowd as well. I also heard all the Trek writers and producers who wanted to preserve Trek canon are out, meaning this reboot will be only loosely based on any Star Trek we've ever seen. If at all.

After watching the trailer, I can't say this has *any* appeal to me. I didn't like the three reboot films, and this seems to stray even further in terms of story, canon and overall Trek lore. Dare I say it, this looks far worse than Enterprise or Voyager. I've watched every TV episode of Trek and every film. This is actually the first time I would consider skipping over a television series with the "Trek" name. Based on the trailer, and these rumors, if true, I rather see the whole Discovery project canceled.

Orville by contrast LOOKS like something I would enjoy watching. I would prefer a serious tone sci-fi series along the lines of TNG and DS9, but I'll take this over Discovery! And I'm thinking back, one of my favorite TV shows of all times did a well balanced mix of sci-fi and comedy. Anyone remember the British series, Red Dwarf? (the original run: 1988-1999).

Mitch,

The official position of CBS is that "Discovery" is set in the Prime Timeline.

Obviously, the trailer (as well as other tidbits we've heard before) pretty much contradicts this claim. They can say whatever they want, but there's no doubt that "Discovery" *is* a reboot of the TOS era.

My guess is that CBS thinks that 1960's Trek is a burden for the franchise so they decided to make a new reference point for that era. And since they understand that admitting a reboot openly would be very bad for business, they are trying to sneak it under our radar.

I would call this attempt at deception stupid... if not for the fact that many of the old fans are actually falling for it. CBS may be ruining the franchise, but apparently they understand their target audience better than I thought...

As for "The Orville":

It obviously can't replace Star Trek. If anybody tried to pass Orville as a Star Trek spinoff, I wouldn't like that at all.

But as a standalone sci fi comedy (that obviously winks at Star Trek) it looks wonderfully inviting. Bring in the anti-banana ray! I'm ready for you :-)

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi - Well, assuming it is released, we should know by the first episode whether it fits within the Star Trek universe or not. And for the record, the JJ-Abrams movies certainly do not. In fact they've strayed so far from "Trek", it almost makes Voyager and Enterprise seem like respectable viewing.

When I first heard of Discovery, I was hoping for not only a return back to the Prime universe, but with writing and set visuals we only last experienced in the DS9 era. Not something that sinks even deeper into the abyss than the 2009-16 reboot movies. Ugh.

I'm also tried of all these prequels. Enterprise, JJ-movies and now Discovery? What is all this going *backwards* nonsense, why not go forward? Ironically just one of the many things (now absent) that Trek was once about.

I've about given up on new Trek, I think I'll go re-watch TOS, TNG and DS9 (just picked up the complete TNG series on Bluray, planning to go season by season to see if it still stands up today!).

The most absurd thing here is that it isn't even a "prequel".

Prequels are meant to show how things became the way the did. If they're changing everything so much that it screams "parallel timeline", then they aren't doing a prequel.

At least the Abrams films openly admitted they are set in a parallel timeline... Yet they still insisted on calling ST2009 "an origin story". How can it be an origin story, if these are completely different versions of the familiar characters?

Oh, and as for the question for whether old Trek still stands up today:

It does. Me and my wife just started a rewatch of all the Trek episodes and films (I-X) a few months ago. TOS holds surprisingly well and even the dreaded season 1 of TNG wasn't as bad as I remembered it (It's not exactly *good*, but it is surprisingly watchable).

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi - How true. There is quite the difference between a "prequel" and what we have here, a "reboot". Discovery obviously wants to disguise itself as a
"prequel", but when you re-imagine the whole Star Trek universe from the ground up, it is anything but.

The characters, vision, premise and even the basic look and feel has changed so much from what came before, I personally do not consider this (or the 2009-2016 films) part of Trek canon. I did that with Aliens and Terminator 2, following those films, everything that came after didn't happen in my mind (and I'm starting to do the same with Trek now).

Yep, I actually re-watched TNG season 1, plus the start of season 2 on Netflix last year (before they removed it from the Canadian side, grrr) and quite enjoyed it. TAS too, to my surprise! I'd really like to watch DS9 again though, nevermind just as Trek, it was some of the best TV I've ever watched!

What's wrong with the Discovery characters?

They're all new people (with the exception of Sarek who has - like - one line which I think is actually in character) so they can be whatever the producers want them to be without any continuity problems.

It's not like they've tried to show us a familiar character doing something completely ridiculous, like (say) Kirk driving a 1960's car off a cliff to the sounds of the Beastie Boys (just a random example. Of-course this could never happen ;-))

Apparently the Klingon thing is to do with the Enterprise episodes and is just genetic abnormalities.

They are still filming episode 5 !

http://trekmovie.com/2017/06/08/alex-kurtzman-bryan-fullers-big-ideas-still-part-of-star-trek-discovery-hints-at-celebrity-cameos/

I think what all of us keep hoping for is a new Star Trek that will capture our hearts and minds the way old Trek did--thus our disappointment when new series or movies fail to meet our expectations. But I am willing to give Discovery a fair shot--especially if Michelle Yeoh is involved.

As far as the diversity issue is concerned, all you white boys can bite me. We've been watching white boys run things for far too long. It's nice to have some women and people of color in charge.

Star Trek derailed, or just ceased to be (from my perspective at least), since the reboot films. This new TV series makes absolutely no attempt to bring it back on track, just stray even further away from what it once was.

Even as bad as Voyager, Enterprise and the last TNG film (Nemesis) were, at least they looked and felt like they were in the Star Trek universe. Don't get me wrong, the writing was horrendous, but at least you felt there was potential to bring it back on track. And for what it's worth, I can pick out a handful of respectable episodes that were well done and Trek worthy. Certainly only a tiny fraction, but there were a few (whereas I see nothing positive to extract from the recent films). So after the 2009, 2013 and 2016 films, and what I see of Discovery, I just feel Star Trek is dead.

Ironically the only ones wanting to keep it alive are not Paramount, but fans on the outside. 'Orville' and 'Star Trek Continues' may be the only way to still see anything approaching real Trek these days...

After seeing the trailer a few more times and having a couple discussions about it, I've warmed up more positively to it. Couple things to take away:

The ship in the trailer is not the Discovery, but Michelle Yeoh's ship. So the Discovery won't be the off-putting Phase 2 design? Happy about that.

The specific look of these Klingons is potentially deliberate and will tie into the storyline in some way. No guarantees though. I would've preferred TOS era Klingons if these are supposed to be actual Klingons. Guess we'll see?

Apparently the studio is feeling good enough about this project to grant them more episodes for this season (up to 15) and Nicholas Meyer is apparently working on a separate Trek show for them. Kinda crazy.

Kurtzman's recent comments stating that Fuller's vision for this season is largely intact gave me some relief.

As always, the hate on the internet for this trailer seems really overblown. After taking everything in, I feel a bit more positive/hyped about the show in general.

Discovery will debut on September 24:
http://www.startrek.com/article/star-trek-discovery-sets-premiere-date

So, it will be released weekly on CBS All Access. That's silly considering the success of the Netflix "release a whole season at once" model. Not that I would subscribe to All Access just for this anyway unless the reviews are stellar. I hope I'm wrong and that the series is good, but given that the powers that be haven't been able to do anything imaginative with the recent movies, I am just not at all excited.

But it will be split in two parts, first 7 episodes from september to november the other 8 on january 2018

http://io9.gizmodo.com/star-trek-discovery-begins-september-24-1796225126

@Eric
"So, it will be released weekly on CBS All Access. That’s silly considering the success of the Netflix 'release a whole season at once' model. "

The entire concept of "CBS All Access" is silly to begin with. It looks like they're trying to replicate the success of Hulu and Netflix without understanding how these services work (hint - they buy a *huge* wealth of content from many providers).

Data's "prophecy" of TV going extinct by 2040 sounds more and more realistic every day...

I can't even get past the publicity photo (see Gizmodo.com link above). Their uniforms look like a cross between a Nascar driver's suit, and the blue jumpsuits from Enterprise. And if this is before Kirk's time, each ship is supposed to have a different insignia badge (the universally worn Starfleet badge didn't come about until the movie era, right?). Maybe it bothers me because just underlines the fact this is a different universe/reality from regular Trek.

I'll watch it and see, but we should get a sense of whether it passes or fails after an episode or two. Or rather has enough potential to continue watching (TNG and DS9 were pretty rough in their early seasons, but I could tell they would blossom into something great, and they did). I will say I don't have much optimism after the 3 films and seeing the Discovery trailer. I'm going in with low expectations but hey, who knows...maybe I'll be surprised.

Maybe I'm different from you, but I really couldn't give a rip about uniforms and continuity and all that. I just want good ideas and characters.

Lo and behold, the series has come up with the SECOND interesting idea I've gleaned from it - Sonequa Martin-Green's character is apparently a human who chose to be educated on Vulcan.

http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/20/star-trek-discovery-sonequa-martin-green-burnham/

There's little more beyond the typical interview-speak about inner conflict and self-discovery, but hey, I'm intrigued as to why she'd choose to be educated on Vulcan.

Still not watching it after the pilot, though.

Brandon: Maybe I'm making a bit of a stretch here, but if they have little to no interest in acknowledging the look, feel and essence of the Trek universe, where will that leave stories, writing and the original vision of the show?

Hey, if they can pull off amazing stories and characters with great depth and development, plus fascinating sci-fi that has a point to tell, all the power to this series. I just don't see that happening from the peek we're getting here (and I'm afraid the films really set a bad precedent for future Trek). I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong though, but we'll just have to wait and see....

So why don't you want to watch it beyond the pilot?

Probably because the All-Access thing...

As for:
"And if this is before Kirk’s time, each ship is supposed to have a different insignia badge (the universally worn Starfleet badge didn’t come about until the movie era, right?)"

There's actually quite some wiggle room for interpertation on this one. What you said is the "offical" theory, but it was never really established on screen (what was established, is that starbase personell had a different patch)

So Discovery contradicting this won't be a hard continuity error.

Besides, the problem with Discovery's atmosphere isn't any specific tidbit. It's not like we're continuity fanatics who are moaning about some switch being in the wrong position or a uniform of the wrong color. The problem is that they've changed EVERYTHING, including the general feel of the show. The trailer looks like it came from some dark dystopian film rather than Star Trek. And unlike some random and obscure continuity trivia, this fact bothers me a great deal.

"The problem is that they’ve changed EVERYTHING, including the general feel of the show. The trailer looks like it came from some dark dystopian film rather than Star Trek. And unlike some random and obscure continuity trivia, this fact bothers me a great deal."

Oh, I completely agree and couldn't have said it better myself! Those are all my feelings too. This drifts even further away from Trek than the movies IMO. At this point though, I'm just nitpicking the trivia details because there's just so much wrong with the whole thing, that it's almost not worth pointing out. :) It's not even the tip of the iceberg what's wrong with Discovery (from what we can see so far).

As for the insignia badge, didn't the captain of the USS Constellation (TOS's Doomsday Machine) have a very different looking badge? Or for that matter, the crew from any other federation starship in TOS.

Yeah, Captain Decker of the Constellation wore a different badge and so did Tracy of the USS Exeter.

On the other hand, the officers in Kirk's court martial (in the episode of the same name) all wore the arrowhead badge on their dress uniform.

There's also "a Word of God" from Roddenberry and the production staff of TOS that the arrowhead symbol was intended for use aboard all Starfleet starships, and that the few counterexamples we've seen were mistakes. Many of the TOS novels (yes, I know they aren't canon) followed this same assumption as well.

Then, of-course, there are many other places were the arrowhead appears as a universal Starfleet symbol way before the NCC1701: It appears on the late 21st century probe "Friendship One" [VOY] and in countless episodes of Enterprise.

So the situation is far from clear. And since *not* having the arrowhead badge would have confused most people, I personally think that using it in "Discovery" was a valid choice.

@Mitch

"So why don’t you want to watch it beyond the pilot?"

I don't have the money.

http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/21/star-trek-discovery-jason-isaacs-captain-lorca/

Shot of Jason Isaacs. Another very positive thing about the show.

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi, “The problem is that they’ve changed EVERYTHING, including the general feel of the show. The trailer looks like it came from some dark dystopian film rather than Star Trek. And unlike some random and obscure continuity trivia, this fact bothers me a great deal.”

Precisely this. Trek at its core was about optimism, adventure and exploration in the fun sense of the word, liberal humanism. At a time when people thought the nuclear superpowers would destroy the world, Trek said that there is a future and it is bright. That was conveyed not just through the storytelling but also the design choices (bright uniforms, well lit sets, etc). I think many people criticizing Trek nowadays for looking unrealistic, or being too slow, or having stale characters miss the point entirely. Trek was never about character drama or action scenes, it was about the human spirit.

@Dom
"I think many people criticizing Trek nowadays for looking unrealistic, or being too slow, or having stale characters miss the point entirely. Trek was never about character drama or action scenes, it was about the human spirit."

Not only they "miss the point" but they are also dead wrong.

Classic Trek has stale characters? What kind of crazy person would call Leonard Nimoy's Spock "stale"? Or McCoy? Picard? Data? Worf? Did these guys even watch the same shows we did?

As for being unrealistic: At least classic Trek made *some* attempt to have plot logic and consistency and some grounding in real science. They didn't always succeed, but they tried.

That's unlike NuTrek, where people just beam over from planet to planet at ludicrous speed, Kirk drives '60s automobiles off cliffs to the sound of the Beasty Boys, and Khaaaaaaaan is some comic book superman who can leap buildings in a single bound (and has magic blood which can revive the dead).

Compare to THAT, even TOS would be considered the pillar of realism and hard sci fi.

(just remembered how the Horta eggs from "Devil in the Dark" had the exact brownish color associated with certain silicon compounds in the real world. God, I love that show)

I agree with Brandon. It's on the stories and ideas that Discovery will be judged

I just found out that Fuller is no longer in charge of the show! Is this true? Does this explain why the trailer looks so generic and similar to the feel of the movies? Wasn't Kurtzmann involved in those too?

Yeah, Fuller leaving the show is very old news.

@Brandon
"I don’t have the money."

Neither do I, but luckily it's airing on the CTV network up here in Canada, which is a free over-the-air channel (much like CBS, NBC, ABC or FOX in the States). In otherwords, fully expect it to be available freely in downloadable form.

@Omicron

"There’s also “a Word of God” from Roddenberry and the production staff of TOS that the arrowhead symbol was intended for use aboard all Starfleet starships, and that the few counterexamples we’ve seen were mistakes. "

Interesting about the arrow head Starfleet logo. I had no idea the different badges were simply production errors! I always though it was unique to the Enterprise NCC-1701 crew, and because of their special and unique merits, it was later adopted by Starfleet in the future. OK -- scratch that particular nitpick about Discovery!

@Dom

"Precisely this. Trek at its core was about optimism, adventure and exploration in the fun sense of the word, liberal humanism. At a time when people thought the nuclear superpowers would destroy the world, Trek said that there is a future and it is bright. "

Well said! And that precisely explains the part of my nitpick about the look and feel of this new show.

Ironically, the world today seems to be once again at the same crossroad it was with regards to the nuclear superpowers destroying the world. And so much more really (climate change/crash, daily terror attacks, extinction of animal species , record breaking temperatures, droughts, famine, floods, etc). If ever you wanted Trek to paint a bright future and give hope, now would be it! Maybe the show reflects how little optimize there is in 2017 for our future?

Well, as yous said yourself, it's not like the people of the 1960's were exactly optimistic about the future either...

If you look at other shows of the '60s, you'll see that TOS was a pretty unique thing. It wasn't a wild success when it aired, either.

The real difference is that Roddenberry made TOS to make a specific impact on the world. He didn't cater to the public opinion of his time. Sacrificing the vision for ratings was simply not an option for him.

Today, CBS (and Paramount too) treat Star Trek as just another cash cow. They don't care about "making a difference". They care about $$$. So they make generic sci fi in the hope of appealing to the mainstream audience.

(and funnily enough - it turned out to be a bad move financially. ST2009 and STiD were far from the blockbuster successes they were meant to be. Beyond barely broke even. THIS is what happens, when TPTB don't know what their brand is all about)

I'm reading the comments here and I'm suprised by how much some people seem to read into a trailer. Take this comment for example:

@TB: "No doubt, like TNG it will take a few episodes to get going. Unfortunately, in this era of TV it can’t afford to have several terrible episodes in the first half-season."

How can you possibly now that? How do you go from this trailer to undoubtedly there will be several terrible episodes before it gets better?

My thoughts are pretty much in line with what Jammer wrote at the top: a pretty generic trailer that doesn't tell me much, except to give an idea of the visual style they're going for (which also comes across as pretty generic for modern scifi standards). Beyond that, I don't see what the trailer tells us about the content or type of stories they will be telling. Also keep in mind that the people involved in making the trailer are very likely completely different people than those putting the actual shows together. Have Star Trek trailers ever been good? (Here, have a look back into history: www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_mFdqY6y4g)


Some more thoughts I had while reading the comments:

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi: "It’s just funny that modern Trek tries to market itself as “edgier”, as if Trek and edginess were always strangers in the past. The difference is, that in ToS the edginess was incidental. It was never the actual point of the show. The actual point was a positive outlook to a (mostly) peaceful future."

I think the point of TOS *was* to be edgy, when you take edgy to mean "at the forefront of a trend; experimental or avant-garde" (from en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/edgy). But it seems that nowadays "edgy" more often than not just means "badly lit unhappy people".


@Eric: "Oh good, ST predictably resumes its continuing mission to seek out new and exciting politically correct captains to helm it’s show."

Well, back in the sixties they already did an emotionally insecure person as captain, who had to deny other people their moment in the limelight to feel better about himself, so you had your representative already. Now it's other people's chance to shine.


@Bufo: "It must be said that the trailer for Orville looks way better than the Discovery trailer! Now, whether the comedy factor can be sustained over a series remains to be seen."

I like the visual style, but I'm not sold on the humour in the trailer. I can see how some of those jokes could be funny, but somehow the delivery falls flat for me. Trailers often put in the best jokes from the movie/series, so that worries me a bit. Ah well, we'll see.

@Mitch: "Anyone remember the British series, Red Dwarf?"

Smeg yeah.

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi: "At least the Abrams films openly admitted they are set in a parallel timeline… Yet they still insisted on calling ST2009 “an origin story”. How can it be an origin story, if these are completely different versions of the familiar characters?"

Well, it's the origin story for those different versions, isn't it?


@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi: "It’s not like they’ve tried to show us a familiar character doing something completely ridiculous, like (say) Kirk driving a 1960’s car off a cliff to the sounds of the Beastie Boys (just a random example. Of-course this could never happen ;-))"

I for one am looking forward to the surprise reveal that the death sensing guy is actually just a big death metal fan and the conflict with the Klingons is instigated by him adding a blast beat to a Klingon opera.

@Mitch: "Even as bad as Voyager, Enterprise and the last TNG film (Nemesis) were, at least they looked and felt like they were in the Star Trek universe."

Don't forget that the TNG through ENT run was an 18 year stretch of Star Trek with more or less the same people running it for that period (with that being slightly less true for DS9), so 'having the same visual style' was almost the default. In fact, back in the day, especially in the Voyager and Enterprise runs, one of the main complaints was the lack of risk taking with overall style and feel of the series (visually, musically, story wise). I don't think the departure of the (extended) nineties visuals is necessarily a problem, but the fact that the new visuals are just generic current day sci fi fare is disappointing.

@TS "and Nicholas Meyer is apparently working on a separate Trek show for them."

Wait, what? Do you have a source for that?


@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi: "Discovery will debut on September 24:
http://www.startrek.com/article/star-trek-discovery-sets-premiere-date"

Nice. Thanks!

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi: "Classic Trek has stale characters? What kind of crazy person would call Leonard Nimoy’s Spock “stale”? Or McCoy?"

Definitely not stale, but as far as McCoy is concerned, let's say "inconsistent"? (By the way, this comment and my comment about Kirk/Shatner earlier make it sound I don't like TOS, which is quite far from the truth.)


@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi: "The real difference is that Roddenberry made TOS to make a specific impact on the world."

Did he really? From the outset, I mean? Or is this part of the larger than life story that has been pasted onto the early days in later years? I mean, obviously he set out to do something different, because something different is what he made, but the lengths to which this is claimed to have gone always makes me a bit skeptical.

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi, I mostly agree, but with one nitpick. Roddenberry did make some compromises on TOS. After rejecting "The Cage," CBS wanted to inject more action and sex appeal into the show. Hence, Kirk gets into a shirtless brawl with someone or seduces some alien chick every other show. But your point is well taken. Roddenberry had a vision. To him and the people working on it, Star Trek was about more than just a convenient way to make money. There was a creative vision for what the show was about.

I do think it's surprising how given the cynicism and polarization in our culture today our pop culture hasn't really done much to appeal to our better angels. It seems like the trend is to lean into the cynicism. Even recent superhero movies like Captain America: Civil War and Batman vs. Superman seem to suggest that heroes aren't always admirable. Wonder Woman was a pretty refreshing contrast because Diana was both a superhero and a decent person.

Is this supposed to be the flagship show for CBS All Access the way Voyager was for UPN? One would really think the execs would learn.

I too am tempted to skip this. Corporate-mandated lowest common denominator safeness has pretty much destroyed the franchise. Of course, that really began when Berman fired Ron Jones way back in 1991.

@Dom

"After rejecting 'The Cage' CBS wanted to inject more action and sex appeal into the show."

Surely you mean "NBC" rather than "CBS"?

At any rate this doesn't contradict what I've said. I was talking about Roddenberry himself rather than the network.

And there's a difference between making concessions to specific demands by the people you are directly working with, and changing things to conform to the general public opinion. The Great Bird sometimes did the former, but he never *never* did the latter.

Frakes is apparently directing an episode of Discovery.

arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2017/06/new-star-trek-series-will-abandon-gene-roddenberrys-cardinal-rule/

Basically, they're getting rid of one of Gene's big rules that main characters "were not allowed to mistreat each other or have conflicts that weren’t quickly resolved".

I kind of see why they're doing that, but I just have a gut feeling that they're ripping the heart out of Star Trek with this decision. The main characters are *supposed* to be people we want to emulate. They're *supposed* to represent the best of humanity. Like other comments stated above, Gene Roddenberry wanted to make something that would stand the test of time, not something that would make $$$ in the moment and nothing else. Sometimes he succeeded, sometimes he failed, but the point is, he tried.

If you want BSG-style darkness, watch BSG. Don't drag it into Trek where it doesn't belong. (speaking as someone who enjoyed BSG) I guess this move will open up story possibilities, but I personally want main characters who can be good role models and I'm fed up with this "anti-hero" trend, but that's just my opinion and if others disagree, that's fine.

Thoughts? Agree, disagree, punch your computer screen (as Jammer once put it)?

@NCC-1701-Z
"I kind of see why they’re doing that..."

Okay, I give up. Why are they doing that?

Let me first say that I completely agree with you that they are "ripping the heart out of Star Trek".

But even if we forget Trek for a moment, why do this? Do cruel protagonists make for better TV? Does it make "Discovery" more unique among other sci shows? Would it get more people watching?

No, for the life of me, I don't see why they're doing this. It makes no business sense what-so-ever. It makes even less business sense to advertise this as one of the main points of the new show.

You've mentioned BSG, but that's hardly a good comparision. Can you imagine BSG advertising itself as "look! We are a really dark and gritty show and our protagonists are assholes! As for the plot... well, that's not really as important as how tough and dark and gritty we are!"? Would BSG be such a beloved series had it gone this route?

It looks like the guys at CBS are doing every effort to turn "Discovery" into the most bland and generic sci fi series in history.

So no, I don't get why they're doing this at all (unless you count "they have absolutely no idea what they're doing" as a reason).

BTW (sorry for the double post):

Star Trek always had character conflict. From the Spock/McCoy stuff in the original series to the last season of Enterprise. Even in the early seasons of TNG, when Roddenberry himself had complete control over everything, we had plenty of conflict or character imperfections.

But there's a difference between this and actively cruel protagonists. The people in Trek's future don't need to be "perfect", but they do need to be good role models. They need to be better than us, not worse.

What would Captain Picard do?

Oddly enough, over the past few weeks, I've actually begun to feel a bit more optimistic about Discovery. First, as to the whole "conflict among main characters" issue, Deep Space Nine somewhat dropped that rule, and it was still good Star Trek (though I know many fans would respectfully disagree about that). So depending on how the writers go about having conflict among the crew(s), there's hope that it will turn out decently. (And it *was* remarked that how the characters deal with and resolve conflict will still appeal to higher ideals.) Not to say, of course, that it wouldn't be very easy for the writers to really botch all this up ... but there's hope.

Speaking of which, it's worth noting that "Discovery" is a seemingly intrinsically optimistic title for a show, especially a Star Trek show. Not that I suppose this might mean much on its own; the creators could have named it whatever they'd wanted, irregardless of how well the title fit the content. It's still worth noting though.

And then there's the fact that, so far as I've been able to tell, there have been and still are certain people from Star Trek's better days involved with Discovery. It seems, for instance, that Bryan Fuller's overarching concepts and arc were preserved, and although I don't know for certain, I think that Joe Menosky--writer of "Darmok" and "Muse", among others--is still one of Discovery's writers. Plus, Nicholas Meyer is definitely still one of the writers, and while he worked on the movies--Star Trek has always been better as TV shows, not movies--his movies are still, of course, great, so his participation is welcomed.

But perhaps most noteworthy to me though, is the claim that Discovery, despite being much closer in time to TOS than Enterprise, will nonetheless bridge the two. And judging by the look of the uniforms and perhaps even the corridors (though I suppose those of the Shenzhou, not Discovery), there's at least some evidence to suggest that that's true. And what does that matter? Simply that whereas Enterprise never really fulfilled its potential of showing how the Federation and ideals we saw in TOS came about, perhaps Discovery will take up those aims as its own. Which in turn suggests that despite concerns of Discovery being a "secret reboot", maybe it actually will more-or-less respect continuity, and what has come before it. (Really, when you think about it, it's curious that despite the negative reaction in part to Enterprise having been a prequel, CBS and Discovery's creators nonetheless went the prequel route again. Considering that almost no TOS characters will be seen in Discovery's first season at least, it's not like nostalgia or recognition of TOS and its characters was to be relied upon. Maybe then the creators took the prequel route again because they felt they had a more compelling way to go about it? One can hope.)

Now of course, as we all know from having seen the trailer, visually, Discovery simply can't be reconciled with TOS. The fact that Discovery begins somewhere right around Pike assuming command of the Enterprise is nearly absurd in this regard. And although I can't seem to find the source at the moment, it has been admitted that, yes, the Abrams movies have influenced the visuals (though might that imply the visuals only, and not the storytelling and such? ...) But if the creators were determined to set their series before TOS, I suppose they *had* to change up and "modernize" the look. And so long as the overall tone and feel still adhere to what Star Trek should be, I suppose I for one could accept that.

Then there's the fact that Discovery will reportedly be cinematic in look and feel; a "premium series". As we've all been waiting for Star Trek to return to the small screen, I really can't say this impresses me very much. But again, I imagine it needn't necessarily be the ruin of the show, again if the overall tone and feel still adhere to what Star Trek should be.

Lastly, for better or worse depending on one's preferences for Trek, it's occurred to me very recently that while Deep Space Nine has *not* been cited as an inspiration for Discovery, it's looking like Discovery will nonetheless take many cues from it, even if not deliberately. For instance, more alien main or recurring characters? Check. Serialized storytelling? Check. Conflict among the main crew(s)? Check. Storytelling from multiple settings, and taking in a wider view of goings-on in and around the Federation? Check. If my perceptions and suppositions are correct, I have to say that after two series that largely mimicked TNG (itself obviously very similar to TOS itself), to have Discovery follow in DS9's footsteps a bit is welcomed (though I might have preferred Discovery to follow DS9 simply in spirit, which is to say, to become a Star Trek series nonetheless distinct among all other Trek series, rather than similar to some).

Well, here's to hoping that Discovery will do Star Trek proud. While I certainly won't give up doubts I have until I've seen a few episodes, like I said, I've begun to feel a bit more optimistic about it lately. There is, at least, still hope.

Taking cues from DS9? The interview posted by NCC-1701-Z makes it clear that the current showrunners aren't even aware of the existence of DS9. They are actually convinced that they are the first to introduce character conflict to the Trek Universe, which - in itself - already speaks volumes as to how clueless they are.

As for the show being heavily serialized, this is simply the current trend in TV story telling. Serialization, cheap drama, empty visual effects that "wow" the audience... It looks like TPTB have simply decided to mainstreamize Trek, and they believe this to be a brilliant and ground-breaking change in the franchise. Something along the lines of "Trek was always a boring nerd-fest and we are making it fun and catchy, so now we'll make lots of $$$".

Oh, and I'd love to be wrong about this. The problem is that every new promo/interview/media-leak just provides more damning evidence.

@NCC-1701-Z

It's easy to talk about "characters you want to emulate" when you aren't the one writing them. Writing without conflict is like painting without paint.

I guess my biggest question is why type of conflict. I'd be ok with a clash of ideals, like the way Spock and McCoy clashed about the value of logic vs. reason, or Odo vs. Kira as order vs. justice. That's always a good way to expound upon the philosophical ideas at play in a story (and, as noted by others, something previous Trek shows did). What I don't really want to see is conflict grounded in petty personal issues, like characters upset they didn't get a promotion, sexual tension, etc. There's already enough of that on TV and frankly gets tiring pretty quickly.

Also, TNG showed some pretty decent writing over the course of some 170 episodes without having the main crew constantly bickering at each other.

Such drama, such vigorous and well-founded critique!

"they’re ripping the heart out of Star Trek"; "If you want BSG-style darkness, watch BSG. Don’t drag it into Trek"; "turn “Discovery” into the most bland and generic sci fi series in history"; "Do cruel protagonists make for better TV? Does it make “Discovery” more unique among other sci shows?"; "already speaks volumes as to how clueless [showrunners] are"; "Serialization, cheap drama, empty visual effects that “wow” the audience".

Outstanding! Simply breathtaking in its elegant simplicity! We still know next to nothing about the show except for some superficial details, but it's more than enough for knowledgeable fans to conclude with reasonable certainty that Discovery will be a BSG-style dark, heartless, bland, and generic SF series with cruel protagonists, full of cheap drama and empty visual effects, piloted by clueless showrunners.

With fans like these, who need enemies? I don't know what is wrong with these kinds of a priori haters, but it's getting effing tiresome.

I also feel the need to answer a specific question by: "You’ve mentioned BSG, but that’s hardly a good comparision. Can you imagine BSG advertising itself as “look! We are a really dark and gritty show and our protagonists are assholes! As for the plot… well, that’s not really as important as how tough and dark and gritty we are!”? Would BSG be such a beloved series had it gone this route?"

Interesting and hilarious thing about this is that many original BSG fans called the new show GINO (Galactica in Name Only), disrupted conventions, issued death threats to Edward James Olmos (Adama) for suggesting that the "fans" who are so worked up about it should probably skip the show, and generally hated the re-imagined series for being dark, cynical, and disrespectful of its origins. Notice any similarities?

I am officially sick of every single fandom -- Star Trek, BSG, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Star Wars, A Song of Ice and Fire, you name it -- being choke-full of self-professed Revolutionary Guard members whose only role in life is to safeguard the Purity, Essence, and Dogmatic One-True-Wayism of their chosen Cult. It's never as good as it was, the new kids are always heretics who want to repair what isn't broken, and cynical disrespect for greatness as well as bowing to the unwashed masses' base urges infest every inch of every single misguided adaptation/sequel/spin-off in the history of mankind.

Jesus Christ and almighty Allah, Vishnu, Amon-Ra, and especially Manitou: Make it stop! Please make it stop before I am forced to fully commit to a worldview that gave name to a particularly famous comedy by Moliere.

some good and some bad news

http://trekmovie.com/2017/06/30/star-trek-discovery-promises-a-lot-of-klingons-and-game-of-thrones-type-death/

@Mr Fixit, I went into the JJ Trek films with an open mind. Enjoyed the first one enough on first viewing, but after three movies and now Disney-era Star Wars movies, I'm thoroughly sick of being written down to. I have never been one to think of myself as a purist, but these new movies have turned me into one because they are so unimaginative. I now have pretty much become the Star Wars version of a TOS-only guy (Love most stuff from A New Hope through Shadows of the Empire). Given what has gone on behind the scenes (rejecting the initial script for beyond), it's pretty hard to be excited about this series. I certainly don't want to pay a monthly fee to watch it.

Geekgarious, I very much doubt "Mr Fixit" is even interested in Star Trek.

Did you notice that his post contained absolutely nothing which is Trek-specific? It was just a generic rant about "those crazy fans".

Does he even know about the decades-long legacy of the franchise? The inspirational optimism that made it unique for almost 40 years? I really doubt it.

BTW, I *loved* every iteration of Trek when it came: TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise. Yet everything about "Discovery" is rubbing me the wrong way. It would have been nice, if this Fixit Dude bothered to check his facts before going on his hateful rant.

It's all well and good, Geekgarious, I am not a fan of Abrams movies either. But I went and watched them before coming to that conclusion. This incessant hatred of Discovery when we have so little to go on is so silly. I mean, it's one thing to be wary or unenthused, it's another to bombard us with hate without seeing a single minute of the new show.

It's nothing endemic to Trek. It is unfortunately garden-variety behavior of every single sect-like fandom out there. It's like those cliques that form in lower grades of elementary school that like to hate on a new kid who comes in because, really, that kid is a threat to our little silly social circle we so autistically built up around us. It doesn't matter if the kid is a douche or not. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but that's beside the point.

See, Geekgarious? See the new post by OmicronThetaDeltaPhi? (My previous post was written before I read it.) That is exactly what I'm talking about. He already concluded that I'm not a true Trekkie, because that kind of fan ALWAYS assumes the mantle of Hogwarts' sorting hat. It's always about the one true way to appreciate things. No matter what we are talking about, Star Trek, Star Wars, or you name it. He knows Discovery is awful PoS without having seen a single scene. He knows I'm not a fan, cause how could I be? True fans all think alike, right?

@karatasiospa

"some good and some bad news

http://trekmovie.com/2017/06/30/star-trek-discovery-promises-a-lot-of-klingons-and-game-of-thrones-type-death/"

Oh dear...

What are they doing with the Mudd character?

And the transporter room pic is hilarious. Even funnier is the text right above it, which claims the design is similar to the original 1960's prop. WTF? I don't recall Kirk and Bones beaming down with huge amplifiers aimed a their backs...

The only good news in that article is the "death" thing. Finally, a Trek series which doesn't suffer from "main cast immunity" syndrome. I'm all for that.

"He knows I’m not a fan, cause how could I be? True fans all think alike, right?"

Nope. There are plenty of fans which disagree with me (both on "Discovery" and other things)

But true fans tend to talk about the show they love. So far, you haven't said a single word about Star Trek. You just came here and attacked people with a hateful rant, and backed it up with absolutely nothing specific to the situation at hand.

Did you know that most of the "assumptions" you've attributed to us were actually direct quotes from the show runners themselves? "Darker and grittier" were their own words.

And do you know *why* people like myself have such a bad feeling about "Discovery"? Do you know what made Star Trek special in its first 40 years? Are you aware that influence of Star Trek on the world is unlike any of the other franchises you've mentioned?

And are you even interested in having an honest discussion about the topic? Given that you've actually lumped us with crazy people who issue death threats, that seems very doubtful.

BTW I'm usually a nice guy. I don't attack people just because they disagree with me, least of all when the topic is a TV show. But if you jump in front of people by surprise and yell hateful words at them, you won't be catching them at their best.

Look man, it isn't me who started with the hating. You have literally dozens of comments on this thread, each one being incessant bashing of the show without having seen ANYTHING except a one minute trailer and some sparse background info. Your every post is OMG, they hate Trek, they don't have a clue, they are ruining everything!!11! I will never understand this, truly. How can a person have such entrenched feelings and views about things he knows almost nothing about except for some minimal marketing info fed to us via the hype machine?

As for me, ooops, you're right. Just now noticed I actually signed in under a nick I use at a completely different site. Le sigh. My apologies.

@Paul M/Mr Fixit

"Look man, it isn’t me who started with the hating. You have literally dozens of comments on this thread, each one being incessant bashing of the show without having seen ANYTHING except a one minute trailer and some sparse background info."

Yeah, because criticising a show (or the promos of a show) is exactly the same thing as spouting hate against other people?

I've already explained the reasons for my view at length, and you ignored the points I've raised completely.

Really, this strawman:

"I am officially sick of every single fandom — Star Trek, BSG, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Star Wars, A Song of Ice and Fire, you name it — being choke-full of self-professed Revolutionary Guard members whose only role in life is to safeguard the Purity, Essence, and Dogmatic One-True-Wayism of their chosen Cult. It’s never as good as it was, the new kids are always heretics who want to repair what isn’t broken, and cynical disrespect for greatness as well as bowing to the unwashed masses’ base urges infest every inch of every single misguided adaptation/sequel/spin-off in the history of mankind."

Has absolutely no relevance to the problems we have with "Discovery". We are *not* criticising it just because "it is something different". We have raised very specific points, which you completely and decisively ignored.

You're right about one thing, though: There are people who take this way to seriously. They actually resort to hateful comments against other fans just because those fans have a different opinion.

Jeez, Man. It's just a TV show. Calm down.

@Mr Fixit, actually I think difference between the reaction to the LOTR/Harry Potter films and the new Trek films is telling. While there was a minority of book purists who hated the LOTR/Harry Potter films, they got generally positive reviews from fans and general audiences alike and helped spawn huge franchises. Why? Because they understood the core of the original work's appeal. The LOTR films don't capture every word Tolkien wrote, but they do evoke the majesty and epic adventure. Same with BSG and Planet of the Apes. While there are a few purists who only accept the older versions, both reboots have been greeted with widespread praise from both fans and critic.

The new Trek films, and what we've seen of Discovery, just don't. Yes, it's too early to judge Discovery, but none of the early signs have been encouraging. They talk about being inspired by Game of Thrones to make it "darker and grittier", kill off main characters, more serialized storytelling, etc. But I have not yet heard anyone involved saying that they were influenced by STAR TREK or Roddenberry (aside from Bryan Fuller, who is no longer with the show). What are the themes and ideas that excite these writers working on the show? You don't hear the marketing department talking about how the show will draw inspiration from such and such episode of DS9, or TOS, or a certain actor/writer, certain historical events, etc. That worries me.

You are right that it's too early to judge Discovery a failure or success. Maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised. But we should be free to express our concerns about a franchise we love without getting attacked. Which, by the way, is all we're doing, expressing our concerns. Even after all this, I'd love to like Discovery, but I just don't see anything getting me excited. I'll watch the series premiere, but won't pay for CBS All Access unless it shows promise.

The other thing is that I don't think it's wrong for fans to be upset if and when a corporation tries to milk a franchise. Yes, Lucas, Roddenberry, JK Rowling, and even Tolkien told their stories partly because they saw the financial opportunities (and they became rich). But they were also artists. They had stories they thought worth telling in their own right.

My fear with franchises run by corporate studios is that we're just going to get stories in these franchises just to make money, not because anyone feels like they're worthy stories. Fortunately, most of these other franchises have enough defenders to prevent the studios from turning the films into a total cash grab. JK Rowling is still alive and overseeing the Potterworld. Star Wars has Kathleen Kennedy and everyone at Lucasfilm who, say what you will about the films, actually care about Star Wars. Christopher Tolkien is still the conscience of Middle-earth and isn't afraid to critique excessive commercialization.

Unfortunately, Star Trek doesn't really have anyone like that to defend the franchise at a high level (Rick Berman, for all his faults, played that role after Roddenberry passed away until 2005). JJ Abrams directed the first two movies but never really had a stake in the franchise and has since moved on. I had hoped Fuller might be that person for Discovery, but he's no longer showrunner. There's nobody associated with current Trek that fans trust implicitly to look out for the best interests of the franchise. It's a shame, but that's another reason why I think fans are so worried.

@Mr Fixit

"I am officially sick of..."

Nobody cares.

I'll wait for an episode or 3 before passing judgment.

DS9 had the best pilot episode of the franchise with the Emissary, if Star Trek Discovery can do anything better than Encounter at Farpoint, we'll be in good shape.

Perhaps a guest appearance from Whoopi Goldberg as Guinan would help give discovery a little help, she would be around at this point prior to leaving Federation for El Auria when she saw the Borg invasion.

If Discovery's pilot will be as thoughtful and respectful as "Encounter at Farpoint", I'll be very pleseantly surprised.

And yes, I am aware that "Farpoint" is a pretty clunky episode. But for season 1 of any Trek show, we can accept clunky. I'm mentioning "Farpoint" as a benchmark not because it is a great episode, but because it nicely epitomizes what Trek is all about: awe, wonder and optimism for humanity's future. TNG (and DS9) may have taken some time to find its footing as good TV, but it showed its Trekkian soul from the very first minute of the pilot.

(I'll give this another try --- and add some more comments in the process. For some reason my posts keep getting removed? If there is any house rule I'm breaking, please let me know.)

I'm reading the early comments here and I'm suprised by how much some people seem to read into a trailer. Take this comment for example:


@TB: "No doubt, like TNG it will take a few episodes to get going. Unfortunately, in this era of TV it can’t afford to have several terrible episodes in the first half-season."

How can we possibly know that? How do we go from this trailer to undoubtedly there will be several terrible episodes before it gets better?

My thoughts are pretty much in line with what Jammer wrote at the top: a pretty generic trailer that doesn't tell me much, except to give an idea of the visual style they're going for (which also comes across as pretty generic for modern scifi standards). Beyond that, I don't see what the trailer tells us about the content or type of stories they will be telling. Also keep in mind that the people involved in making the trailer are very likely completely different people than those putting the actual shows together. Have Star Trek trailers ever been good? (Here, have a look back into history: www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_mFdqY6y4g)


Some more thoughts I had while reading the comments:


@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi: "It’s just funny that modern Trek tries to market itself as “edgier”, as if Trek and edginess were always strangers in the past. The difference is, that in ToS the edginess was incidental. It was never the actual point of the show. The actual point was a positive outlook to a (mostly) peaceful future."

I think the point of TOS *was* to be edgy, when you take edgy to mean "at the forefront of a trend; experimental or avant-garde" (from en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/edgy). But it seems that nowadays "edgy" more often than not just means "badly lit unhappy people".


@Bufo: "It must be said that the trailer for Orville looks way better than the Discovery trailer! Now, whether the comedy factor can be sustained over a series remains to be seen."

I like the visual style, but I'm not sold on the humour in the trailer. I can see how some of those jokes could be funny, but somehow the delivery falls flat for me. Trailers often put in the best jokes from the movie/series, so that worries me a bit. Ah well, we'll see.


@Mitch: "Anyone remember the British series, Red Dwarf?"

Smeg yeah.


@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi: "At least the Abrams films openly admitted they are set in a parallel timeline… Yet they still insisted on calling ST2009 “an origin story”. How can it be an origin story, if these are completely different versions of the familiar characters?"

Well, it's the origin story for those different versions, isn't it?


@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi: "It’s not like they’ve tried to show us a familiar character doing something completely ridiculous, like (say) Kirk driving a 1960’s car off a cliff to the sounds of the Beastie Boys (just a random example. Of-course this could never happen ;-))"

I for one am looking forward to the surprise reveal that the death sensing guy is actually just a big death metal fan and the conflict with the Klingons is instigated by him adding a blast beat to a Klingon opera.


@Mitch: "Even as bad as Voyager, Enterprise and the last TNG film (Nemesis) were, at least they looked and felt like they were in the Star Trek universe."

Don't forget that the TNG through ENT run was an 18 year stretch of Star Trek with more or less the same people running it for that period (with that being slightly less true for DS9), so 'having the same visual style' was almost the default. In fact, back in the day, especially in the Voyager and Enterprise runs, one of the main complaints was the lack of risk taking with overall style and feel of the series (visually, musically, story wise). I don't think the departure of the (extended) nineties visuals is necessarily a problem, but the fact that the new visuals are just generic current day sci fi fare is disappointing.


@TS "and Nicholas Meyer is apparently working on a separate Trek show for them."

Wait, what? Do you have a source for that?


@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi: "Discovery will debut on September 24:
http://www.startrek.com/article/star-trek-discovery-sets-premiere-date"

Nice. Thanks!


@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi: "Classic Trek has stale characters? What kind of crazy person would call Leonard Nimoy’s Spock “stale”? Or McCoy?"

Definitely not stale, but as far as McCoy is concerned, let's say "inconsistent"? His character would change constantly to serve the needs of the story. When I watched the whole series in order a few years back it really struck me how inconsistently Bones was written.


@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi: "The real difference is that Roddenberry made TOS to make a specific impact on the world."

Did he really? From the outset, I mean? Or is this part of the larger than life story that has been pasted onto the early days in later years? I mean, obviously he set out to do something different, because something different is what he made, but the lengths to which this is claimed to have gone always makes me a bit skeptical.


@Darren: "First, as to the whole “conflict among main characters” issue, Deep Space Nine somewhat dropped that rule, and it was still good Star Trek (though I know many fans would respectfully disagree about that). So depending on how the writers go about having conflict among the crew(s), there’s hope that it will turn out decently. (And it *was* remarked that how the characters deal with and resolve conflict will still appeal to higher ideals.) Not to say, of course, that it wouldn’t be very easy for the writers to really botch all this up … but there’s hope."

I think the issue that puts people off is that the Discovery PR team seems (based on the Ars Technica article mentioned above) to emphasize this departure from Roddenberry's vision as a selling point. If that is what they are choosing to emphasize, that does not bode well"


@Darren: "Then there’s the fact that Discovery will reportedly be cinematic in look and feel"

That can mean a lot of things. If it means lens flares and 'splosions over solid story telling, that would be a bad thing. But I also remember back in the nineties people saying this about The X-Files, for example, by which (I think) they meant that it was just really good at setting the right atmosphere on a TV budget. That can only be a good thing (if it is a Star Trek atmosphere in Discovery, of course).


@Dom: "I guess my biggest question is why type of conflict. I’d be ok with a clash of ideals, like the way Spock and McCoy clashed about the value of logic vs. reason, or Odo vs. Kira as order vs. justice. That’s always a good way to expound upon the philosophical ideas at play in a story (and, as noted by others, something previous Trek shows did). What I don’t really want to see is conflict grounded in petty personal issues, like characters upset they didn’t get a promotion, sexual tension, etc. There’s already enough of that on TV and frankly gets tiring pretty quickly."

I think that is a great way to put it. Good science fiction is built on strong ideas. Many of the classic Trek characters were archetypes (some of them more fleshed out as individual characters than others) that allowed for storytelling on the level of ideas and philosophies, while also telling a story about the characters.


@Mr Fixit: "With fans like these, who need enemies? I don’t know what is wrong with these kinds of a priori haters, but it’s getting effing tiresome."

I agree with most of the sentiment of your post where it is aimed a unjustified claims (see for example my first comment in this post), but I think there is some reason to worry. By choosing a visual style that is clearly inspired by the Kelvin movies, the Discovery team is sending a message (whether or not justified by the eventual product) that they are proceeding along the J.J. Trek lines, which is not what most pre-J.J. Trek fans were hoping for.


@karatasiospa. Thank you for that link.


@Dom: "Yes, Lucas, Roddenberry, JK Rowling, and even Tolkien told their stories partly because they saw the financial opportunities (and they became rich)."

Not relevant to the topic at hand, but from what I know about the writing and publication history of Tolkien's stories during his lifetime, very little seemed to be driven by financial concerns. He took ages to write Lord of the Rings and had a steady income as Professor at that time. And when he started out writing stories in his legendarium early in life, I don't think publication was even on his mind.


@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi: "And yes, I am aware that “Farpoint” is a pretty clunky episode. But for season 1 of any Trek show, we can accept clunky."

Just because most Trek series had rocky starts, doesn't mean this has to be a tradition that has to be honoured. Especially if they are going for a 13 (or is it 15 now?) epsiode story arc, it's important to set things going right from the start. The first episode will presumably set the tone and direction for at least the first season.

(Apologies in advance for the non-Trek related post.)

Something odd is happening with the comments I've posted on this page over the past couple of weeks. I thought my comments kept disappearing (so I kept reposting them), but now I am viewing the page on a different device and I see that on this device all my comments *are* visible. So apologies for all the multiple (almost identical) posts (for those who can see them), but why is this happening? Why do I not see the same content when I view this page on different devices? I can only think it has something to do with the length of my post. As I included replies to many of the previous comments in this thread in my post, it ended up being rather long.

@Dom

"Also, TNG showed some pretty decent writing over the course of some 170 episodes without having the main crew constantly bickering at each other."

And that was nothing short of a miracle. Same with the acting. The stentorian, utterly un-natural acting and dialogue in that show could not have been pulled off by anyone else. Nobody in real life talks like that.

In fact, given the number of ways TNG stacked the deck against itself by depriving itself of all the natural inlets of drama, one could say that it might have featured the best writing and acting talent in all of 20th century television. Nothing else could have overcome the ridiculous barriers Roddenberry and Berman put in its way. TOS didn't try that. Voyager and Enterprise tried it with average talent and it was risible outside of a couple of characters. Seriously, TNG was a true outlier. And even it probably wouldn't last a season today.

"And yes, I am aware that “Farpoint” is a pretty clunky episode. But for season 1 of any Trek show, we can accept clunky. I’m mentioning “Farpoint” as a benchmark not because it is a great episode, but because it nicely epitomizes what Trek is all about: awe, wonder and optimism for humanity’s future. "

I really don't want to sound confrontational, but you know what else will "Farpoint" epitomize if we get anything remotely like it: instant cancellation. "Farpoint" may have its heart in the right place, but it's awful as an hour of TV and especially as a pilot.

@Brandon, Trek need not go to TNG extremes. TOS and DS9 both had plenty of drama and even conflict without getting bogged down in "petty conflict." I think the Roddenberry box did force writers to be more creative, which ultimately helped the show. The writers couldn't rely upon the usual tropes of "will they or won't they" romance, the horrible boss, etc. I think the real problem with VOY and ENT, in addition to the weak actors, was that the writers ran out of original ideas.

I'd be fine with some interpersonal conflict amongst the main characters in Discovery, but if the show just devolves into another TV show about people fighting with each other there are plenty of other options on TV.

What Brandon said.

There's a huge difference between "constant bickering" and mature conflict. And to be honest? I don't thing TNG was really that different than the other series in this respect.

All series, including TOS, showed us a group of professional doing their jobs. They didn't behave like the typical immature idiots we see on TV dramas. The Spock/McCoy thing walked a fine line, and the only reason it worked was the layered way in which Nimoy protrayed Spock's reactions (and when TNG tried to mimic this dynamic with Data and Pulaski, they failed miserably).

As for "Discovery", the very mention of conflict isn't what worries me. The problematic thing is that they treat it is something revolutionary and new. "We've now broken a decades-old Roddenberry rule! We'll show them what 'conflict' really means!"

Sorry, but this doesn't sound good at all.

But of-course, we might be surprised.

Oops... the first line of my previous post should have been: "What Dom said"
(though Brandon also raised some good points as well)

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi, exactly. As Seth McFarlane famously said, TNG was the most realistic depiction of a workplace on TV ever. The Enterprise crew was professional. And truthfully that's how most work environments are. Astronauts on the ISS aren't bickering and scheming most of the time, they're just doing their jobs.

I also agree with that point about how Discovery treats things like "personal conflict" or "grittier and darker" as revolutionary and new. If the writers had said, "We were inspired by how DS9 was a more morally ambiguous show and had more character drama, especially with secondary characters" or "We really like those characters from TNG's Lower Decks episode and how they were very flawed Starfleet officers," I don't think any of us would bat an eye. The concern comes from this sense that they're going out of their way to emphasize how unlike Trek this show is and how they've drawn inspiration from other shows. It sounds like they're saying Trek needs to be "fixed" because it's not good enough for the modern world.

This is personally a pet peeve of mine with television criticism. Too often critics treat certain fads in TV as definitive innovations, technological advances over the more primitive forms of yesteryear. Serialization is treated as inherently superior to episodic, focusing on characters is better than focusing on plot, etc. However, these are just different forms of storytelling, with advantages and disadvantages. I'd hate for Discovery to loose much of what made Trek special because it became caught up in the latest fad.

This whole discussion reminds me of several scenes in the otherwise masterful film "Apollo 13". They just *had* to add a completely fictional conflict between LMP Haise and CMP Swigert, which is NOT how actual professional astronauts behave on a mission.

So really, even if the "humans are better in the future" vibe wasn't an integral part of Star Trek, we would expect nothing less from the crew of a f***-ing Federation starship on a mission of exploration. Especially given the insane amount of dangers that exists in the Trek universe... You simply can't afford sending anyone but the best of best.

I made comment on the Lower Decks episode that I liked the way it protrayed the senior officers as having some flaws, especially in (eg) Picard's arguably callous treatment of a junior. That kind of interpersonal issue wouldn't be a problem for me in Discovery. However, I agree with @Omicron... that we are not being unreasonable, given the canon, to expect that the crew would be striving to remain professional at all times and such issues would occur only within the normal stresses of the job. Surely the mere fact that they are exploring unknown places would give rise to enough external moral problems?

I just hope they don't start advertising it as 'science fiction for people who don't like science fiction.' That only ever means: 'Soap In Space'.

What Dom said. Well said, too!

I was constantly lowering my expectations for STD up to the point where the producers went public with their apparent bragging about how they are booting Roddenberry's "no internal conflict" rule and how this is the most awesome thing that could ever happen to trek. Since then my expectations have disappeared completely.

Let's lay this out in simple, black and white terms. Hollywood says "conflict is what makes drama," and what this statement means translated into standard English is "footage of people screaming at each other is the absolute cheapest way to get the most eyeballs to at least glance at your show or movie." Period, end of story.

And, that's fine as far as it goes because over 90% of all TV and movies follow that formula. But, Roddenberry wanted to carve out a niche for himself in that other 10% (I'm actually being generous, it's probably 1%, but that's too depressing to contemplate, so just pretend I didn't write that). And he did, and guess what, the world went crazy! So in fact there is a sizeable audience for something in the realm of that other 10%. But what the STD producers have just told us is, we're far too lazy to operate in that 10% zone (because it takes exceptional writers to function there, it's true), so Trek is giving up the fight and moving over to the 90% category. Yes, we can now expect to see "the Housewives of Star Trek" in STD when it comes (and no sexism intended, that's just the name of the franchise I'm mocking).

Jammer,

Are you going to do full length episode reviews of the new star trek? I hope you have time to do so.....

That remains to be seen. I will make some sort of announcement either way before the premiere date.

http://trekmovie.com/2017/07/08/brannon-braga-promises-star-trek-like-storytelling-on-the-orville-sdcc-panel-details-and-more/

Here is further evidence that The Orville will be more "Star Trek" than not. A fan tweeted to Brannon Braga (executive producer and writer for The Orville) about the Voyager episode "Distant Origin"--how good of a show it was, and with "surprising relevance" still. In response, Braga said, "This is the kind of storytelling I miss - and we will do on @TheOrville."

Now, "Distant Origin" may not be considered one of Voyager's all-time best, but I think it was fairly well received. In any case, no one can argue that it told an intelligent, allegorical, human story--hallmarks of what Star Trek has been.

As I believe I've mentioned previously, I don't suppose there's any reason why a Star Trek series couldn't be more comic in nature. And while some of The Orville's comedy may nonetheless stray from what one would expect from a Star Trek series, I don't see it (without having yet seen the show itself, of course) as an impediment to The Orville being akin to a Star Trek spin-off.

Taken then with some of MacFarlane's own comments about Star Trek-style storytelling in The Orville, this is yet more reassuring news that Star Trek: Discovery isn't our only hope for a new, good Star Trek show.

some new bits of information

http://trekmovie.com/2017/07/15/new-images-and-story-details-from-star-trek-discovery/

It looks like they're finally beginning to see what they did wrong.

There's also Kurtzman's recent interview in which he said they've actually hired a bunch of people as "continuity watch-dogs".

If they marketed the show like *that* from the start, maybe people wouldn't have been so negative about it.

As it is, I'm mainly confused. The sets and props were already built and the episodes have already been written (and in some cases - filmed). So if this is a real "change of heart" then it came a little too late for it to actually do much good.

But really, when I think about it, their entire promotional campaign was pretty schizophrenic from the start. They emphasize "10 years before Kirk and Spock" but market it as "new and different". They talk about the importance of respecting visual continuity, and then show us "reimagined Klingons" and a cyberpunk-amplifier transporter room.

And in the past week or so these conflicting messages were turned up to eleven. So no, at this late stage it doesn't excite me at all. It just results in me wanting to run away real fast from all the confusion and find something a little more grounded to spend my liesure time on.

I just saw "War of Planet of the Apes." It was beautiful. It also shows that it is possible to make a smart, emotional, entertaining, and highly profitable reboot of a 60s sci-fi franchise if the writers and directors behind it actually care. I hope Paramount and CBS study the Apes films to learn how to do a Trek reboot right.

@Darren

Because Brannon Braga is the Ultimate Confirmer of What Good Trek is. Bring Berman in as well and it'll be the best thing in SF history!

Honestly, I never really understood all this hate against B&B.

Didn't Braga give us "Cause and Effect"? The film "First Contact"? Voyager's "Distant Origin"?

Even most of the stuff they were accused of during "Enterprise"s run wasn't their fault. 90% of the stupidity attributed to B&B was actually changes that UPN demanded from them (chiefly: The Temporal Cold War, and the fact that the show was basically a TNG clone in its first two seasons)

Okay, so they've also wrote some stinkers. But let's face it: Lizard Janeway is a masterpiece when compared to what passes as Trek these days. "Star Trek into Darkness" crams more stupidity in 15 minutes than that entire episode of Voyager. And at least the warp 10 story - crazy and ridiculous as it was - had a nice vibe of exploration to it.

(I now have this image in my head of Paris and Harrison-Khan hugging each other in the warp 10 shuttle, rocking to the tune of "Sabotage" while flying at infinite speed)

Also, Orville is a comedy. It may well be that "Lizard Janeway" writing would actually be appropriate for that show. After all, they already have an anti-banana ray. :-)

Let's not get too crazy, OmicronThetaDeltaPhi! Star Trek: Beyond was actually pretty good, and Voyager is crap. At least the characters in the reboots have personality. (cough cough everyone on Voyager except for the Doctor and Seven). To each his own of course, but I wouldn't positively compare Voyager/Enterprise to anything in the Star Trek universe, not even the JJ Abrams films.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsYu9jsmlHc

so it is about tha war with klingons. now we know why they sued axanar

Evidently, Michael Burnham is Spock's step-sister. For a series trying to stick to canon, that's a pretty notable retcon.

More interesting visuals, same hammy dialogue. At least they seem to have pulled from multiple episodes this time. Also a few shots that explain the weirdnesses of the first trailer. Why didn't they just debut with THIS trailer?

@Iceman

I actually liked Enterprise. And I don't think Voyager was that bad, either.

So we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

@Brandon
"Evidently, Michael Barnum is Spock's step-sister..."

Why am I not surprised?

Can we finally agree that the creator of this show don't give a sh*t about canon? It now looks like all of Kurtzman talk about "we'll respect continuity" was just a cheap marketing ploy.

Well, as Scotty once said: "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". I'm not going to believe any word this guy says ever again.

On the upside, the phasers and communicators look perfect. See, guy? The designs from TOS *can* be tastefully updated to accomodate the modern viewers. Why couldn't they do the same thing with the bridge and the transporter rooms?

So I just saw the new trailer and....well....

Instead of an acidic rant I propose a simple experiment to get my point across.

Re-watch the latest STD trailer, then follow up by watching the latest trailer for The Orville. Which one looks better to you?

se is not spock's step sister, she was juast raised up and educated on vulcan with sarek as her mentor. that has been clarified allready

As a writer, I find writing stand-alone, self-contained, 45 minute episodes much more difficult than long, serialized arcs. Writing the Dominion plot in DS9 is much easier than, say, Inner Light or Duet. Conteporary TV, however, prefers long, soap operay, serialized storytelling. Star Trek Discovery seems to kowtow to this trend.

With the exception of the Harry Mudd scene (who does not seem like Harry Mudd at all), the new SDCC trailer was much better than the other ones that they have put out so far. At the very least, it looks like it will be a beautiful show in terms of special effects.

Some fans are still crazy with hate for it, which is bizarre because it's not even out yet. I would suggest giving Discovery a fair chance and then deciding how you feel about it. Remember: ST Fans huffed and puffed when TNG, DS9 and all the other shows came out, but (I would say) most of those shows developed into very worthwhile entries in the franchise. So, chill.

Well, TNG and DS9 didn't give us steampunk transporter pads and unKlingon Klingons.

And it's not that I "hate" Discovery. It's that the visuals and the atmosphere are so out of left field that it doesn't register as "Star Trek" in my mind any longer.

It might still turn out to be a great show. But I - for one - am no longer interested in it.

"Well, TNG and DS9 didn’t give us steampunk transporter pads and unKlingon Klingons."

Sure, but there were similar arguments when TNG and DS9 came out... "No Kirk/Spock = not Star Trek." for TNG. "Space station?! Not a starship = not Star Trek."

Now for Discovery, it's "Different transporter pads" and "Klingons look different" = not Star Trek. By that logic, anything past TOS starting with the movies = not Star Trek.

So, do the Movie/TNG Klingons not count as actual Klingons? Something that people seem to be neglecting is the fact that Star Trek has always been evolving in various ways.

That being said, I can understand longtime fans not liking the murky/dark tone that the trailers have been establishing for the show. I was personally hoping that they would aim for a lighter show this time around.

@TS

Sure, there were similar arguments, but it's a matter of degree.

Besides, nearly all the examples you've given have nothing to do with how well the different series mesh-up together. Things like "No Kirk/Spock" or "it's a space station!" have zero impact on the question of whether TNG or DS9 can be set in the same universe as TOS.

As for the TOS/TMP Klingon redesign: You're right that it was a major change, but there's a big difference between changing a design because you now have more money (and because the previous design of Klingons = space mongols was really lame and borderline racist), and changing a design just because you can.

Also, remember that Trek (and Klingons) was a relatively new thing when TMP was made. The TOS Klingons appeared in about half a dozen live episodes and a couple of animated ones - and THAT'S IT. What's more, they didn't have any culture or personality in TOS. They were mostly cardboard bad guys.

So really, redesigning them at that point shouldn't have been such big a deal.

Now, compare that to the current situation, with the TMP Klingon design appearing (with minor tweaks) in over 100 episodes spanning 4 series and 10 films OVER TWENTY SIX YEARS. Today, few Trek species have been fleshed out in greater details then the Klingons. So no matter how you look at it, the current situation is nothing like what happened with the TMP redesign in 1979.

Perhaps the best way to sum this up is to quote what Discovery producer Aaron Harberts said this about the reimagining of the Klingons:

"We will introduce several different houses with different styles. Hopefully, fans will become more invested in the characters than worried about the redesign."

This sounds to me, like he is saying "We don't care about making an effort to maintain any kind of visual continuity. Deal with it".

And I guess my question here is "why"? Why should I - as a TV consumer - force myself to 'deal with it'? Why should I invest (both emotionally and financially) in a show whose design leaves me cold?

@ TS

"he new SDCC trailer was much better than the other ones that they have put out so far. At the very least, it looks like it will be a beautiful show in terms of special effects."

Agreed. Now, for a first time, I feel that I'm waiting for Discovery. Just look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWnYtyNKPsA
And listen...

"Sometimes down is up...and sometimes when you are lost you're found."

"Change is the essential process of all existence /.../. You must challenge your preconceptions for they most certainly will challenge you."

Makers of Discovery talks to you, to all fans around...

And... yes... they are creating a new way to fly!

And The Orville have a new trailer too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMKECRnZe2U
With new great aliens!

Gods of Kobol! That will be a good year for Star Trek.

@Omicron

So the visual change between TOS and TMP was technically allowed (although I'm sure at the time, some fans hated it in the same way they hate STD's "redesign"), but the idea that there are multiple houses within the Klingon Empire with different designs and visual appearances is not? Just trying to understand which changes are fine and which are not, because what Harberts said to explain the Klingon redesign is not a radical/unacceptable concept in my mind. It's not like they are showing you an insectoid-like race and trying to pass it off as a Klingon. If it's explained that they are a divergent and unique house, then that potentially makes them much more interesting/acceptable in the grand scheme of things.

The "deal with it" part is just putting words in his mouth. I mean, if you already have a negative mindset about the show and what they're saying, then don't watch it. These arguments against the idea of there being diverse Klingon factions seem stubborn/extreme. I disliked the core idea of Enterprise for the longest time and I had trouble getting into the show during the first two seasons... but I recently gave the show a real chance and if I hadn't done that, I wouldn't have seen the fourth season which I actually really enjoyed. Also, season 3 had it's moments.

Guess I'll never understand the idea of getting bent out of shape over a show that has only shown promotional material at this point. The show could be crap, could be awesome or something in between, but I've learned to give things a fair shake before deciding one way or the other... especially when it's a part of my favorite franchise.

And I'd rather not approach it with the unrelenting pessimism that I seem to be seeing from others these days. I'll definitely watch the first couple episodes and decide whether it's worth continuing by the mid-season break. Btw - That's potentially 2 months of All Access aka 12 whole dollars, which will be the extent of my "financial investment" unless I like/love the show. Two whole sandwiches... I think I'll live. :P

@TS
"Just trying to understand which changes are fine and which are not"

Any change could be potentially fine in my book. There just needs to be a good reason for these changes.

And it is also a matter of quantity.

If it were ONLY the Klingons, I would probably have accepted Harbert's explanation without much trouble. But what about the Kelvin-like bridge? The transporter? The uniforms? The dark and depressing lighting? And most of all: the completely nonchalant way in which the creators of the show treat these things?

As they say in the biz: context is everything.

Besides, maybe I would have been more agreeable to all these changes if people (including the show producers) weren't continually mocking people like me:

"Oh, we've heard these complaints before. There will always be closed-minded fans"

"Fans said the same things about every other iteration of Trek, you're just afraid of change."

(for a very recent example, just look at the quotes in Q's second-to-last post)

I've been hearing this cr*p for months now, and nothing have turned me off this show faster and quicker than these patronizing remarks (which - again - include the show's own producers on a regular basis).

Let us put the clear facts on the table:

Discovery is initiating a massive change at a level which is unprecedent in the 50-year history of Star Trek (I'm not counting the Kelvin films, as they are set in an alternate reality).

One can love it, or hate it, or (like many people) be indifferent about it. What one cannot do in good faith, however, is deny the very fact that these changes are far bigger than anything else in the history of the franchise.

And since this *is* just a TV show, the level of hate and disrespect that people are willing to toss at those they disagree with is completely uncalled for. As you said yourself: It is silly to get so bent up over a TV show, so people just need to chill out.

At any rate, I sincerely hope that you'll enjoy "Discovery" as much as you hope to. it is clear that for you, paying those 12 bucks would be a good deal.

To add to what @OmicronThetaDeltaPhi said, there are two other important points. First, there's a difference between changes made for marketing reasons and changes made for creative reasons. The TMP Klingon change was made because the filmmakers finally had a budget. It allowed the production team to make the Klingons look truly alien, which arguably allowed for a design closer to what Roddenberry would have wanted on the TV show (i.e., if he had had the money on the TV show, those Klingons would have looked more alien). The change to Klingons in Discovery was just made for marketing reasons because some executive thinks they'll look better for modern audiences.

Second, the tone and style goes against much of the philosophy of Star Trek. Roddenberry's Trek embraced liberal humanism, an optimistic, rational vision of humanity's future. The sets were bright and colorful because Starfleet was NOT supposed to be a military organization, they're explorers (also because NBC wanted to show off color TVs). The production design of any Trek should reflect that philosophy. Unfortunately, Discovery's dark sets, monochrome uniforms, and focus on war looks like it's mirroring TV's current grim dark obsession rather than Trek.

I just do not care about the sets or the phasers, as long as they're not done amateurishly.

I'm concerned with the stories and the characters. If those are done solidly, the show will find a following.

@Omicron

I figured we were only discussing the Klingon redesign. As I've said before, I'm not crazy about the lighting, tone and style choices. In the show's defense, their props seem to be staying very true to the original series. They could've easily remade and updated TOS-style sets with modern tools, contrary to what the producers have said. Better yet, they could've avoided a decent amount of these complaints by just setting the show in a post-Voyager universe....

Yes, $12 is potentially a good deal, I spent a little bit more than that on a nice audio cable for my living room. An audio cable. I can shell out a little bit of money to properly check out a new Star Trek show and decide if it's worthwhile or not. Star Trek 1st seasons are almost always rough in various ways, though, so we'll see.

@Dom

What makes you think that there isn't an actual storyline reason for them having a different appearance? I loved TNG/DS9 Klingons, but I'm also willing to see further additions to their history/culture. Not sure why this can't be seen as a creative reason, something that could potentially enrich what we already know about them.

I would have a big issue with it if after the show actually comes out, it becomes clear that these are just how *all Klingons* look in the eyes of the STD creative team, but we're not there yet.

@TS "In the show’s defense, their props seem to be staying very true to the original series. They could’ve easily remade and updated TOS-style sets with modern tools, contrary to what the producers have said."

Agree 100%. It is absolutely maddening.

The phasers and tricorders and communicators prove that they certainly have the know-how to pull it off. I wonder if the "modern" (ugh!) sets were mandated by the network. Reminds me of what B&B originally had in mind for "Enterprise", and how little of their original idea actually made it onscreen.

(and while I personally loved "Enterprise" from the get go, I also immediately saw its flaws. The 2150's were simply an era with so much potential, that I was willing to let it go)

I don't know about you guys but I'm really hyped about this new Star Trek TV series coming out on September 28th. How long has it been since Star Trek on TV was canceled, 18 years now?? All we've had are the movies to keep us entertained, though the last one with the time travel plot wasn't bad at all.

I read this new Trek show is supposed to take place in different century though? There's gonna be a character that's an artificial life form? I saw a picture of the new starship in the local paper and it looks huge compared to Kirk's ship. I don't know what to think of the new captain though.

Real cute, Sam.

Next thing you'll tell us how you liked R2D2 on Star Trek, too ;-)

Fuller finally speaks for Discovery and his disagreements with cbs

http://ew.com/tv/2017/07/28/bryan-fuller-star-trek-discovery/

Creative differences. I knew it.

Man, I would have loved to see a Trek anthology show. Real bummer.

So basically, had Fuller got things his way, 95% of my complaints would have been irelevant.

He wanted canon-style uniforms, "complex storylines"... and those bleeping mother-bleepers just tossed it all away. Stupid networks, they always ruin everything.

Well, at least we have "a black woman at the helm". This isn't a bad thing, of-course, but compared to all the other stuff that was thrown out it isn't that exciting either. We're not in the 1960's anymore.

Here's a recent picture of the actual transporter room: http://scifanatic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/dsc-ewcover-20.jpg

Looks great to me. I know some people were wringing their hands over the earlier released images of what they thought was the actual transporter room, so here you go.

@TS, the reason some people were "wringing their hands" is because the transporter room looks nothing like the transporter room we saw in TOS. The transporter room in the photo you posted looks fine out of context, but certainly doesn't fit into the TOS aesthetic at all.

As for the look of the new Klingons, sure, maybe there will be some canonical explanation for why they changed, but I've pretty much lost all hope in this production team. Nothing I've seen from this show has impressed me. On the other hand, Fuller's idea for an anthology show sounded amazing.

@TS, the previous pic *was* also a transporter room. It just wasn't the transporter room of the Discovery.

The pic you've posted is - of-course - much better. Continuity-wise it's fine... sort-of. It doesn't really fit the TOS Era, but it isn't *too* far off either.

But personally, I don't like this new design at all, for reasons which have nothing to do with continuity. The design is simply too artificial and cold and uninviting for my tastes. Why does everything in today's sci fi have to blind you with shiny cold metal? I just hate this new trend.

You know, it's funny. Modern effects allow us to do incredible things visually, yet modern sci fi consistently looks more fake than the stuff from 20 years ago. It all looks like some grand computer game, rather than anything real. And I really really hoped that Star Trek - at least - will resist hopping on this band wagon.

Yes, I know it was also a transporter room. It's why I said the picture was the actual one for the Discovery.

So, you guys think it looks fine/good, but still dislike it...? Almost seems like there's no way to please you guys regarding this show, but fair enough. It's a solid looking transporter room.

Yes, Fuller had a great original idea for the show, I hope they come to their senses and bring him back on after this season is done.

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi: "Reminds me of what B&B originally had in mind for “Enterprise”, and how little of their original idea actually made it onscreen."

Out of curiosity, have B&B ever released/spoken about their original idea for Enterprise? I've always thought that show was so much wasted potential. I'd be curious to read their original ideas.

As for Fuller's ideas for Discovery, I guess we'll never know how they would've worked out, but I'm pretty sure I would've been more excited about Discovery at this point had Fuller still been at the helm. On the other hand, I want to resist the all-too-easy finger pointing at the studios. There is often a complex web of reasons behind decisions like this and perhaps Fuller's ideas were too unrealistic for the budget and schedule that the studio was willing to accommodate. Or perhaps the studio execs don't care about anything but a quick buck. Or perhaps its a complex mix of all of these and other reasons. It might make an interesting drama show in itself one day (sans Roddenberry rule).

Here are some interesting remarks, from Jason Isaacs courtesy of New York Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/confidential/star-trek-new-captain-not-care-trekkies-article-1.3404011):

Jason Isaacs is ready for the captain's chair. The Liverpool native will play Captain Lorca in the “Star Trek: Discovery,” and he's fine with the possibility that die-hard fans may have difficulty adjusting to the reboot of the beloved franchise.

Isaacs, 54, said the new show will throw away the legacy of William Shatner and Patrick Stewart – and expects it to upset die hard Trekkies.

“I don't mean to sound irreverent when I say I don't care about the die-hard Trek fans,” he told us at an event in Los Angeles. “I only ‘don't care’ about them in the sense that I know they’re all going to watch anyway. I look forward to having the fun of them being outraged, so they can sit up all night and talk about it with each other.”

He’s taking an enterprising approach to the sci-fi franchise.

“It's ‘Star Trek,’ but not as we know it,” he said. “There are places obviously where they’ve observed canon to do with things like uniforms and badges and stuff, but there are places where the rules of storytelling are reinvented.”

... And I'm not sure how to interpret them. Is Isaacs or the article's writer admitting that Discovery is a reboot? Or did Isaacs merely mean that Discovery will tell its stories in a new way relative to previous Star Trek shows (despite that it's still a definite part of the "prime" universe), or did the writer just use a poor choice of words?

I think in all honesty, until we see a few episodes of Discovery, we just can't know what it truly is or isn't. And I don't mean that as in the typical scenario of not "knowing" a show until it's on, but rather that the way information and news has been given to us has been ... confusing, to say the least. I suspect the people behind Discovery are always thinking about *how* and *what* to say about it, precisely, rather than just openly and freely discussing it.

It occurs to me that the powers-that-be are and have been rather apologetic about Star Trek. Maybe it has to do with the perceived failures of Voyager and Enterprise, and the admittedly changing landscape of television and sci-fi over the past couple of decades. But I even recall, for instance, that after "Star Trek Into Darkness" was out, pertaining to a third film, Robert Orci mentioning focusing on space and exploration, with a remark something to the effect of, "I think we've earned that." (And for that matter, now that I think about it, wasn't there a shake-up over the writers for "Star Trek Beyond"? The rumor at the time was that the original script / ideas were "too Star Trek-y" to the studio.)

And now we have Discovery. While I remain optimistic (and fully expect that at least *some* traditional aspects of Star Trek will be intact), it does concern me in that it's like the creators are trying to appease quite a wide range of viewers. (Not to mention my sense, again, that news and production information is always being diplomatically and perhaps even deceptively presented; and we certainly know that the production has been more troubled than acknowledged.) Again, it's like they're being apologetic about Star Trek--that this new Star Trek has to be "fixed up", because otherwise it would not survive and would not do well. (But if it does really go off the rails, so to speak, without the core fans, how will it fare anyway?)

But recently, I thought about this in relation to Trump and the Republican Party. Whether fair or not, the Republicans have certainly garnered a bad reputation among many, and for this reason alone, it seemed unthinkable that the Republican candidate for president would win. And that was before Trump came along. After all, how many highly controversial remarks did he make? How many times did he act contrary to how a presidential candidate would act? How exactly did he ever do anything to counter negative feelings toward the GOP in general?

And, did he ever apologize, about anything, or backtrack any remarks? And yet ... he won. So what is the potential lesson here for Star Trek creators? To not be apologetic about Star Trek, despite any past failures with Voyager, Enterprise, Nemesis, or whatnot. To boldly and proudly indicate, "We are doing Star Trek. Take it or leave it." Not to try and "fix" it; not to feel that it absolutely must be "updated" and "re-imagined" to fit in with today's shows; but simply to do a show consistent with what Star Trek fundamentally is, without fear or trepidation.

(And of course, I realize there's debate on what Star Trek "fundamentally" is. But even so, a creator shouldn't be trying to "fix" Star Trek. The whole attitude of "it has to be made to work" shouldn't be in play.)

And so despite my optimism, I do have many concerns still for Discovery ... as many of us do. But then it occurs to me, that as far as this mythical Star Trek creator goes ... it's Seth MacFarlane, and The Orville is his Star Trek show.

After all, he's made it abundantly clear by now that The Orville does indeed take strong inspiration and direction from Star Trek. And whenever he says that The Orville is a "tribute" to Star Trek, not a spoof or parody; that it will tell episodic stories with a beginning, middle, and end; that it will return to the allegorical and intelligent storytelling of TOS, that it will feature the optimistic view of humanity's future that TNG gave us; I have no reason to doubt it. As in, unlike with Discovery, I never get the feeling that I need to read between the lines to figure out what he's truly saying. He is, quite simply, quite unapologetic about the show he's created for us.

And as far as the comedy angle goes, I certainly don't think that there's no room for Star Trek to change or grow. And when everyone's first (and lasting) impulse seems to be "more violence, more sex, more darkness", I don't see why a comedic spin should be so wrong. And while The Orville is partly a comedy, it's also still partly a drama. See, for instance, the following story:

http://www.slashfilm.com/the-orville-will-blend-comedy-with-serious-sci-fi/

And although I don't presume to know the goings-on between MacFarlane and Fox, I do get the sense that he's been able to create The Orville more or less according to his own creative vision. And if that's true--that it's not about "making it work", or about the money, but story first; MacFarlane's own creative vision first--then I imagine The Orville will be the first Star Trek show since Deep Space Nine that was blessed with this kind of opportunity.

@ Plain Simple:

I'm not entirely clear on Berman and Braga's original ideas for Enterprise, but I do seem to recall (maybe someone said it's in the Blu-Ray commentaries or something?) that the entire first season was intended to take place on Earth. If nothing else, as the Enterprise was readied for launch, this would have provided for a very distinct setting, with lots more opportunities to focus on pre-Federation Starfleet policies and goals, and the tensions between Earth and the Vulcans and such. Considering how Enterprise's first two seasons are often considered to be mediocre space-exploration stories, who knows, this might have just worked out for the better.

Also, although I don't know the source, I seem to recall that the whole Temporal Cold War arc was insisted upon by the studio. They felt that as a prequel, Enterprise would lack dramatic tension, and therefore the possibility of the future being altered was necessary to remedy that. (Though honestly, considering that no one had ever heard of the NX-01 Enterprise or any of its crew, how exactly would there have been a lack of dramatic tension? Plus, as J. Michael Straczynski used to say in relation to Babylon 5, sometimes, even if you know the eventual outcome, seeing how you actually get there is just as interesting if not even more so.

@Darren

"I think in all honesty, until we see a few episodes of Discovery, we just can’t know what it truly is or isn’t. And I don’t mean that as in the typical scenario of not 'knowing' a show until it’s on, but rather that the way information and news has been given to us has been … confusing, to say the least".

I'm not sure what you're 'confused' about.

If these guys respect the Trek legacy on Mondays and disregard it on Tuesdays, there's nothing 'confusing' about it. It simply means that they're doing whatever the **** they want,.

More to the point, I'll say that this statement:

"I don’t mean to sound irreverent when I say I don’t care about the die-hard Trek fans. I only ‘don’t care’ about them in the sense that I know they’re all going to watch anyway. I look forward to having the fun of them being outraged, so they can sit up all night and talk about it with each other.”

Gives us a very clear picture of what's going on. It tells us that these guys have exactly *zero* respect for the hand that feeds them. I mean, how stupid must they think the fans are, in order to openly say such a thing and still expect the fans to watch their show?

I guess you are right that we have no way to know what "Discovery" will be, but we can definitely know what it *won't* be. It won't be a thoughtful show that respects the audience. It won't be "Star Trek" under any reasonable definition of the word (and I'm not talking about continuity nit-picks here).

It may well be a good TV series, but calling it "Star Trek" is simply false advertising. And why would we want to support people who pull off a stunt like that (as well as treat their fans like dirt)? Besides, since it isn't really Star Trek, why should we even care about this show?

(personally - I don't. I care a great deal about how these guys are cynically using our beloved Star Trek as a cash cow, but I have zero interest in watching the series itself)

As for the Orville: I have great hope for that series. It's nice to see that *someone* is continuing to carry the Roddenberian torch, even if it's in a more light-hearted show. I also hope that in the future, more creators will follow suit.

Because we really *really* need a dose of optimism these days.

Jeez, yeah, I could really go for a new optimistic Trek show these days.... I'm still hoping Discovery isn't overly dark, but it's certainly looking that way.

Seriously feels like a wasted opportunity to not bring out a wholly optimisitic Trek show in today's climate.

@Darren: "And I’m not sure how to interpret them. Is Isaacs or the article’s writer admitting that Discovery is a reboot?"

I would be very careful taking anything story related that actors say seriously. They are not the people who have a wide overview of the themes/plots/characters of the show and are not rarely proven wrong in terms of these kind of details.

@Darren: "So what is the potential lesson here for Star Trek creators?"

Uhm... find a Russian production company? ;-)

Seriously though, I don't think a Trump analogy is needed, or even accurate, here. Star Trek is still a big recognizable household name. The producers know that. Why else make a new Star Trek series? So I just don't understand why they seem so eager to distance themselves from what made it a household name in the first place. Are they afraid they won't attract new viewers if they insist too much that their show is still Star Trek? That seems to be the strategy: assume that existing fans will tune in anyway and distance yourself as much as possible from the past shows to attract new viewers whom you don't want to remind of the wobbly sets and campy image of the original series.


@Darren: "I’m not entirely clear on Berman and Braga’s original ideas for Enterprise, but I do seem to recall (maybe someone said it’s in the Blu-Ray commentaries or something?)"

Thanks!


@Darren: "They felt that as a prequel, Enterprise would lack dramatic tension, and therefore the possibility of the future being altered was necessary to remedy that."

That does sound like the kind of thing someone who doesn't know what they're talking about would say. Why make it a prequel in the first place, if you're not willing to tell prequel stories. Anyway, that is a discussion that has been had many times since Enterprise came and went (but it seems it could be relevant again for Discovery).

This argument, that knowing the outcome of a story makes it less enjoyable to watch, crumbles at the slightest attempt to analyse it. Sure, some stories might work better at a first viewing/reading/listening/..., but there are plenty of stories that get better and better on repeat viewings/... Of course, that would require the story to be well crafted and not just bland run-of-the-mill seen-it-all-a-million-times-before-done-better fare that Enterprise mostly had in its early seasons.

This panel discussion with some of the Discovery writers has made me somewhat more optimistic about the show. They talk about things like *gasp* their love of Star Trek, the types of themes they want to explore in the show, and why Klingons look the way they do. I do wish Discovery had been designed with Roddenberry optimism in mind, but these writers are making a much better case for the show than the marketing department.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYjlNwcLOI0

"Besides, since it isn’t really Star Trek, why should we even care about this show?"

Because, hopefully, we care about other things beside Star Trek. For example, I care about my sisters, even though they aren't Star Trek characters. In the same vein, if Discovery is any good, it might be rewarding to watch it on its own?

Yeah, I know, crazy concept.

I think it's interesting every post-TNG Trek series tried to get away from the TNG-like optimism and "Roddenberry's Box"--and were all less successful. There are those who can point to other factors in terms of sci-fi in the 90s and 00s. But, I can't help but wonder if the show runner's who wanted to get away from TNG restrictions threw the baby out with the bathwater. I didn't want to see the TNG characters getting into petty squabbles. (I could watch NYPD Blue for that) When the characters had conflicts they were about something important ("The Measure of a Man"; "Ethics"; "The First Duty"; "The Pegasus")

TNG's magic was that the characters on the program acted like they were from a future time. I could believe it. They didn't act like transplants from contemporary times--and I think that makes a difference. TNG was excellent escapism that could rival Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Star Wars when it comes to taking us to another place and time. Its magic has never been recaptured and its optimism and moral compass is SORELY missed. I can't be the only one who thinks that...

PatrickD: Agree completely. "Dark" shows aren't inherently bad - I enjoyed DS9, Breaking Bad and BSG, to name a few, but I feel the market for "dark, edgy" shows is currently over saturated. I feel that around the middle of DS9, Trek lost its spark/what made it unique and doomed itself to a slow death. It's really subjective and hard to explain, but that's how I feel.

I think you hit the nail on the head regarding TNG with your observation that they act like future humans instead of contemporary transplants. Thats what made the difference, and one of the big factors as to why TNG was the only Trek spinoff to even come close to the same level of cultural impact as TOS.

I think there's still a market for good old fashioned Trek optimism given the relative popularity of the fan series Star Trek Continues, which I would strongly recommend checking out if you haven't already. It doesn't quite capture the magic of TOS but it comes very very close!

I'm still willing to give Discovery a chance, but if the first ep doesn't appeal to me, I'm not watching the rest of the series unless I hear really really good things.

To take a more recent example than Season 1 of TNG, I remember, back when Star Wars Rebels first came out, absolutely hating it. Then I heard really good things about the second season premiere ("Siege of Lothal") and decided to give it another go. Now I'm absolutely loving Rebels. (It helped that the writing quality went up dramatically) I really, really, really want to like Discovery but I'm still more than a little cynical.

Currently, I'm writing a Trek screenplay of my own in my spare time - it'll probably never see the light of day but at least it gives me something to do other than complain about Discovery. All I'll say is that it's based on an idea I had for an episode explaining the origins of a certain classic Trek enemy, and it's set on the Enterprise G, 30-40 years after the events of Star Trek Nemesis. It just seemed like a waste not to put it to paper. :)

Patrick and NCC1701Z:

I agree. I didn't really notice it when first watching DS9, but now that I'm rewatching all Trek with my wife (currently at TNG season 4) I'm realizing just how far DS9 strayed from the Roddenberry ideals.

The funny thing is, most of the major "dark" stuff of DS9 doesn't bother me at all. I actually think they did a splendid job telling the story of "what happens when an utopian society is threatened by a much stronger enemy". I also think that it's an extremely important story to tell, especially after TNG repeatedly dodged it in its seven year run.

What really bugs me about DS9 is the little things: Things like Dax moving Odo's furniture in his own quarters, for the sole purpose of annoying him. There are dozens of little examples like this, of people being dickish and immature just for the sake of being dickish and immature. It's just horrible.

I never noticed this until I came back to TNG and saw the difference. Can you imagine anybody on the Enterprise-D doing things like that? Sure, the guys there had their moments of insensitivity (which were thankfully few and far between) but I don't recall a single instance of a TNG crewmember deliberately trying to annoy a collegue just for the heck of it.

Now, I still love DS9 for what it did with "the big stories", and I still think it is a worthwhile addition to Trek lore. But I don't like what they did to 24th century humanity (even though Dax isn't technically human... It's not like Sisko never did similar things).

@ Patrick D, while I agree that TNG was the hallmark of "optimistic", uptopian Star Trek, I think DS9 was more of a fresh take on that model rather than a true departure from it. The shown was still quite optimistic and positive, as were it's characters, compared to shows that truly are gritty and dark. I don't think DS9 went for that; they just wanted to move their style moderately more in that direction... a little more realistic and less of an"cable" than TNG. They enlarged Rodenberry's box without breaking it (admittedly there was the occasional episode that pushed the boundaries more than others but in general this holds true). Also consider that TNG already had seven seasons worth of material that fits into that box, which would impair the writers of DS9 from keeping things fresh. Just look at what happened with Voyager, a show that was foolishly designed to basically be a TNG clone... it was churning out episodes that felt stale by the second season.

@Brian I agree. DS9 isn't that dark, and I really like that. It finds a really nice balance. Shows like the Shield and The Americans-those are dark, bleak shows. They're brilliant, but I could always use some good old fashioned optimism. DS9 delivers that, and that balance is what makes so special, and lasting, even more so than great prestige dramas like The Sopranos.

I'll second Brian and Iceman. DS9 was "dark" in that it refused to place blind trust in institutions and refused to shy away from the horrors of war. It doesn't trust Starfleet or the bureaucracy to always do the right thing. But it's actually quite optimistic about human nature, for the most part. Time and again, our heroes are shown to be decent people who will stand up for their principles, even against their own government. I always took Sisko's remorse after "Pale Moonlight" as the exception that proves the rule. Sisko agonized over the death of a Romulan senator and a scumbag con artist - on 24 or BSG most characters would barely have batted an eye over such casualties. Darren Mooney at TheM0vieBlog has a great series of articles about how DS9 reinterprets the Roddenberry optimism and complicates it.

Apparently, "Discovery" is going to be rated TV-MA:
http://www.avclub.com/new-trailer-confirms-star-trek-discovery-will-be-tv-ma-1798449704

@Paul M.

"Because, hopefully, we care about other things beside Star Trek. For example, I care about my sisters, even though they aren’t Star Trek characters. In the same vein, if Discovery is any good, it might be rewarding to watch it on its own?"

Sure, it *might*.

But without the "Star Trek" card, there's nothing to distinguish Discovery from a thousand other shows. Why should I invest emotionally and financially in this specific series and not in others?

You mentioned your sisters, which is (amazingly enough) an apt analogy. You care about your sisters, because they are family. You have a reason to invest emotionally in caring. Would you care the same way for some random dude on the street?

Of-course not, and this is my point.

You see, if I hear that a new generic sci fi show is going to hit the screens, I'm not even remotely interested. I find the vast majority of sci fi shows to be boring and/or depressing. I'm more likely to try out a new sitcom, then to try out a new sci fi show. Star Trek, to a large extent, was the exception to the rule (which is, by the way, exactly the reason I'm so grumpy about what TPTB are doing to the only sci fi universe I ever cared for)

At any rate, I do agree with you about one thing: Hopefully, we have many other things to care about besides the TV shows we are watching. Family is important. Making a difference in the world is important. Even a simple thing like going outside and smelling the breeze can be important. With that, my friend, I agree completely.

"But without the “Star Trek” card, there’s nothing to distinguish Discovery from a thousand other shows. Why should I invest emotionally and financially in this specific series and not in others?"

Fair question, one everyone will have to answer for themselves. I will watch the pilot and decide right then and there what I think and whether it's worth my time. Just like I invest emotionally and financially in other movies, series, and other forms of entertainment, why would I a priori exclude Discovery from that list? Wait and see, is my point.

"You mentioned your sisters, which is (amazingly enough) an apt analogy. You care about your sisters, because they are family. You have a reason to invest emotionally in caring. Would you care the same way for some random dude on the street?"

Why not? Maybe I strike a conversation with that random dude on the street or someone introduces me to him. Maybe it happens we enjoy each other's company so become friends or at least good acquaintances who like to have a cup of coffee from time to time with some common friends.

Short story: I love Star Trek. I watched all the shows except TAS (though not all the episodes of TOS and VOY) and all the movies. I am not big on tie-ins so I skipped the novels and similar things. I have every intention of giving Discovery a chance and deciding for myself if I like it or not. I am not interested in marketing hype -- or lack thereof -- because it's misleading anyway. I don't owe Star Trek anything not does Star Trek owe me anything. We've had some good time and we've had some embarrassing times, but on the whole it's been a good ride that shaped my life in ways I am probably not quite aware of. I'll be here come September 24 with an open mind. If I like Discovery, I'll be very happy. If not, a bit disappointed, but my life and my interests evolved way beyond Trek (or any single thing). I don't intend to dwell on the past nor on what could have been. That's my honest advice to everyone, especially regarding something that, when all is said and done, is just a TV show.

TrekMovie.com recently posted about their visit to The Orville sets:

https://trekmovie.com/2017/08/31/6-takeaways-from-a-set-visit-to-the-orville/

A lot of the article just confirms or elaborates on things already known, though it's still a very interesting read. MacFarlane explicitly wanted The Orville to have a TNG vibe, for instance; the designers all spoke of creating a believable futuristic sci-fi universe; and MacFarlane has reportedly really, really poured his heart and soul into the series.

Some things though, whether in their depth or for not having been widely-reported on (if at all), were nicely surprising. It turns out, for instance, that The Orville has none other than André Bormanis working on it--to ensure it's grounded in known or at least plausible science. (Barman's has previously worked as science advisor for Star Trek, beginning with TNG.) "Real science" has, of course, always been as much a hallmark of Trek as the optimism, aspiration, and exploration of the "human condition", and it's nice to now know that The Orville has that too.

Incidentally, I've heard it said that MacFarlane pitched The Orville to CBS at some point as a Star Trek series. I have no idea if that's true (I do know CBS received *many* pitches for a new Star Trek series); but considering how little, really, has to be avoided to preempt legal trouble (mainly, say, the brand name; preexisting characters, alien species, and ships; musical themes and cues; and so on), it still seems clear to me that for all intents and purposes, The Orville *is* a Star Trek series.

If indeed so though, I can only hope that it will indeed be a good show, in all the ways required of a Star Trek show.

@ Darren

"Incidentally, I’ve heard it said that MacFarlane pitched The Orville to CBS at some point as a Star Trek series. I have no idea if that’s true (I do know CBS received *many* pitches for a new Star Trek series); but considering how little, really, has to be avoided to preempt legal trouble (mainly, say, the brand name; preexisting characters, alien species, and ships; musical themes and cues; and so on), it still seems clear to me that for all intents and purposes, The Orville *is* a Star Trek series."

Those legal issues are important, though.

Just because "The Orville" shares some of the core values of classic Trek and some of the design elements, does not make it "Star Trek". CBS's brand does not have a monopoly on optimistic exploration-themed sci fi (in fact, they've been constantly distancing themselves from this niche in tha past decade) and I think that we should allow Orville to become its own thing.

@Paul M.

"Fair question, one everyone will have to answer for themselves. I will watch the pilot and decide right then and there what I think and whether it’s worth my time. Just like I invest emotionally and financially in other movies, series, and other forms of entertainment, why would I a priori exclude Discovery from that list?"

Are you telling me that you're watching every single pilot of every single new series in every genre under the sun?

If so, then you're right. You have no reason to a-priori exclude Discovery from that list.

Otherwise, you too have filters which help you decide which TV shows to "give a chance to". Should Discovery be on that personal list of yours? You seem to have decided "yes" and that's perfectly fine... as long as you don't expect everybody else to have the exact same priorities as you.

“Why not? Maybe I strike a conversation with that random dude on the street or someone introduces me to him. Maybe it happens we enjoy each other’s company so become friends or at least good acquaintances who like to have a cup of coffee from time to time with some common friends."

Sure, it happens sometimes. But you still don't strike a conversation with *every* single random person you meet.

Especially not a person you've had a bad first impression of.

This is really what the crux of the issue is: Discovery made a *very* bad first impression on me. The second and third impressions weren't much better, and to top it all off: the entire marketing campaign of the series boiled my blood. They've made every effort (with some help from very vocal fans) to clarify that people like me are not their target audience. They've given me the feeling that they think we are a bunch of stupid junkies who would gladly pay them money while they're laughing their asses off at our expense.

From beginning to end it was a very sour experience. And what's worse: nothing of what I've seen onscreen serves to soften the blow. It looked wrong. It felt wrong. From the dark bridge to the "wrong" uniforms to the unKlingon Klingons, it was a complete nightmare... except those nifty phasers and communicators, which were way too little, way too late.

Now, if you had a different experience, that's cool. Being a fan of something is a personal thing. But I - personally - feel no urge to "give it a chance".

(on the other hand, "The Orville" made an incredibly *good* first impression, which is why I'm definitely going to check that series out when it premiers)

"I’ll be here come September 24 with an open mind. If I like Discovery, I’ll be very happy. If not, a bit disappointed, but my life and my interests evolved way beyond Trek (or any single thing). I don’t intend to dwell on the past nor on what could have been. That’s my honest advice to everyone, especially regarding something that, when all is said and done, is just a TV show."

There you go again... Implying that any person with a different opinion is somehow "closed-minded" or a nerd with no life beyond Star Trek.

Just so you know: This kind of patronizing cr*p is one of the reasons I gave up on Discovery. This feeling of people trying to pressure me into watching the show (or the pilot) is a HUGE turn-off.

What do you think exactly? That I'm going to sit on September 24 and sulk all day?

@Omicron...

"They’ve given me the feeling that they think we are a bunch of stupid junkies who would gladly pay them money while they’re laughing their asses off at our expense."

Not for the first time, I agree with you entirely. They seem to have an idea that 'core' fans will put up with any old rubbish (and I accept the jury is out until it actually airs but I haven't been impressed so far) as long as they stick a 'Star Trek' label on it. Their real targets are the ones who wouldn't normally watch ST so they call it darker and edgier as though they're saying 'don't worry, non-fans, this isn't *real* Trek.

The same kind of malaise means broadcasters are happy to dump series without resolution (Dark Matter is only the latest in a long line of examples) and without regard for the fanbase however large or small it may be. I don't know about anyone else but I'm much less likely to commit to *any* new series these days. My intolerance grows with age! Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Now, where did I put that bottle of green?

@Trajan

"They seem to have an idea that ‘core’ fans will put up with any old rubbish (and I accept the jury is out until it actually airs but I haven’t been impressed so far) as long as they stick a ‘Star Trek’ label on it."

The sad thing is - they are probably right... at least to some degree.

After all, we were all suckered into watching "Star Trek: into Darkness" weren't we? Like lambs to the slaughter.

Funny what I wrote just two weeks ago:
"I find the vast majority of sci fi shows to be boring and/or depressing. I’m more likely to try out A NEW SITCOM, then to try out a new sci fi show..."

Amusing, given how the Orville ended up being basically a sci fi sitcom, and I ended up loving it.