After eight months of furious speculation, the first official information about 2017’s upcoming Star Trek revival on CBS All Access has been revealed at San Diego Comic Con, with help from Trek vets Brent Spiner, Jeri Ryan, William Shatner, Michael Dorn, and Scott Bakula – and hosted by new showrunner Bryan Fuller.

First up, of course: the title! Forget STAR TREK 2017, next year’s new show is titled STAR TREK: DISCOVERY featuring a brand-new starship (registry number NCC-1031).

Fuller reiterated that the show (which we’ll be abbreviating DSC) would not be episodic in nature, but would be structured “like a novel,” telling stories “chapter by chapter” across episodes.

In addition to the new title and logo graphic, CBS has released this new teaser video from the new show, featuring the new starship leaving an asteroid base.

The new USS Discovery shares a remarkable resemblance with early concept art for the rejected, pre-Star Trek: The Motion Picture adventure Planet of the Titans – but there was no confirmed word either way if the new show will take place in either the Prime or Kelvin Timelines.

UPDATE: Bryan Fuller has confirmed at the after-panel press conference that Discovery will be set in the Prime Trek timeline, but will not yet confirm the timeframe.

  • Chris

    Almost Planet of the Titans Enterprise design and post TOS pre-TNG by the look. I’ve never been a fan of that ship design but I have no doubt it will grow on me. I had similar thoughts about the D class Enterprsie, and that became one of my favourite ships eventually!

    • Bifash

      Nothing would please me more than if if the series was set Post-TMP, pre-Wrath of Khan.

  • Bifash

    Looks AMAZING, and very much “Planet of the Titans” MacQuarrie design.

    I wonder if it’s set in the TMP timeframe, as it does not look like it would fit either in the TNG time period, nor in most of the Original crew Trek movies ( or 1960s series ).

  • Mrplatitude

    Looks a little Phase II-ish

    • pafan

      A lot are calling it Phase II, but this Enterprise design by Ralph McQuarrie was for the aborted film, Star Trek-Planet of the Titans.

      • Mrplatitude

        I thought the McQuarrie concept was for Phase II, thank you for the clarification. Learned something new!

  • Thomas Elkins

    I know it’s based on old concept art, but I’m not a fan of that design at all.

    • Bifash

      Perhaps the design will make more sense once we realise what era the show is based in? Obviously if it’s set Post-TNG, it makes very little sense.

      • Thomas Elkins

        Feels TMP era to me, but I still don’t care for the design. When we have ships like the refit Constitution and Excelsior we get… this.

        • Bifash

          The trailer itself in feel and music, has quite an aggressive tone, as does the look of the Discovery – maybe we’ll learn why. Really intrigued…

          • Kevin Rombold

            Hmm the background music….the ship Design looking like federation and klingons collided and then the Name… discovery…. It seems to me that it could take place right after Star trek 6 (the undiscovered country)
            😉 i have this feeling

          • Bifash

            That’s a very good idea.

          • kadajawi

            It looks like a D7 where someone stepped on the ball in front and flattened it.

            After ST6, with the Klingons and Federation coming up with an experimental ship where they bring together their technologies makes sense. However it has a regular registration number, and wouldn’t we have heard about such a collaboration in later series? Such a ship would be run by a mixed crew of Federation officers and Klingons… but many years later having Worf on the Enterprise is something special? It doesn’t make sense.

        • Fctiger

          Bring in the guys who made Voyager and Enterprise E. Not everyone loved those ships but they are sleek, classy and eye catching. Voyager was the first main non-Enterprise ship for a Star Trek show and the found a way to make it different from the others but still fit in with a bold style to what we think of Star Trek. This thing looks like it belongs in a cheap video game.

  • Doctor Mordrid

    Not what i was hoping for at all, looks terrible. Do we really need yet another TOS era show as well? it’s been done before.

  • regeekery – JD

    well that trailer was gorgeous. now I’m even more excited to learn more about the show.

  • Bifash

    The beginning of the trailer almost reminded me of 2001: A Space Odyssey – no coincidence I think seeing as the ship is called The Discovery.

  • iMike

    I’m happy the series is taking place in the prime universe, but I was really hoping it would go about a hundred years post-Nemesis. Fuller is amazing. The team he’s assembling is amazing and I’m sure they will come up with a unique approach if it is pre-TNG as has been speculated. However, moving ahead to the 25th century would at least free up the creative team to come up with about a hundred years of history without being too tethered to canon. Ron Moore commented on how frustrating that was.

    • iMike

      Here’s a thought though … what if the series, while taking place in the prime universe, takes place in different eras? What if we had a crew either pre-or-post TOS and pre-TNG in one era and another crew sometime post-Nemesis. That could create some interesting possibilities since Fuller has said he wants it to have a serialized feel. Totally just throwing out speculation though …

      • Methos6848

        I completely agree that your suggestion would’ve been the way to go, but I’m pretty sure I recall reading an interview with Fuller, where he shot down the whole idea of anthology series.

        Unless, his perception of anthological ‘chapters’ differs from the conventional sense of such a thing.

        • Fctiger

          He did. He said something like we wouldnt see a different ship every season but he did sort of imply we may see different crews within a season meaning it could be more than one ship. But with this trailer its made pretty clear its going to be based around this ship at least. Once your title of the show is the name of the ship thats pretty set in stone we’re following this crew mainly.

      • Ace Stephens

        Part of the whole point or setup could involve time travel…

    • tomorrowville

      Never understood the fan cries of jumping forward 100 years every time a new series is announced. There are plenty of potential stories in the other eras that can still be told – I find myself less interested in massive 100 year forward time jumps because at some point, the technology just becomes so advanced as to be basically magic.

      • Fctiger

        People just dont want the same stuff repeated basically. Beyond for example told a story set in the past which was cool but people want to know what is Starfleet like post Nemises because they had committed nearly 2 decades to that period of time.

  • gusmac

    This looks horrible. I am a huge fan of Ralph McQuarrie’s illustrations for Star Wars, but his designs for Star Trek Planet of Titans has to be the low point of his career. I’ve always rationalized that based on the assumption that his handful of Enterprise renderings from the project are all very sketchy and look like they were completed in a single weekend with a rushed deadline. They don’t look fleshed out or refined at all. and demonstrate none of the masterful care that he applied to his portfolio work for Lucas.

    So to base the design for this new ship the Discovery on those old sketches just seems like a gigantic fail. “Horrible” is the only word fit to describe it.

    • Bifash

      I would argue it’s all about context. Hopefully when we learn much more, get to know the crew and their mission, concerns will be alleviated.

  • RDB

    1.) the design appears to be based on (rightfully) rejected concept art for the enterprise refit in “phase II.” not impressed. it was an ugly design and rightfully rejected.

    2.) again, playing coy and cutesy-pie by not saying which timeline this series is set in. from the font on the saucer section, this is looking decidely jar-jar-esque. again, not impressed.

    looking like this will be TOS-era in the jar-jarverse, which i am manifestly NOT interested in.

    jury is still not out on this one, but…..wow. this was very disappointing to me as a long-time fan who is getting pretty tired with TOS-centrism. hopefully, this could still be post-ENT and pre-TOS.

    *hate* the nacelle design.

    • Charlie Oakes

      Jar jar is a Star Wars character.

      • Charlie Oakes

        Also. Like it or not – JJ Abrams bought Trek back to life after Enterprise and Nemesis.

        • RDB

          news flash – for anyone that knows the difference between real star trek and action-film trash dressed up in “star trek” trappings, ST didn’t *need* to be brought (assuming “bought” was a typo on your part) back to life after S3 and S4 of ENT, which were the best seasons of trek since DS9 signed off in 1999. it was doing just fine.

          • Bifash

            “Real Star Trek”, lol. Always amuses to hear from the self-appointed arbiters of Trekdom.

          • RDB

            –brought…relevance back to the franchise–

            relevance to whom? you?

            i recommend therapy.

          • Mat Rowe

            If you think Star Trek as a franchise was doing well after it was cancelled in 2005 and effectively left for dead you’ve got rocks in your head. Regardless of your opinion on the JJ films, you cannot deny that they brought badly needed money and relevance back to the franchise, and if you try to deny it then you’re not very bright.

          • Classy.

          • pafan

            It’s about $$$$$$$$$$$. Star Trek ENT tanked in the ratings.

      • RDB

        yes. a lame, worthless “star wars” character. thanks. the character was so lame and worthless, in fact, that the name subsequently became synonymous with all that is lame and worthless in SF cinema, hence jar-jar is the talentless hack who bears ultimate responsibility for the cinematic action-film garbage currently being marketed as (ahem) “star trek.”

        thanks again for clarifying.

        • kadajawi

          No. Jar Jar was awesome. Jar Jar was IMHO meant to be the Dark Sith Lord, the big chess master. He dissolved the senate. He put all the little pieces into position. Sadly George Lucas didn’t have the balls to follow through with his plan, as people hated the character. Remember that Yoda played a rather silly old man before revealing that he is the most powerful Jedi. It’s not exactly unprecedented.

      • Jean Michel

        “Jar jar is a Star Wars character.”

        And more recently, a Star Wars director.

        • Charlie Oakes

          No. Grow up.

          • Jean Michel

            No, you grow up!

  • Aqua

    Hate to be that guy, but the registry number in the article needs to be corrected to 1031. The trailer has it quite visible on the ship and the paramount tweet also has it.

    • We’ve updated it, the increased traffic to the site just take a little time for the page to reflect it.

      • Dawn

        fuller has confirmed its in the prime timeline
        as has the new twitter page and buzzfeed, and io9

        • MJ

          If it takes place before TOS, then it’s in both the PRIME TIMELINE and the KELVIN TIMELINE

          • Daaria Naharis

            no, it needs to take place before the Kelvin was destroyed for that (hence Kelvin timeline) – so about 30-35 years before TOS

          • MJ

            Yes, that’s what I am getting it – BEFORE Nero arrives the Prime and Kelvin Timelines are the same – one universe in terms of canon. I should have put the 30 years before in, but that is what I meant.

          • Dawn
          • MJ

            That ship has its warp engines well above the plane of the ship, while the Discovery in the teaser has its warp engines slightly below the plane of the ship.

            Sorry, but this is obviously not the same ship.

          • Dawn

            its a redesign.

          • MJ

            Respectfully…LOL, sure it is.

            If you are serious, please provide a source for this seemingly random claim of yours?

    • Shawn

      I hate to be that guy, but CBS tweeted it!

  • Jason

    THat is really bad cgi

    • Shawn

      Probably early, unfinished CGI. They should have made that more clear though. I hope it will get polished up before January.

      • Mark McCarrion

        I sure hope they get the writing correct. No angsty teen drama please.

    • DamienL

      Never release unfinished test cgi… ESPECIALLY TO STAR TREK FANS. Dumb decision.

  • October_1985

    That ship is ugly, and that design has no precedent. I don’t get why they feel the need to reinvent the wheel. Any Constitution, Galaxy, Excelsior, Akira or even Constellation could have served, no need to stray too much from what we know to be a Federation starship, and if you are going to invent something, do it right. That thing is hideous. 🙁

    • Thomas Elkins

      Technically it is a canon design. It was a generic background model docked at Earth Space Dock when the Enterprise arrived in STIII. That doesn’t mean it was the right ship to use for this show though. I wonder if they will retroactively say that that was the USS Discovery docked at ESD in STIII?

      http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Constitution_class_model_(refit)

      • October_1985

        Wow. Didn’t know that, thanks. I related it to the McQuarrie design inmediately, but wasn’t aware it had been used that way. Anyway, as much as I love McQuarrie, that design was all wrong for a Federation starship, and still is, I even dare to say that the Discovery is even worse than McQuarries, the way it ends like an arrow, and that big square nacelles dont do it any favors. I guess Fuller and co. are going out of their way to differentiate the show from the current movies and so they want their ship to be as different as possible as the Kelvin Enterprise. I get that, but…come on…

        • Shawn

          A prequel series done right with a utilitarian starship is not what I expected. But I could get behind that. We will have to wait and see.

    • Paul Andrew Schaffner

      In universe you could argue that they took a Saucer from something like the NX class and bolted it onto one of those Delta-type warp ships. Doesn’t change the aesthetics of the design either way but at least it’s some sort of explanation.

  • Joseph

    I really dislike the vessel. If it’s in the Prime Universe, based on the registry NCC-1031 this actually Post-ENT but Pre-TOS, which really doesn’t excite me at all if that’s the case.

    The only way I can see this being a Post-TNG vessel if this is a hybrid vessel of Starfleet-Klingon partnership. And if that’s the case, either Worf is the Captain; or he’s the Admiral overseeing this division of the fleet.

    • Bifash

      “The only way I can see this being a Post-TNG vessel if this is a hybrid
      vessel of Starfleet-Klingon partnership. And if that’s the case, either
      Worf is the Captain; or he’s the Admiral overseeing this division of the
      fleet.”

      That’s an interesting thought.

      • Joseph

        Reason why I brought up Worf is because Michael Dorn has been trying to push a Worf TV series in the past. If this is set in the Prime-verse I can see him eager to be part of it should it be Post-Nemesis.

        • Fctiger

          Yeah but wasn’t Dorn literally at the panel where all of this was announced? I think they wouldve made a big announcement that Dorn was going to be on the show. This is what comic con is for, to get the big scoops. The first cast member being a former Trek character would’ve attracted all kinds of attention. And maybe away from the hideous ship.

          • Ace Stephens

            Maybe contracts weren’t necessarily finalized (with the potential to adjust/adapt if they can’t be) or they’re saving that announcement for the fiftieth or something like that.

        • Mark McCarrion

          Worf is more than 100 years past the timeline of this ship.

      • There’s certainly a little bit of a Klingon vibe to this with the sounds. Over the logo at the end you can here the sound used for a Klingon ship decloaking in the TNG era.

    • Darkthunder

      Someone on Twitter suggested the timeline could be around 2217 (200 years after modern day). TOS was in 2266 (300 years after it’s premiere). Which fits the timeline of the registry for the ship.

      • Joseph

        If this is essentially another TOS-Prequel series it’ll end up with the same issues Enterprise ran into, looking too modern compared to TOS-tech.

        • Guest

          Not to mention, having 4 shows and 10 movies that come after, who’s toes it will have to bend over backwards not to step on every 5 seconds. Continuity was a huge issue with Enterprise as well.

        • Fctiger

          Yeah and people are sick of prequels already. Both Enterprise and the Kevin Timeline films are freakin prequels all said and done. Beyond storyline was set farther back as well. People want to move FORWARD again. I don’t get why they are afraid to go new again. At one point there were 3 shows and 4 films in the 24th century at the same time and it worked fine. Can’t just ONE show or film be post-Nemesis again?

          • Derek von Krogh

            oh yes. this better not be another prequel stuck in canon problems.

            go post nemesis and just tell whatever story you like, imagine whatever new enemy you like, and dont be held back by 500 episodes worth of canon that you have somehow to lead up.

            the mere fact that enterprise could only do so much with its limitations is what made it so dull. same for the star wars prequels.

            a prequel is a nice gimmick for one shot use. but not the foundation for a long term story arc that expects the viewer to become invested. we dont become invested when we know nothing too bad can happen because whatever happens, some time later mr. picard will travel around with the TNG enterprise.

          • Shawn

            The Kelvin Timeline is doing very well financially. The latest movie is doing less well than the previous two. But it will make more than all the Prime movies in short order.

            I think the problems with Enterprise was more to do with the direction of the show than the fact that it was a prequel. The larger problems I had with it was that the episodes were not particularly fun or interesting. That’s ignoring the cannon issues. It’s the same problems I had with Voyager.

            They were going for style of substance. But I think you need the substance to hold up the style.

          • Mark McCarrion

            Going after Voyager into the post-Nemesis time means that the Federation would have transphasic torpedoes, programmable Borg nanoprobes, ablative armor, metaphasic shields, holographic doctors and bio-neural gelpacks from Voyager. Technbically, Enterprise E should have been able to destroy the Scimitar with a single torpedo. Janeway was already back in the Alpha Quadrant by then and had become an Admiral.

      • Methos6848

        Intriguing theory.

    • Tuskin38

      It has been confirmed as Prime Universe.

      • MJ

        If it takes place before TOS, the it’s in both the PRIME TIMELINE and the KELVIN TIMELINE..

        • Hauke Fischer

          Yeah that would be an interesting way to square that circle 🙂

        • Daaria Naharis

          Nope, it would have to be set before Kirk’s birth to be both Prime and Kelvin. The timelines diverged when the Kelvin was attacked, so about 30-35 years before TOS.

          • Ace Stephens

            Generally agreed. However, to an extent, even that (before Kirk’s birth always being “both”) doesn’t expressly hold up since there are so many “ripple effect” elements to consider and future time travel in the Kelvin timeline could alter things in its past and…whatever, right?

          • Mark McCarrion

            The Kelvin is not in the Prime universe, only in JJ’s Fake Trek universe, and this show has nothing to do with that. There is no “ripple effect” LOL!

          • Ace Stephens

            What are you talking about? You mention the Kelvin not being in the Prime Universe or not as though it has direct relevance to what I said (when it doesn’t). As for the “ripple effect,” it’s a well known convention of scifi and has influenced events in both timelines – although seemingly not in the Prime a great deal regarding the incident with the Kelvin.

            But you’re coming at everything I said from a weird place that has seemingly little, if anything, to do with it so I can’t even follow what you’re saying as a result.

          • Mark McCarrion

            Let me clarify: The JJ Abrams NuTrek is not at all related to the Prime Universe of Star Trek where TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise live. The USS Kelvin is unrelated to anything in the Prime Universe. Nothing that is happening or has happened in the JJverse has anything to do with actual Star Trek.

            Also, there is ZERO science in NuTrek. They could not even get the black hole right, because the writers do not understand the theoretical physics behind them. That is why the magical red matter was in the movie. Even theoretical physics preclude the existence of anything like red matter anywhere in our universe.

          • Ace Stephens

            I think the issue here is that you think any of this is relevant to the consideration of the Prime and Kelvin as separate continuities (whatever minor amount intrinsically overlaps or transfers from one to another within the fictional constructs present – and whatever your personal frustration/distinction is regarding science-related content). From what you’ve conveyed thus far, I don’t feel that it is and so I don’t know why you’re talking about it.

          • Mark McCarrion

            Are you really that dense? Let me say it as clearly as possible with as few words as possible.

            All of the Star Trek movies made by JJ Abrams are entirely unrelated and separate from those which were not made by him.

            Nothing happening in the Star Trek movies in the universe created by JJ Abrams have any connection to anything created by Gene Roddenberry.

            Clear on that?

            This show is going to be Star Trek in the sense that it will live within the original universe created by Gene Roddenberry, but it will become something else if it breaks the rules of the Prime universe. Enterprise failed because it broke the rules. These new movies are steadily decreasing in revenue because fewer people are going to see them.

            If this series breaks the rules any more than that awful, hideous ship, it will fail miserably.

          • Ace Stephens

            Are you really that dense?

            I think the issue here is that you’re trolling – likely unintentionally (although your overall attitude seems perhaps prone to it). I gather I understand the meaning of what you’re saying but do not follow it as there’s no relevance to your saying it except apparently some self-involvement on your part (which is where the “trolling” element comes in).

            And your entire last paragraph clarifies this (nobody here in this immediate thread of thought is discussing the perceived quality of the continuity) – you’re off the rails and apparently are not up for discussing what is actually being discussed.

            Clear on that?

            I say, “These are two essentially separate things.” and then you say that one is not in the other. …Yes, I basically just indicated that. You say there’s no “ripple effect” regarding time travel elements differentiating the two continuities even though that’s roughly established in-canon (what is in the Prime timeline – even before Nero’s arrival – is not intrinsically the case in the Kelvin timeline)…so I don’t know what to tell you there. Etc.

            So this type of stuff is why I can’t really follow what you’re saying (since what was discussed prior has a context and you appear to be doing a hop, skip and a jump to get to where you’re at). I’m talking about craft, continuity, etc. and you’re interjecting with a concern (some might argue fixation) regarding (your perception of the quality of) “the science.” I don’t know what that has to do with the craft or continuity (within the storytelling construct – rather than comparative to our world and most modern scientific theories or similar) itself. It’s not like Trek’s approach to science in the Prime timeline has always been perfect or expressly consistent either/anyway.

            To me, what you’re doing would be like if somebody said, “I’m not sure how that works. In Into Darkness…” and explained something about what’s presented there in the continuity and then I showed up and said, “But Into Darkness sucked.” …So? What’s it have to do with anything other than my own fixation on some element mentioned that (the perceived quality from any one individual of) isn’t intrinsically related to the context of the immediate discussion? And what is that interjection if not, at best, something that intends to derail (that is where the “trolling” comes in) the context into some other realm (that is, whether or not anybody valued or values the quality of that work)?

            There’s just no relevance. Even if I agree (and I do agree with much of the criticism of Into Darkness and that the Kelvin timeline seems less concerned with the ideas underpinning not just the science but the philosophical tenets Trek originally was more concerned with)…that doesn’t make it relevant to the context being discussed.

            So I would simply suggest that you reconsider your approach to this material if you feel it’s worthwhile to interject with opinions that have no immediate connection other than self-involved or self-important perspectives which seek to reduce or evade what is actually being discussed in favor of presenting one’s own perspective as authoritative or meaningful in contexts in which it is not of relevance to the discussion at hand.

            I value your opinion. I just don’t know why it’s here if not a sort of mistaken moment of self-involvement/self-importance/derailing/trolling/etc.

          • Mark McCarrion

            Perhaps you are viewing my comments as trolling because you simply are new to this franchise (relative to my perspective)? I have been watching Star Trek since it was new on television in 1966. It was not “TOS”, it was just Star Trek. After that was over, I became part of the fandom that clamored for a movie and we got that accomplished. Then again, us longtime fans got our Star Trek TV series back in the form of Star Trek TNG and we even had Gene Roddenberry himself as EP.

            Fast forward past Star Trek DS9, Voyager and Enterprise and along the way we got several more movies, and we even got to see the TNG crew make three of them.

            With me so far?

            In the Prime universe, everything is linear and follows an established story which forms a continuity. Kirk was NOT born on a shuttlecraft, he was born in Iowa. The starship Enterprise was NOT built on the ground, it was built in space. The Constitution class starship does NOT enter atmospheres or go underwater, the saucer section was supposed to do that in TOS, but the budget prevented us from seeing that so the shuttles and the transporters were born from budget constraints.

            Do I still sound like a troll to you? Nah, I am a fan. The real deal from the beginning.

            There never was a USS Kelvin, and Vulcans do not have girlfriends, and engineers do not design curved nacelles for starships because they make no sense. I have tons of stuff like that to talk about, based upon Roddenberry’s notes, and the book The Making of Star Trek which contained blueprints of the original 1701 and explanations for the tech and the vision of Star Trek.

            Now, let’s come to the now: You are here talking about “The Kelvin Timeline”, and speculating about how things in the new fake JJ Trek somehow “ripple” back to the Prime universe, which to me sound like silly ideas. Not you being silly as a new fan, but the idea that the dumb new universe JJ created and tried to tack on to Star Trek has anything to do with the continuity of Star Trek and it’s established universe (the Prime universe). I am not trolling you, and I value your opinions too as an individual. I just think that your understanding of Star Trek is incomplete. Perhaps I am wrong? I know my Trek.

            About this topic, which is the new series coming out in January, that ship is an old design from thge 1970s Phase II which was going to be a revival of Star Trek from the 1960s, but Paramount decided to do Star Trek The Motion Picture first. Even then, fans hated the new design because it violated the design guidelines of Starfleet starships. Look under the saucer of the original 1701. Those wedge looking parts under there are two of the three landing struts of the saucer section which was supposed to detach and land on planets. We never saw that. In TNG we got saucer separation, but the saucer did not land because shuttles and transporters had already been established in TOS.

            Still think I am a troll? I am just a Trek Perfectionist, like many Star Trek fans are.

          • Ace Stephens

            Do I still sound like a troll to you? Nah, I am a fan. The real deal from the beginning.

            You say that like being a fan means you are incapable of trolling.

            You are here talking about “The Kelvin Timeline”, and speculating about how things in the new fake JJ Trek somehow “ripple” back to the Prime universe, which to me sound like silly ideas.

            I never said or suggested that. If I thought you were doing this intentionally, I would likely feel you were trying to shift the argument away from what it’s about even further by currently suggesting as much. I even stressed the commonality of “the ripple effect” in order to note how it is generally portrayed as working. Nobody said anything about the Prime timeline would be changed due to that in the Kelvin timeline as things currently stand (as far as I’m aware, no canon work has “gone back” from the Kelvin to the Prime timeline).

            Not you being silly as a new fan, but the idea that the dumb new universe JJ created and tried to tack on to Star Trek has anything to do with the continuity of Star Trek and it’s established universe (the Prime universe).

            It does in that Nero (plus his crew) and Spock are absent from it and Romulus was destroyed.

            I just think that your understanding of Star Trek is incomplete.

            While this is undoubtedly true for a variety of reasons and to varying extents (I don’t know much about the novels or “behind the scenes” stuff at all, for instance), that doesn’t change that I feel you have miscontextualized things quite a lot in order to go on about your feelings of the formation of the Kelvin timeline (behind the scenes) when others were discussing the in-fiction continuity.

            Still think I am a troll?

            I still think you are unintentionally trolling, yes. Being a die-hard fan doesn’t mean you’re incapable of that (in fact, in regards to derailing a discussion due to pre-existing concerns, it might even be more likely).

          • Mark McCarrion

            You are clinging. You are stuck in a disconnect from the reality of the Star Trek. There is no Nero except in the JJverse. Spock Prime never left the Prime universe except in the JJverse. He used red matter which never existed in any universe, but for the sake of this discussion that too was created by JJ in the JJverse. You keep repeating events which ONLY take place in the JJverse and calling it the Prime universe because JJ tried to create a connection to it which does not really exist.

            The red matter is a magical substance which has no basis in any science, even theoretical science. And you don’t know that because you are obviously not a fan of science either.

            Everything talked about in the JJverse, even if they are referencing things in the Prime universe still has no real connection to it. The entire alternate timeline was created so that JJ and his hacks could escape the scientific aspect and the canon continuity and write it without any of that, and there you have the core of the reason why real Star Trek fans do not like any of the new movies. Boyfriend Spock, fratboy Kirk, bootycall Uhura and mechanical phasers all only exist in the JJverse and not in the Prime universe. Abrams was not even clever in how he did that. He evidently confused a black hole with a wormhole. It’s just too far out there for you to understand why it’s ridiculous. Such is the nature of the newer, less scientifically oriented NuTrek audience.

            I will leave you to your musings.

          • Ace Stephens

            You are clinging.

            Clinging? This is what is established and officially recognized as canon – it sounds like you are the one who’s clinging (both to your perception of what constitutes “real” Trek as well as) to this desperate argument that you think is relevant yet remains irrelevant to what was being discussed. Which is why yes, YOU ARE TROLLING. It doesn’t matter who likes the Kelvin timeline (or elements of it) or not – that has nothing to do with this conversation.

            You keep repeating events which ONLY take place in the JJverse and calling it the Prime universe because JJ tried to create a connection to it which does not really exist.

            I did no such thing. It’s no wonder you don’t understand the context here if you can’t understand that which is canon. And that it exists as that whether we enjoy it or not.

            The red matter is a magical substance which has no basis in any science, even theoretical science. And you don’t know that because you are obviously not a fan of science either.

            No – it’s just irrelevant to this conversation. Just like my opinion of Into Darkness is. Your self-involvement and self-importance and “clinging” are not the same as what is meaningful or relevant to a given conversation. So I don’t care what the science is or isn’t as I was speaking within the context of the established onscreen canon/continuity. Nobody was talking about the science and it’s not germane to this conversation. It’s only relevant in your head because of hangups you seem to have otherwise and/or issues you have with understanding the context present.

            The entire alternate timeline was created so that JJ and his hacks…

            This type of rhetoric just proves my point. You (apparently?) have nothing to say of the respective timelines and how the ripple effect influences things – you just have gripes/issues/etc. regarding the Kelvin timeline’s handling of material and the behind-the-scenes goings-on there which are irrelevant to this conversation (about what these things mean within the canon). So you keep trying to frame the latter within the former even though you yourself admit that the two timelines are not the same (which is what was stated to begin with).

            And head canon is fine. But one must understand or recognize reality which is that the official canon differs. Otherwise, it is accurate to claim that Spock and Kirk are lovers…and so is everybody else, probably.

            …and there you have the core of the reason why real Star Trek fans do not like any of the new movies.

            That mentality sounds, frankly, pathetic. “Real” fans. There are plenty of “real” fans – just as real as you (and likely even some who have spent more time/money/etc. on the franchise than you have, even if you have spent an immense amount of such things) – who enjoy/appreciate the new movies. There is no litmus test for fandom itself regarding “validity” as a fan. You’re just on an ego-trip (that self-importance I referred to) regarding your resentment of narrative handling you dislike or which you feel doesn’t align with what’s come before. So you’re shoving everything I say into that framework because you can’t conceive of how your (oh so important) opinion about that doesn’t actually align or relate in this case.

            He evidently confused a black hole with a wormhole. It’s just too far out there for you to understand why it’s ridiculous.

            I am aware of the generalizations and shorthand (misnomers) which occurred in order to convey ideas to the audience (even though they might have actually caused more confusion), yes. These have occurred often in Trek, not always delving deep into the science and sometimes using inappropriate terminology even when it should have been obvious (and/or has been used appropriately before). Yet you haven’t made an intricate listing of those instances here and gone on about how they make the Prime timeline terrible even though doing so would be about as relevant as what you have said here already (which is to say…roughly not at all).

            Such is the nature of the newer, less scientifically oriented NuTrek audience.

            If you’re meaning to imply me, I’ve been watching Trek for decades (it would have been difficult for me to do so prior without some time traveling of my own). I’m not some sort of “new fan” in terms of watching the show (although I am recently more involved in the fandom).

            I honestly wish you were trolling on purpose. It would be less depressing than someone who’s mentality is so self-important and hung up on their frustration about a specific subject that they can’t carry on a civilized conversation about something even tangentially-related without throwing a fit regarding something that has little to do with it.

            Your rhetoric has exposed your nature as a troll. Imagine having a conversation about an episode of TNG and how it shares thematic elements with an episode of DS9 (regarding what’s similar and what differs and why and in what regards they might expressly overlap in the text) but then somebody shows up to talk about how none of that matters because “real fans” don’t like “fake Trek” DS9 and they never should have used Worf in these differing ways because TNG never did and all of this followed with an “LOL!” I imagine you would roll your eyes and think, “What are you even doing here? This has nothing to do with what we’re discussing. If you’re caught up on that stuff – that frankly may or may not have some truth to it but remains irrelevant in this context – then go discuss those matters where such things have been brought up specifically as a subject.” I think it would be safe to say that you (or at least most) wouldn’t want them taking a conversation that doesn’t have a great deal to do with Worf, (anyone’s) misgivings about DS9, etc. and attempting to make it about those things because of their own frustrations/fixations.

            I just don’t think you’re seeing how that reasonably comes across as somebody who (due to their own fixation on their own outlook on a subject – what has roughly been construed here as “self-involvement” and “self-importance” and similar) wasn’t paying attention to the context of the conversation at hand so they read something tangentially related into it and assumed it had something to do with their ire and then threw all of that in there. And if somebody goes, “That’s not what we’re discussing here.” they just go, “But it is! DS9 is not real Trek!” and on and on.

            Eventually, if they’re not just self-involved or similar, it seems apparent that they have mental issues in some form. I assume you don’t so why don’t you address the subject up for discussion here regarding the canonical elements at play here – not whether or not you like them or wish to perceive them as not being canon because “somebody didn’t say the right words” or any of this (which is clear by now but remains wholly irrelevant).

            Until you do that, you are just trolling – even if, indeed, somebody mentioned DS9 (or Into Darkness or “timelines”) and you have immense frustrations regarding that subject.

          • Mark McCarrion

            You are rambling on about nothing. There are exactly three movies created which take place in the JJverse. 100% of the “canon” in that universe is only in that universe. It really is just that simple. Just because somebody in the JJverse makes a reference to a tribble or a Gorn or claims that they came from the Prime universe does not make it so.

            If you are clueless about Gene Roddenberry’s vision, then you will never understand why the fandom was split over JJ’s imitation Trek. And I got news for you kid, you are clueless about Gene’s vision.

            You are not even talking about the topic of this article. You are rambling on, attempting to reign me in (and failing), instead of discussing Star Trek Discovery. And you are expending thousands of keystrokes to respond to me. Why not just ignore my comments and move on?

          • Ace Stephens

            100% of the “canon” in that universe is only in that universe.

            This is simply not true. And bringing up your interpretation (due to the limitations you wish to impose due to your frustrations) when people are clearly speaking within the framework of the (official) other demonstrates the issues I have pointed out with your mentality.

            If you are clueless about Gene Roddenberry’s vision…

            I’m not. It’s just irrelevant to this conversation. If you want to post some “self-pleasuring” reply to everyone regarding some notion of what you think Gene would have thought or why it isn’t good because it’s not like what Gene wanted or it’s great because it’s what you think Gene wanted or whatever on everything, I guess that’s your right. But it doesn’t make doing so relevant to what is being discussed by those parties. Or not troll-like.

            …then you will never understand why the fandom was split over JJ’s imitation Trek.

            I understand it (as I have indicated, I have concerns about the Kelvin timeline from a creative perspective). However, it’s irrelevant to this conversation. You have issues with context and comprehension (regarding understanding/empathy/etc. surrounding seeing where others are coming from and responding appropriately) because of your self-important perspective that, frankly, defies a lot of what Gene’s vision was about – I mean, if we are going to discuss that (rather than what is canon – not the arbitrary designations you have placed upon what things count as “canon” due to your perception of what Gene’s vision was about). Not that he didn’t have similar issues himself in some cases.

            And I got news for you kid, you are clueless about Gene’s vision.

            Nah – it’s people like you who go about trying to be divisive about things that weren’t even a part of what was going on that defy and misunderstand (if they “understand” at all) it. “Here’s a beautiful vision of the future where people can get along and…” – “I don’t care what other people have going on! This is about me!”

            You are not even talking about the topic of this article.

            I replied to someone who was referring to the timeline concerns within canon in relation to this article by addressing the timeline concerns within canon (which was all a natural extension of the discussion of the article’s subject). You then showed up to tell everybody what your opinion of those is despite the official status of them remaining – which is where the path of the discussion went off the rails and you began to become apparent as a troll.

            You are rambling on, attempting to reign me in (and failing), instead of discussing Star Trek Discovery.

            I am trying to help you understand how you have failed. It is sad to think you have spent fifty years apparently so deeply-entrenched in perceptions about this material (“Gene’s vision”) and yet your entire approach to matters defies it in your very nature. You are not approaching this with an attempt to bring things together, to rectify and reconcile, to approach another party with understanding and respect, etc. Then again, like I said (and most know), Gene wasn’t perfect in these regards either. Although the man is different from his vision.

            And you are expending thousands of keystrokes to respond to me. Why not just ignore my comments and move on?

            Because I am not a cynic, apparently unlike you. I don’t give up or stop just because someone’s a troll (intentionally or otherwise). I push them to self-examine, consider differing perspectives, etc. and/or further reveal themselves so that everyone might pursue a greater understanding of the situation.

            You seem to have given up on a greater understanding of things long ago (or at least at some point or in some cases deciding it’s solely yourself and your interpretation which is important, regardless of what else is going on). It’s highly unfortunate and I hope you turn it around. But a good starting point would be attempting to grasp the context of others’ stances enough to not interject with irrelevant opinions.

          • Mark McCarrion

            My, arent you persistent. Let me ask you this: have you ever met and talked with Gene Roddenberry? I have. I discussed his vision with him face to face. I also met with and talked to Shatner, Nimoy, Nichols. all of the original cast. They were surprisingly clear on Gene’s vision as well. I have his vision in writing in the form of his noted as captured by the book The Making of Star Trek. YOU are the clueless one here, kid.

            BTW, you express ideas like a youngster so I will have to assume you are one.

            Regarding the “Kelvin timeline”, 100% of it is indeed only in the JJverse alternate timeline. Somebody in that timeline trying to refer to anything in the Prime timeline was only an attempt at creating a connection where there is none. 100% in the ALTERNATE universe and ALTERNATE movies. None of the new series will acknowledge anything in JJ’s fantasyverse. CBS made sure to make that clear, because they know the fans don’t like popcorn JJtrek.

            You are the one trolling. You refuse to discuss the topic of the new series, and instead write books to me online. I do not find any commentary about the false JJ trek interesting. There is no Kelvin, no transwarp beaming, no magic tribble blood, and no openly emotional Baller Vulcans with girlfriends. Constitution class starships do not enter atmospheres and go underwater, and Kahn is not a pale white guy with a Hindi name.

            This new series (rightfully) IGNORES your precious “Kelvin timeline”.

          • Ace Stephens

            Let me ask you this: have you ever met and talked with Gene Roddenberry? I have. I discussed his vision with him face to face.

            …THAT IS IRRELEVANT. How do you not understand this? What is “official” canon is not about what Gene Roddenberry says to anyone. He had issues with various portions of the series and films and wasn’t involved in various ones and all this – why aren’t you decrying those?

            YOU are the clueless one here, kid.

            No, I’m not. You’re utterly oblivious to how irrelevant what you’re saying is and yet you persist.

            Somebody in that timeline trying to refer to anything in the Prime
            timeline was only an attempt at creating a connection where there is
            none.

            What is the official word from the studio/production/etc.? That it’s canon. So your whiny, self-involved schpiel about nothing (but you) is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter who likes what how. You are exhibiting some of the worst behavior of Trek fans – “I know it! I get it! Anybody who doesn’t agree with me is wrong! I know the show! I’ve watched it longer than others! I’m special!” NOBODY CARES. That has nothing to do with what’s going on here (a discussion of official canon) but it does have to do with your personal insecurity and self-important outlook regarding your need to interject on unrelated topics about your feelings and background.

            Who would interject into random conversations with, “That’s fake! LOL! I know more than you because I talked to someone about stuff that isn’t what you’re talking about.”? Generally not someone I think would be keeping in-line with “Gene’s vision.”

            CBS made sure to make that clear, because they know the fans don’t like popcorn JJtrek.

            CBS made that clear? I heard Fuller said it in an interview after the big Comic Con panel most might have expected it to be mentioned at (so almost like it was an afterthought). Unless there was something notable otherwise, you are projecting nonsensical rationales onto things because of your own issues/fixations/etc. regarding the work (so when it suits you, it must be because of this thing you’re right about and when it doesn’t, it must be because they’re too foolish to understand what you’re right about). When your personal opinion is irrelevant to the discussion occurring here. I know people with contextual/ego/etc. issues might not like hearing that but it remains the case.

            You are the one trolling.

            By repeatedly pointing out that you showed up attempting to derail things, miscontextualized what I said and now refuse to back down because you can’t see reason regarding this? I even gave you examples regarding if somebody did the same regarding DS9 or the like and you still don’t understand how far off-base you are. I figured you at least might be able to contextualize that since it was more about the Prime timeline than the thing you seem to express that you don’t care about (or think doesn’t count) yet insist on deriding constantly.

            I do not find any commentary about the false JJ trek interesting.

            Right. And nobody cares. The world doesn’t revolve around you or your wants – but self-important, self-involved people typically don’t get that. So if somebody’s talking in a context that you dislike, showing up to troll them about it is generally not the best use of your time. It goes against what “Gene’s vision” was. But you don’t care because you have these issues.

            There is no Kelvin, no transwarp beaming, no magic tribble blood, and no openly emotional Baller Vulcans with girlfriends.

            There is in the Kelvin timeline. Are you delusional enough to not acknowledge the fictional construct that exists? If you are not delusional and are aware of the distinction between fiction and reality, then accept what has been put forward as official even if you refuse to acknowledge them in your head canon. At least enough to not try to derail others’ conversations.

            This new series (rightfully) IGNORES your precious “Kelvin timeline”.

            In this immediate context/conversation when I interjected, I don’t care (especially not in any “precious” form) about the Kelvin timeline except as it relates to reason. Within reason, it has been officially acknowledged as connected. Why you don’t disavow all Trek that wasn’t 100% toward Gene’s vision is bewildering to me if not merely due to your self-important outlook. “It’s okay if I say it is! Anything else should be denounced at every opportunity!” Take a deep breath and reassess your life if you think that keeps with “Gene’s vision.” Ridiculous, dogmatic, closed-minded outlooks that only prioritize one’s personal view but then denounce others having their own takes, including those who are “official” and have the rights to the property…sounds like Gene’s vision to you? There are plenty of entries in franchises I dislike – it doesn’t mean they aren’t canon.

            I approach a topic with reason (“Here is how that has been presented and some associated concerns.” in order to clarify a notion) and you showed up going, “THIS IS ABOUT ME AND MY OPINION!” And you don’t even have enough perspective to realize that you were trolling so you could now relent.

            Instead, it’s “But I met Gene! I’ve met people involved! I know stuff!”

            …Nobody cares. That has nothing to do with anything regarding what is officially-recognized as canon. Even if I hated the Kelvin timeline (which I don’t – and I certainly don’t love it either), what you’re saying would still not be relevant in the least.

            But you’ve apparently been at this for fifty years or so…so expecting you to have some self-perspective about it now seems doubtful.

          • Mark McCarrion

            Typing entire books as comments will not change the fundamental issue. Everything seen in JJ Abrams movies calling themselves Star Trek is not being considered canon by the true Star Trek fans. You know, the ones whose love for Trek are the reason it is a “franchise” today. Not you casual popcorn munchers who think that there is no difference between his crap and real Star Trek.

            You are never going to change the fundamental facts that “official” canon is largely defined by the fans and not directors or producers.

            This TV series is the result of seeing an unmet demand from fans for a Star Trek TV series which takes place in the Prime universe and ignores everything in JJland. And like it should be, we are getting one. Fans are going to be the ones who force a change in the design of the Discovery ship, who influence development of the characters and pay for CBS All Access.

            Without typing out an entire book worth of excuses and hopeful speculation like you are doing, I can say without question that the Kelvin timeline is not “official” canon. It is only canon for the JJverse and that is where it ends.

          • MJ

            Hey clueless, NO, YOU DON’T GET TO DEFINE CANON.

            Canon is what is on-screen, in all Trek TV series and movies. It’s as simple as that. That is the definition of canon, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.

          • Mark McCarrion

            Actually no. Canon is what is “generally accepted” (look up the definition). An example is the Tim Burton Planet of the Apes movie. It is not considered canon, but it is an official PotA movie. Star Trek Enterprise showed us the Xindi, but they are not considered canon, and Enterprise itself is barely considered canon.

            You sound like some angsty teen. No daddy at home?

          • MJ

            NO, WRONG AGAIN.

            YOU DO NOT GET TO DEFINE STAR TREK CANON.

          • Mark McCarrion

            Neither do you, kid! Canon has a definition. Look it up.

          • MJ

            “Neither do you”

            AGREED! Neither of us — yep!

            Canon is what is on-screen, in all Trek TV series and movies. As you just agreed, neither you or I get to define it as fans.

            Congrats, and thanks for coming around finally on this issue. Well done!

          • Mark McCarrion

            Disagreed. That tripe you posted is not the definition of canon.

          • MJ

            You just admitted that fans can’t define canon…you said neither of us gets to.

            Sorry dude, you blew it. game over.

          • DC Forever

            @ Mark McCarrion

            FYI

            You did just essentially agree wtih MJ’s position that fans can’t decide canon. You’ve contradicted yourself.

          • MJ

            “Mark McCarrion. FYI. You did just essentially agree wtih MJ’s position that fans can’t decide canon. You’ve contradicted yourself.

            Yep! He finally self-immolated here – it was only a matter of time. Thanks

          • Tuskin38

            Actually no, there is no official definition of canon, that is what a lot of people follow, but neither CBS or Paramount have actually said what is canon.

          • Ace Stephens

            What this comes down to is that you’re too self-involved to realize that your opinion of something is irrelevant if the conversation surrounds reason – in which case (things being about reason), you need to cite sources regarding the subject rather than rattle off nonsense about unrelated matters (such as how something mentioned doesn’t count because you don’t like it).

            This should be something easily-understood but apparently it isn’t.

            Look at nearly every sentence you’ve said in this last comment. “Abrams’ Trek isn’t Trek.” An irrelevant opinion you’ve interjected with. Have you done this on literally every other post where somebody mentions the Kelvin timeline in relation to what is officially-recognized as canon? Apparently not. “True Star Trek fans…” is seemingly just you being insecure about how much of a fan you are (despite apparently being a diehard fan…which is odd but not unexpected – I suppose you’re overcompensating because you feel random stuff gives you some sense of “status” within the fan community) and so you feel the need to trash anybody who doesn’t agree with you because your opinion is just that important. So anybody who disagrees is just plain wrong and not a “real” fan because you’re the arbiter of what “counts,” right? You say “official canon is defined by fans” even when it’s a property owned by specific entities. So what random episodes/films (aside from 09, STID and Beyond) that many (perhaps only “real”) fans dislike no longer “count”? Just the ones you happen to dislike as well? If so, isn’t that convenient and not at all an indication that you’re just unreasonable about this subject? That you seemingly put this forward (“Fans decide what counts! And they apparently just happen to agree with me!”) is just more self-important posturing by you because you want to presume that all of the “real” fans must agree with you because you want to be considered a “real” fan. Guess what – you are. So you can stop posturing now and just start accepting that a fan is a fan is a fan – instead of drawing arbitrary distinctions due to your opinion of certain works and/or due to personal insecurity and/or due to a want to appear important and better than “those fake fans” (for instance, pointing out that you met Roddenberry and various stars…which, again, is wholly irrelevant to this discussion but you apparently think makes your status bigger/better and therefore is worth mentioning regardless). You say you’re getting a series set in the Prime timeline because clearly people want that (because, presumably, “real” fans have been demanding it because they hate the Kelvin timeline’s films just like you seem to)…yet you don’t actually know what’s going on with it. You don’t know if, whatever time it is set during, they’ll have references to Romulus being destroyed and Spock disappearing (at which point, presumably you – the expert and arbiter of what constitutes “real” Trek – will denounce it as nonsense, right? Even if it’s all good otherwise?). You just presumably don’t know much about it – as very few do at this point – but you like to pretend you do because of your self-important outlook that is entrenched in your personal insecurity. “I matter! I’m a real fan! Anybody who disagrees with my outlook about the latest films isn’t a real fan!” Seriously – you don’t realize how deluded you sound.

            You interrupt a conversation about something else with a bunch of comments that have nothing to do with anything mentioned and then claim that I’m the person out of line for addressing your points and how they seem born out of something other than the context presented here. You’re a troll. But I’ve seen trolls who don’t seem to listen/follow and just take self-aggrandizing stances before – so you could at least try to come up with something a bit more original than interjecting with (unrelated to the discussion) “That sucks!” and “I know what I’m talking about!” stuff.

          • MJ

            Ace,

            He is clueless, and he is the one who is typing nonsensical books here, not you.

          • Ace Stephens

            Thank you. I don’t always agree with people here or understand exactly where they’re coming from…but I have been bewildered by this and trying to postulate rationales for their outlook (which hopefully have not appeared to be personal attacks – I do not know this person save for the odd manner they’ve approached things here and what I infer, perhaps erroneously, on the basis of that). I don’t know what’s going on with it. I understand saying, “I hate this stuff so I like to ignore it even if it’s apparently considered official.” (although that still would not be a reasonable/contextual reply to what I stated which was more about how the official canon seems to be set up and approaching these things and the possibilities within that) but going off on tangents about how they’ve met people and read books that aren’t really pertinent to this? I have no clue what that’s about except to guess at their potential motivation.

            I may be long-winded in addressing their concerns but…I don’t see any reason in their comments.

          • MJ

            “My, arent you persistent. Let me ask you this: have you ever met and talked with Gene Roddenberry? I have. I discussed his vision with him face to face. I also met with and talked to Shatner, Nimoy, Nichols. all of the original cast. They were surprisingly clear on Gene’s vision as well. I have his vision in writing in the form of his noted as captured by the book The Making of Star Trek. YOU are the clueless one here, kid.”

            FUNNY, GIVEN I JUST GOOGLED YOUR NAME AND STAR TREK, AND GUESS WHAT — NOTHING COMES UP OTHER THAN YOUR TROLLING POSTS.

            With all due respect, you are completely full of shit. And BTW, clown, I actually spent a weekend with a group of fans hosting Gene Roddenberry back in 1980…and unlike you, I not making this up.

          • Mark McCarrion

            LMAO! If Mark McCarrion was my real name, then that would be a problem! It isn’t. I was serving in the military in 1980. I was watching Star Trek when it was new on television in 1966. You have no clue, you petulant little kid.

          • MJ

            THIS IS EVEN MORE FUNNY — SO YOU CLAIM THIS FAKE-ASS RESUME, BUT PROVIDE NO WAY FOR US TO VERIFY IT…..

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm3zV1pCTQ8

          • Mark McCarrion

            Nobody asked you to verify it. You CAN’T verify it, and you don’t need to.

          • MJ

            Again, HOW CONVENIENT for you. LOL

          • Mark McCarrion

            VERY convenient, and wise.

          • MJ

            Thanks for admitting that, charlatan.

          • MJ

            “You are not even talking about the topic of this article. You are rambling on, attempting to reign me in (and failing), instead of discussing Star Trek Discovery. And you are expending thousands of keystrokes to respond to me. Why not just ignore my comments and move on?”

            No, you are trying to discredit Ace by making these dumb-ass claims that he rambles and is not addressing you, when in fact that is what you are doing with your own personal definition of canon that only a moron would agree with.

            EPIC FAIL

          • Mark McCarrion

            You are a simple troll. You are saying even less than he is, you retarded tribble. You just want to try and jump in, but you lack Ace’s intellect. I might be arguing with him, but at least he displays intelligence. You sound like you just had too many beers. Go back to your Xbox, kid.

          • MJ

            That’s all you could come up with? Seriously???

          • Mark McCarrion

            Anything more, and your head would explode.

          • MJ

            Even more lame.

          • Mark McCarrion

            Not as lame as you and your juvenile responses.

          • MJ

            ibid.

          • Mark McCarrion

            Is Ace your boyfriend? If so, he is the smart one. Get him to respond because he writes far more intelligently than you do. You come off as some flailing, sweaty kid running around with a chip on your shoulder. Retorts, attacks, dumb chirps and yelps. ADD. And I just KNOW you still live at home with your parents!

          • MJ

            “Is Ace your boyfriend? If so, he is the smart one. Get him to respond because he writes far more intelligently than you do. You come off as some flailing, sweaty kid running around with a chip on your shoulder. Retorts, attacks, dumb chirps and yelps. ADD. And I just KNOW you still live at home with your parents!”

            Pathetic…seriously??? You’d better go and re-sharpen that pencil, dude. How embarrassing for you. WTF?

          • MJ

            “Which is why yes, YOU ARE TROLLING. It doesn’t matter who likes the Kelvin timeline (or elements of it) or not – that has nothing to do with this conversation.”

            Yes, he certainly is trolling.

          • MJ

            “The red matter is a magical substance which has no basis in any science, even theoretical science. And you don’t know that because you are obviously not a fan of science either.”

            Hey clown, Protomatter from classic Trek movies is in the same category…LOL..what a silly argument. And don’t get me started on soul transfers with Katras…LOL

          • Mark McCarrion

            No, it’s not. Not even close. The soul transfer with Katras, well I won’t argue with that. But we are talking about Vulcans, and there is no actual science to constrain the ability of aliens. However res matter is portrayed as a physical substance in NuTrek, and the laws of physics prevents the existence of anything remotely like it from existing. Protomatter was never shown to have any magical properties like red matter. A substance which, when “ignited”, created black holes powerful enough to destroy a planet? LMFAO! We won’t even talk about how it is created or how several gallons of it were stored on the Vulcan ship.

            Before you go there, Q was also magical and illogical.

          • MJ

            LOL — you have all of these “CONVENIENT” excuses to write off classic Trek made up “magic science” plot devices

            – Protomatter is a completely made up magic science device that is the secret sauce that terms inanimate matter into life

            – Katras are some silly made up Vulcan magic plot defice that allows souls to transferred like texts between cell phones.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm3zV1pCTQ8

          • Mark McCarrion

            Protomatter has nothing on red matter or magic tribble blood.

            When are you going to discuss the TOPIC? That would be Discovery. At least Ace seems to have a grasp on what he believes, even if I disagree with it. You are just playing schoolyard games. I am likely old enough to be your father. An “old fart” if you will. Your writing comes off as juvenile and vapid. You aren’t saying anything, just babbling.

          • MJ

            Your lame attempts to attempt misdirection and attack people personally here when the discussion doesn’t go your way is not fooling anyone.

            At least come up with some better insults…you sound so silly every time you run out of ideals.

          • Mark McCarrion

            You are here for a different reason than I am, evidently. I did not come here to see you. I came here to discuss this new show and especially the awful ship. I have my own scifi website where I talk about other shows and go into Star Trek more in depth. For me, this discussion is a field trip.

          • MJ

            “I have my own scifi website where I talk about other shows and go into Star Trek more in depth. For me, this discussion is a field trip.”

            Ah, your resume expands again…LMFAO

            Sure you do…and say hello to Shat for me when you are drinking martinis with him at his pool this weekend. LMFAO

            This is fracking hilarious. Seriously, thanks for some great laughs, Clarabell!

          • Mark McCarrion

            Yep, I have a scifi website. With forums. I thought about posting the URL, but you would be torn to shreds there by the other members.

          • MJ

            “I thought about posting the URL, but you would be torn to shreds there by the other members.”

            THE CONVENIENCES KEEP PILING UP. :-))

            Say hello to Shat for me tomorrow at The Ivy.

          • Ace Stephens

            Look, when the Prime timeline does it, it’s fine. We just don’t know how it works exactly, okay? Maybe we just can’t understand, even if the terms and science don’t quite add up.

            But when the Kelvin timeline does it, it’s an embarrassment that serves to prove that it’s not real Trek!

          • DC Forever

            Stiick a fork in Mike McCarrion on this issue — it’s obvious that there are direct parallels between the plot devices ot Red Matter and Protomatter between JJ-Trek and TOS movies.

            Like, duh!

          • Tuskin38

            “Spock Prime never left the Prime universe except in the JJverse.”

            What. No, he did, Even CBS said he did and they control the Prime Universe.

          • Mark McCarrion

            CBS owns the rights to Star Trek. They did not create Star Trek

          • Tuskin38

            CBS published and Licensed Star Trek Online, in Star Trek Online Spock went missing while trying save Romulus. CBS told the Star Trek Online devs to include this. It takes place in the prime universe. The Official Encyclopedia (also published by CBS) also has Prime Spock going missing from the Prime Universe. Whether you like or not, that Spock is the same Spock from the TV Universe. hes gone, live with it. Go create your own head Canon.

            CBS holders of everything not the JJ Movies considers Spock from the Prime Universe to be missing and in the Kelvin Timeline just like it is shown in Star Trek 2009.

          • MJ

            “Perhaps you are viewing my comments as trolling…”

            Correct!

          • Mark McCarrion

            Again, care to point out anything you are proud of writing here? Looks to me that the ratio of real Star Trek fans to popcorn heads here is about 5 popcornheads to 1 fan.

          • MJ

            You are the one who claimed a resume and access, yet I find nothing on you when I Google your name and Star Trek.

            You made “the resume claim,” not me. But you can’t back it up.

          • Mark McCarrion

            You can’t Google me. You don’t know my name. It isn’t Mark McCarrion. I am not dumb enough to use my real name on the internet forums, Who the hell does that?

          • MJ

            Sigh, I am getting fatigued without having to repeat things here for you constantly.

            So you claim this supposed resume and supposed access but then offer no way for us to verify it….MY, HOW CONVENIENT IS THAT?

            Given you track record of juvenile, non-nonsensical posts here, I can guarantee you that no one is going to believe your suspect claims. You don’t come across as anything even remotely like a serious student of Star Trek.

          • Mark McCarrion

            Yada yada blah blah. I am not a student of Trek, I am a lifelong fan. I couldn’t care less what you think about my knowledge of Star Trek. I can demonstrate that easily. Why should I be interested in why you can’t Google me? I am not seeing how that is relevant to THIS discussion. You are just sone slug on a thread. I certainly am not interested in Googling you or giving you any more attention than you are already giving me, which is creepily considerable I might add.

          • MJ

            “I am not a student of Trek”

            Now that we can all agree on!

            “Why should I be interested in why you can’t Google me? I am not seeing how that is relevant to THIS discussion. You are just sone slug on a thread. I certainly am not interested in Googling you”

            Again, you floated the suspect info that you had all this access to GR, TOS actors, etc, NOT ME….so given you are behaving like such a juvenile moron here, of course no one here is going to believe your “resume claim” unless you provide something to back up your dubious claims.

            Call me nuts, but I am not inclined to believe a person who shows up here behaving like a know-it-all jackass to everyone.

          • Mark McCarrion

            ” I am not inclined to believe a person who shows up here behaving like a know-it-all jackass to everyone.”

            Back at you. You are the jackass here. Read over your comments. 100% retorts, and worded like some angsty teen. You are laser focused on ME as an individual, Googling me and so forth. LMAO! I couldn’t care less who you are or what you think. I am only responding to you because you are asking for it. I certainly will not be wasting a single keystroke Googling you. You really did that? LOL!

            I don’t take any challenges from kids like you seriously. Unlike your buddy Ace, you seem to have little more to say here except sniffing my ass and nibbling. You have said nothing about this show, nothing about Star Trek, Nothing worth reading. You aren’t even funny! And you speak for NOBODY here. You are not a “we”, and you do not get to speak on behalf of “everyone” here. Dumbass sweaty kid, GTFOH with that.

            Star Trek Discovery. That is the topic. Interested?

          • MJ

            Sorry, I’ve got Bernie Sanders and the Pope over at my house now for my Club of Rome chapter meeting…I’ll need to get back to your re-pasted post later.

          • Ace Stephens

            You are not a “we”, and you do not get to speak on behalf of “everyone” here.

            And this is coming from the person who thinks they get to determine who “real fans” are and what “real Trek” is to the extent of being able to claim what “real fans” want and all of this – speaking on behalf of “everyone” in that grouping. But, of course, “real fans” are just the ones who agree with everything they think to begin with so of course they can speak on behalf of all of them.

          • Mark McCarrion

            You can say whatever you want here. So say things. The deal is that whatever you write might be challenged or disproven if you have not done your homework or just lack the knowledge of the subject matter. Are you so fragile that you can’t stand scrutiny? I invite it.

          • Ace Stephens

            And then you reject it (even when plainly valid) because of your self-important outlook (regarding your personal opinion), announcing how you and only you have all the answers simply because you do (and because of a bunch of things unrelated to what others are talking about). Again, it is unfortunate that you do not have the self-perspective to see the issues here.

          • Mark McCarrion

            Notice how you are whining about my responses instead of presenting logical arguments? I have stated clearly why all of the “Kelvin timeline” is restricted to the JJverse and has zero connection to the Prime universe. I have pointed out when you mistakenly assume that statements made in the JJverse which attempted to connect it to the Prime universe are still only within the JJverse, and you just push back against that and whine about my responses.

            All you have to do is just move forward and back your statements. You can’t debunk my statements regarding the separation of canon in the two universes, and I can easily debunk your claims that they are connected officially. So, why is it so bad to acknowledge the truth? Within the Kelvin timeline, all the canon is connected I guess. There really isn’t any canon in it except BOOM!, CRASH! (insert random lens flares), “SPOOOOOCK!”, and “NO. I am assigned to the Enterprise”.

          • Ace Stephens

            Notice how you are whining about my responses instead of presenting logical arguments?

            Stop projecting. That’s what you are doing. I showed up talking about reason, regarding the construct of what is official canon and you then showed up to interject with your opinion as though it was relevant because you couldn’t be reasonable.

            I have stated clearly why all of the “Kelvin timeline” is restricted to
            the JJverse and has zero connection to the Prime universe.

            You have stated clearly with a lot of conjecture and opinion while ignoring (save for slighting Enterprise) similar elements from the Prime timeline that you could just as easily jump on and claim do not count primarily because you don’t like them. But you don’t realize how hypocritical, off-base, etc. your approach is and how, within that, it defies reason. Because you change the standards you apply arbitrarily due to whatever suits your personal opinion. That’s a distortion of thought in the realm of delusion when confronted with the facts. The most important one in this case being that the owners of the IP establish what constitutes “official” continuity for the purposes of that ownership. So, sorry, your Spock/Kirk slash fiction doesn’t count within that just because you want it to and have an adamant opinion that it does. Similarly, things don’t just magically not count just because you don’t want them to.

            …statements made in the JJverse which attempted to connect it to the Prime universe are still only within the JJverse…

            As of now. What will you do if a new show suddenly indicates that Romulus was destroyed and Spock disappeared? Denounce it? You never answered that. Also, what do you count as official canon if not what appears onscreen in a fictional construct from the licensed holders of the IP? If that’s not your basis, then what about the comics that featured the Prime timeline leading up and in relation to the events of Star Trek 09? It seems it’s rather arbitrary regarding what you like but you like the elements of the Prime timeline enough to give their various issues here and there a pass while jumping onto the Kelvin timeline’s and dismissing them altogether as “not real” as a result. The logic is just massively inconsistent but it seems to all come down to it simply being your opinion and your opinion being right because it’s your opinion therefore it’s logical.

            All you have to do is just move forward and back your statements.

            …I was never discussing whether the Kelvin timeline was the same as the Prime timeline (I originally pointed out that it wasn’t) and you showed up to talk about that. Yet you don’t see how it’s irrelevant. So what must I back up if I wasn’t talking about what you randomly interjected with your self-important opinions regarding?

            You can’t debunk my statements regarding the separation of canon in the two universes…

            It’s easily debunked and I’ve repeatedly pointed out the issues with your self-important outlook distorting your reasoning. But if you’re so concerned with what the “word of God” is regarding these sorts of subjects (that is, regarding “Gene’s vision” or the like and presumably what those behind further shows/works have said regarding their view of it) then you should probably note the endless amount of people involved in Trek, including Nimoy, who have discussed how the 09 film (the Kelvin timeline) is a continuation of events from the Prime timeline regarding Spock/Nero/etc. But you neglect/negate those because I guess they’re not “word of God” enough (even though you seemed to point out having met Nimoy before as though that gave you some authority regarding understanding the vision of the show…) but, it seems, more so because you don’t like the Kelvin timeline. And that’s fine. But disliking it doesn’t mean it isn’t the official canon. It doesn’t have to be your “head canon” at all, just like I’m sure some of us would prefer to “forget” various episodes or occurrences or whatever during the show’s run. But it’s still the official canon.

            …and I can easily debunk your claims that they are connected officially.

            Then why haven’t you? Saying, “But it doesn’t suit (my perception of) Gene’s vision!” and “It’s stupid, for popcorn-eating popcorn people!”-type stuff doesn’t relate to what the rights-holders say. It just relates to how your self-important outlook. Saying the Kelvin timeline could be roughly considered to be “self-contained” in its playing also doesn’t mean anything regarding it not relating to the Prime timeline, particularly when the Spock that carries over references events from that in STID and Beyond features (Spoiler, I guess?) a photo of the cast from the Prime timeline films. At this rate, you could just as easily argue that DS9 and TNG and whatever else you dislike isn’t canon, even if the same actors from TOS showed up as the same characters, on the basis of it not quite suiting this or that of what you perceive of “Gene’s vision” and going on and on about how real fans don’t like those either and you don’t need them to understand TOS so they aren’t really a part of the same continuity/canon. But you don’t understand that. And, as a result, you don’t understand how deluded/hypocritical/self-important/etc. your expressed views come across as.

            So, why is it so bad to acknowledge the truth?

            That’s a question you should ask yourself (regarding acknowledgement of what constitutes “official canon”) until you’re willing to make a list for me of all of the instances throughout the Prime timeline’s history (presumably just from TNG forward) that don’t quite suit Gene’s vision in some form, seem more focused on action/”entertainment” than philosophy/science, etc. and how those are all okay but the Kelvin timeline’s aren’t…and how those count as being the same thing but the Kelvin timeline doesn’t…and on and on. But you haven’t and you presumably won’t because you don’t have enough perspective to see how ridiculous your take is.

            Within the Kelvin timeline, all the canon is connected I guess. There
            really isn’t any canon in it except BOOM!, CRASH! (insert random lens
            flares), “SPOOOOOCK!”, and “NO. I am assigned to the Enterprise”.

            You’ve made your distaste for it quite clear in your rhetoric (no matter how irrelevant someone’s like or dislike is regarding whether it is considered official canon at this rate). But, again, you could just as easily argue the same – that it “doesn’t count” and “is connected to canon only in itself and its further derivatives” of TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT (which you’ve alluded to) yet you seemingly decide not to because your perception is that they exist in a similar realm to what Gene’s vision put forward and you prefer that greatly (as I imagine many/most major fans do) while disliking the Kelvin timeline’s portrayal greatly.

            I’m sure there are still some people bitterly clutching a TV Guide who refuse to acknowledge anything but the Original Series (including even refusing to acknowledge the films) as “real Trek” but I don’t think that makes their outlook much more sound regarding what constitutes “official canon” simply because they have personal opinions regarding limiting their perceptions of the material and excluding various perspectives/fans on the basis of a seeming “fan class system.”

            Again, I have plenty of franchises where some entry was awful and I go, “Ugh…” but that doesn’t make those works no longer “official canon.” And I’ve been a fan of franchises where, as far as official word goes, they say, “We’re ignoring that entry…” which means that the canon/continuity seems to split and has differing elements or perceptions. This is not one of those canons.

          • Mark McCarrion

            All of that and you are missing the point. Try it this way: Find me something made in the Prime universe which acknowledges anything in the JJverse. Just ONE LITTLE THING (we both know nothing exists to present).

            My point is that the JJverse has no official connection to the Prime universe. And it doesn’t. Mentioning tribbles or gorns IN THE JJVERSE is still only in the JJverse. That is just a fact and you refuse to accept it.

          • Ace Stephens

            Try it this way: Find me something made in the Prime universe which acknowledges anything in the JJverse.

            …Again, “find me something made in TOS which acknowledges anything in TNG.” That’s the equivalent of what you’re saying. Yet you don’t see that for some reason (seemingly your massive distaste for the Kelvin timeline).

            My point is that the JJverse has no official connection to the Prime
            universe. And it doesn’t. Mentioning tribbles or gorns IN THE JJVERSE
            is still only in the JJverse. That is just a fact and you refuse to
            accept it.

            How do you reconcile any of the “derivative” works prior to this then? So does TMP not count even though it’s the same cast? Or is it only Wrath of Khan because Roddenberry was overruled and pushed aside? You still haven’t addressed this. Within the standards you’re putting forward (incredibly vague as they are, in terms of reasoning, aside from, “I don’t like the Kelvin timline!”), why isn’t something like TNG or DS9 or whatever its own “canon” and so anything anybody argues about the “Prime timeline” is ridiculous because the only “real Trek” is TOS?

            You say it’s fact because you’ve seemingly deluded yourself into this pretzeled realm of thinking wherein you can’t see the issues/contradictions/self-involvement/hypocrisy/etc. in what you’re putting forward. If you can reconcile all of this stuff, it would best argue your point if you would explain how you are able to do so on a case-by-case basis and why this specific iteration is an utter exception (and not on the basis of conjecture or inconsistent reasoning such as regarding “Gene’s vision” or similar, which has often been sidestepped. overruled, ignored, etc. in various instances prior to the Kelvin timeline’s existence).

          • Mark McCarrion

            Ugh.

            You are like a cement duck.

          • Ace Stephens

            First of all, what you interjected with was irrelevant contextually. However, if we’re entertaining your point, all you need to do is outline what differentiates the matter from all of the other derivative works. Instead, you’ve presented arguments which might make sense here or there but could similarly be applied elsewhere yet you’ve chosen not to for seemingly arbitrary or opinion-oriented reasons. That sort of selective application coupled with your rhetoric toward the Kelvin timeline and class-standards of what constitutes “real” Trek and “real” fans and all this indicates that this is simply a matter of your (self-important outlook surrounding your) personal opinion of the Kelvin timeline being negative. That’s perfectly understandable that you dislike the Kelvin timeline yet says nothing of official canon (which the IP owners have established).

            If you can present a coherent, comprehensive argument which accounts for the variations in your application and isn’t similarly dependent almost solely upon personal opinion when doing so, I will entertain your idea more fully. Not that it then becomes any more relevant to the discussion that was being had before you interjected.

          • MJ
          • Mark McCarrion

            I soooo win.

          • MJ

            Ace, I can assure you, love of self is not an issue with this dude. 🙂

          • DC Forever

            Perfectly said, Ace Stephens.

          • Ace Stephens

            There’s just no consistency to any of his argument except, “It’s my opinion so it’s right.” That’s the only resounding “message” or “idea” that’s coming across. And I don’t begrudge anyone their “head canon” – he can ignore the Kelvin stuff as much as he wants (and I don’t blame him – we all have things we may not like from franchises we may love) but that doesn’t change official canon. This seems like a really obvious notion to me but he seems to think that the Kelvin timeline being something one could consider largely “self-contained” in its portrayal and different in some regards in tone/theme/content/etc. from much of Trek…means it’s inherently not the same canon/continuity in a fashion. Whereas I’m sure many (who wanted to because they don’t like it) could argue that the relative “clarity” (that is, self-containment) combined with the “differences” regarding TNG or the TOS films or…whatever meant that those weren’t truly a part of the same canon as TOS or whatever. But that they might do that and it (their doing essentially what he is doing) likely wouldn’t make much of any sense to him doesn’t concern him because he’s right and only he (and those thinking exactly like him) “get it.”

          • MJ

            Yep. The term is called: hypocrite.

          • Ace Stephens

            Agreed. And I’ve mentioned that one recently. But I’ve already noted how self-involved, self-important, etc. the views expressed are coming across as and, as I said, I don’t want these things to be viewed as “personal attacks” – but mere observations of potential conditions. So…I’m glad you said it this time. Maybe if enough people say it, it will get through to him, seeing as how he thinks that enough fans agreeing about something somehow alters what “official canon” is…

            But I doubt it.

          • DC Forever

            Mark McCarrion obvoisuly didn’t like that you found out through that web search that he’s not the “famous science fiction web presence with Star Trek celebrity access” that he was claiming.

            You and Ace Stephens exposed and embarassed him, and so now we get more made up nonsense and excuses from this troll.

          • MJ

            Well done guys in exposing this dude.

            But who knows, maybe Mensa McCarrion can get us courtside tickets this fall to sit next to him and Shat at a Lakers game at Staples? Hee Hee

          • Mensa McCarrion

            How did you know I had those tickets? Shat won’t be able to make it but Jeri Ryan will be my date.

          • Eskay

            So am I supposed to believe that an anonymous poster just made up a very unusual name like “Mark McCarrion?”

            That is laughable. No one would use a specific and non-common full name like that as a handle on the Internet.

            You are Mark McCarrion, you are not some big deal on the Internet, but you are extremely juvenile. That’s all a fact, my friend. Stop the subterfuge; I am not buying it.

          • Mark McCarrion

            I don’t care what you believe. I mean, really? LMAO! To you, I am Mark McCarrion. I use that name online because I want to be Mark McCarrion online. If I wanted to use my real name, I would. Seriously?

            “So am I supposed to believe that an anonymous poster just made up a very unusual name like “Mark McCarrion?”

            Yeah, that is exactly what you should believe! I really hope that your mother did not name you “Eskay”

          • DC Forever

            Mr. McCarrion,

            Please stop insutling everyone’s intelligence here. No one would make up an internet name like, “Mark McCarrion”. That’s ludicrous.

          • Mark McCarrion

            LMMFAOOOO!!!!! Hilarious! Listen carefully: my name is not Mark McCarrion. If you refuse to accept that, then I am Mark McCarrion. Pick one. Who I choose to be online has zero to do with this discussion or you or anyone. Have fun with it.

            I wonder what your mother was high on when she named you DC Forever! ROTFLMMFAO!

            I am laughing so hard right now!

            “No one would make up an internet name like, “Mark McCarrion”. That’s ludicrous.”

            AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

          • DC Forever

            I agree. Of course he’s Mark McCarrion. That name is not famous or known, so no one would just randomly come up with that. Ha Ha Ha

          • MJ

            If it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, flies like a duck, and craps like a duck….it’s most probably a duck

            Yep, he is Mark McCarrion for sure.

            Cased closed.

          • Mark McCarrion

            Of course. YES. I am Mark McCarrion. MARK MCCARRION. That’s me.

          • Mensa McCarrion

            Maybe we are related, Mark!

          • Mark McCarrion

            Maybe! From what I hear, Mark McCarrion is not a common name. Unusual even. That might be because there is no McCarrion surname in Irish bloodlines, but whatever! It’s so good to know there is another McCarrion in the world!

            I guess I better drop the charade. I am Mark McCarrion. Yep you betcha!

          • MJ
          • Mark McCarrion

            I win!

          • Mark McCarrion

            HAHAHAHA! I am sooooo screencapping this for my website!

          • Mark McCarrion

            Yeah im busted. You and Eskay and MJ are all three separate people who have totally exposed me. I post as Mark McCarrion and it is my real name. Yes.

            😉

          • MJ
          • Mark McCarrion

            Game over indeed. I win.

          • Mark McCarrion

            I should have known better. DC Forever, MJ and Eskay are all super famous online celebrities with cred on every continent. What could I hope to accomplish as merely Mark McCarrion?

          • Mark McCarrion

            Ok i give. I am Mark McCarrion.

          • Ace Stephens

            “I know all. I just can’t prove anything I say.”

          • MJ

            He’s like a certain presidential candidate…LOL

          • Ace Stephens

            More like nearly all politicians to an extent…but yeah, perhaps more applicable in a specific few (nauseatingly current) cases.

          • MJ

            “Let me say it as clearly as possible with as few words as possible.”

            ….then rambles on about basically hating nuTrek….

            We are still waiting for you to say something intelligent and concise here, dude?

          • Mark McCarrion

            Since when are YOU a “we”? I couldn’t care less if you have some sort of cognitive disconnect with what I write here. I have been very concise. And my intelligence speaks for itself, whether or not you recognize it.

          • MJ

            LOL

          • Ace Stephens

            “I’m intelligent because I say! It’s real Trek or not because I say! It makes sense because I say!” I’m not sure if this person understands that the world doesn’t revolve around them, their interpretations and their claims “because.”

          • MJ

            “From what you’ve conveyed thus far, I don’t feel that it is and so I don’t know why you’re talking about it.”

            I don’t get his comments at all? It’s like he knows he hates the new movies, but he’s coming up with bizarre arguments concerning canon to try to reinforce his hate. Kind of sad and pathetic.

          • MJ

            Hey Einstein, Protomatter from classic Trek movies is in the same category…LOL..what a silly argument. And don’t get me started on soul transfers with Katras…LOL

          • MJ

            You don’t get to pronounce that…canon it what is on screen, Donald. 😉

          • Mark McCarrion

            This show has absolutely nothing to do with JJ Abram’s alternate universe. There is no Kelvin in the Prime timeline.

          • Tone

            Mark, just add MJ to your ignore list. He is one of the professional trolls here with the argumentation of an under-educated teenager.

            But I must admit, his childish argumentation does bring a smile to my face when he turns up to “do his thang”.

          • Mark McCarrion

            Thanks very much!

          • MJ

            Congrats on having one person finally agree with you here…it’s a start…LOL

          • MJ

            Thank Jesus I was born tone-deaf..bud-a-boom! 😉

          • MJ

            That is what I meant.

        • Mark McCarrion

          What “Kelvin timeline”? LOL. JJ Verse movies are not part of actual Star Trek canon. But if you don’t know that then you are not really a Trek fan. The NCC 1031 tells us that this ship was built after Archer’s time, but at least 10 years before Kirk’s Enterprise. That would put it after the Romulan War and before the Klingon War.

          • MJ

            YOU don’t define canon for all of us here. What is on the screen in all Trek series and movies defines canon – your condescending little lectures are immaterial.

          • Mark McCarrion

            and so are your juvenile, uninformed low-bar opinions.

          • MJ

            “and so are your juvenile, uninformed low-bar opinions.”

            Ah, so this is what mature comments look like, eh Einstein?

          • Mark McCarrion

            Dumbass kid. Back to the basement with ya.

          • MJ

            “Dumbass kid. Back to the basement with ya.”

            More maturity.,.sure, whatever you say, Mensa

          • Mark McCarrion

            As a matter of fact, I happen to be a member of Mensa! And no, you can’t Google that ’cause you do not know who I am. I do not care if you believe it or not.

            Because I am an adult, I know you are a kid because of your pubescent responses.

          • MJ

            L
            M
            F
            A
            O

            Nuff said….LOL^2

          • Ace Stephens

            “I don’t care if you believe it or not! It should be enough that I said it!”

            Seriously – if this person isn’t just a troll who goes out of their way to sound condescending and “one-up” everyone, they seem to have some extremely deep insecurities. Even if a member of Mensa, it’s irrelevant to mention in reply except to try to one-up or sound important/smart/special/etc. Yet you are the juvenile one.

          • Tuskin38

            Holy fucking god. You sound like a teenager the way you speak. God damn, get off the fake throne you made yourself.

          • Tuskin38

            What if Discovery actually takes place after Voyager and says Romulus was destroyed and Spock is missing? Will your head explode because it proved the events happened?

      • Kevin Rombold

        the background music….the ship Design looking like federation and klingons collided and then the Name… discovery…. It seems to me that it could take place right after Star trek 6 (the undiscovered country)
        😉

        • awesomesocks42

          Nope, Bryan Fuller specifically said that the rumor of it taking place between ST6 and TNG is false.

          • Kevin Rombold

            but maybe its only a distraction because we have seen through his and the Studios mind 😉 but it can also been taking place during the first wars with the klingons…
            but the hints are really easy to be taken away in thoughts xD

        • Tuskin38

          The producer already said that isn’t true.

          • Kevin Rombold

            would not be the first time they say something to protect the truth. but we will see it in some time…
            i am not saying that my opinion is the truth but i mention what the details could tell someone. 😉

          • Tuskin38

            If you’re referring to Into Darkness Khan thing. Discovery is made by completely different people, not even the same production company.

            The only thing that have in common is having the name ‘Star Trek’ in the title.

    • Brian Thorn

      Decker’s USS Constellation actually had a lower registry number: NCC-1017.

      • Charlie Oakes

        I just assumed it was an anagram of 1701 .

        • Binyamin Koretz

          exactly. so they wouldn’t need new stickers.

          • Mark McCarrion

            You are exactly correct.

          • Thomas Elkins

            That doesn’t stop it from being canon

        • Brian Thorn

          But it was on screen as 1071, so it is canon. They even kept that low NCC number when they redid the effects for TOS-Remastered.

          • Mark McCarrion

            But it was a one-off misstep, and @Charlie Oakes and @Binyamin Koretz got it exactly correct. They used the same model as the Enterprise and re-arranged the stickers. There was no CGI at the time, and the model was used for every Constitution class starship seen in TOS. The registry numbers since then are in order of increasing numbers.

    • Anthony Adams

      I wouldn’t read too much into the registry number. Yes, historically that helped differentiate what period the ship was from. But it’s not always the case. Take Grissom for example. It’s registry is NCC-638 . Not to mention that the Columbia, which was mentioned in TMP had a registry of NCC-621. So I wouldn’t use that alone to make a determination on when exactly Discovery is set.

      • kadajawi

        It looks like a pre-TOS era ship to me. It has the corresponding registry number. While it IS possible that it can play later, it surely doesn’t look like. The name too… if you want to discover strange new worlds (to the crew), going to the roots is probably easier, unless you pull off a Voyager again.

        • Shawn

          In addition, the Star Trek typeface being used is also more evocative of the TOS area Trek. TNG era typeface is less retro. So I think that’s another indication it’s pre-TOS. Or at least around that time.

    • Hauke Fischer

      Well, the registry pre-dates the Enterprise, but the ship could in theory have been in service for a long time and the show set post-TOS. All we know really is it is set no earlier than 2200 or so.

      • Fctiger

        Isn’t that what they did with the Franklin in Beyond?

        (Minor spoilers)

        Everyone seem confused because its an older ship than the NX-01 but yet was dispatched after Nx Enterprise or recommissioned I guess so yeah the same thing can happen here too.

        • Bifash

          Yep, Captain Balthazar Eddison was assigned to the Franklin after the Xindi and Romulan Wars, but he was given an ( old, even at that time ) and almost obsolete Warp 4 vessel which did naturally predate the NX-01.

          • Christopher Roberts

            I loved that part of Beyond! Can’t we see more stories from the late 22nd Century please.

        • Mark McCarrion

          You might be confused, but fans are not. The registry numbers tell us that this ship is way past the NX Enterprise which was the first flagship. At least 30 more were built after that (assuming that the registry starts with NCC-1000)

          • Tuskin38

            It was recommissioned with a new number after the Federation was founded.

  • The Chadwick

    Love the title, I am not sold on the ship, looks very Planet of The Titans. Regardless, still excited. Looking at the space dock framework the ship pulls out of, looks very TMP era. So TMP era? Some people are speculating that it is just slightly post Enterprise i.e. UFP President Johnathan Archer era. Really hope this is preliminary CG. Star Trek Discovery should look as good if not better than The Expanse http://www.rsvfx.com/?video=2%20-%20The%20Expanse

    • Thomas Elkins

      I would assume it’s preliminary work thrown together for comic con. The CGI in Enterprise looks better and it’s 12 years old.

  • Chris Tyler

    I really don’t know what to say……..

  • October_1985

    Well, will see. I was not so hot on Voyager at first and ended up loving her. But I’m having a hard time seeing myself buying a Discovery model and putting next to my Enterprises (TOS, A, B, D and NX), my Voyager, my Excelsior and my Defiant. I can’t visualize it.

    • Fctiger

      Thats the problem, even ships like Defiant which are different still carries a certain symmetry with the other ships. This thing has the saucer and hull but it looks and feels so out of place to the rest of them it just doesnt fit in. I didnt love the NX-01 or even JJ’s Enterprise but they still fit with the rest. This just sticks out too much and in the worse way possible.

  • Came here expecting lots of happy comments … and I was incorrect.

    I like it. Love the McQuarrie tie-in. Can’t wait for more.

    • Bifash

      Surprised by the level of disdain against the design, I like it personally.

      • Carter

        Agreed – I like it, too. I’m pretty optimistic about this new series.

      • Fctiger

        Its one of the ugliest things I’ve ever seen on Star Trek.

        • Mark McCarrion

          It’s horrible.

      • Mark McCarrion

        Why do you like it? When you look at ALL the other starships, this one is way way out of place in design. There is a reason Starfleet ships look related. Warp drive nacelles are not thrusters. Starfleet does not design delta wing starships, but the Klingons and Romulans do.

    • Unfortunately unhappy comments are par for the course on a lot of new Trek stuff. There seems to be little patience to let things bear out.

      • Thomas Elkins

        I’m still optimistic about the show itself and I look forward to meeting the crew, I just really dislike the design of the ship. It’s ugly.

        • Ace Stephens

          Maybe it will grow on you once you have a clearer context regarding its purpose.

          • Thomas Elkins

            It’s purpose isn’t going to change the fact it’s hideous, IMO. Normally weird things do grow on me after a while, but the more I look at this the more I hate it. It’s an ugly design that was tossed in the garbage 40 years ago and it should have stayed there.

          • Ace Stephens

            I don’t know what your exact case/temperament is like (so your reaction/feelings/etc. overall, aside from what you’ve conveyed thus far, could roughly be anything) but I’ve heard people say things just as harsh (far more, actually) and then quickly change their tune before. “There’s no way I’ll ever enjoy this if that is the case…”-type stuff and then months later, they’ve forgotten they ever felt that way or downplay it by saying simply, “I had my doubts…” or on and on (while then valuing a given thing or even loving it). Hopefully this will be the case with you once a relationship/understanding/context/etc. is apparent regarding your potential connection with the show (and ship). I’m not saying you’ll necessarily do a complete 180 or anything but it’s been what – twenty-four hours or so and yourself and others seem to be in a, “THIS WILL NEVER BE GOOD ENOUGH!”-realm (regarding the ship).

            And I’m just surprised because I see so many people reacting in almost the exact same ways I recall hearing that people reacted when The Next Generation was announced. “Where’s the old cast?” and “Why doesn’t the ship look more like the old ones?” and “This isn’t Trek!” and all this. And then most, who gave that version a fair chance, seemed to grow to appreciate or value the new iteration despite those early concerns, perhaps even valuing the new designs/elements/etc. It’s unfortunate, in my view, to see so many seemingly repeating the same potential “mistakes.” Although, yes, it certainly makes sense to express concern if one has it.

            Regardless, in my outlook, I would generally caution against leaning too heavily on the past regarding such expectations, including one’s feelings about how something looks (that one might repeat to oneself as a sort of mantra until they’ve convinced themselves of it and of the notion that this will then always be the case for them)…but I think I understand your concern. There are some things within fandoms that I have had difficulty reconciling with my perceptions/interests/etc. even after many years and it has never gotten better in a few cases. But I hope for a better outcome in this instance. And you seem open to potential optimism regarding the show.

            For all we know, this ship (has a distinct reason to be “ugly” or similar…and/or) gets most of a season, then gets partially destroyed and repaired and suddenly looks magnificent or something (and it being as it is now is the only way that “moment” or similar works out correctly). There are all sorts of possibilities but a lot of people like to make their minds up in some regard on the basis of limited information or perception or similar. Which is why I stressed that context might make much of the difference here.

            Once the full purpose of the work’s design is understood, in-context, this could wind up being the most beautiful ship to many perceptions (not that I’m saying you or I will ever necessarily get there…). It’s all a matter of perspective.

  • I’m intrigued by the design. One of my favorite Starfleet ship designs is the Constellation-class (like Picard’s Stargazer). A much more utilitarian and sort of chunky look. I see some similarities. They’ve placed windows all over the place with views to the interior, which is nice. Looks like those doodads to either side of the bridge on the saucer are on rails. This is almost certainly early days for the model and definitely for the rendering, has the “too pristine and sharp” look of early CGI.

    • It feels a bit like what a Starfleet vessel might actually look like if designed and built in our world. Much more angular, the large triangular secondary hull much more buildable than a tapered cylinder…

      • Shawn

        I suspect it is pre-TOS and therefore more utilitarian. If done right that could be really cool. Not sure who the villains will be.

      • Mudd

        IMO this triangle-shaped hull killed the ship’s design. I mean, there’s no harmony between the a saucer-shaped primary hull and this triangle structure

  • Drew V.

    Definitely not impressed with the old “Phase II” design… It is as if they are not even attempting to be creative… that ship looks absurdly amateurish… The space shuttle had more curves and graceful design than that pile of poo they just unveiled.

  • Poppov

    It looks like a giant roulette wheel. The had better get the bets covered.

  • Obviously based on Mcquarrie’s concept art, but also shares a design aesthetic with the Enterprise J. I never like the design for the Enterprise, but I think it could work here. The Millennium Falcon and Serenity proved there is something to be said for an ugly ship that only its crew could love. Gives it character. I like it.

    • kadajawi

      The difference is that the Millennium Falcon and Firefly class ships aren’t ugly. They are quite cool looking. This thing however…

  • MSc79

    It would, in my opinion, be interesting if the series would follow different iterations of the starship Discovery (e.g. NCC-1031-A/B/C, etc.) instead of sticking with a more ‘restrictive’ single time period.

    • Carter

      Honestly, that -A/B/C stuff was kind of silly, so I hope they don’t do that here. I mean, it made sense as a nod to fans in STIV (or as sort of a nod to Kirk after coming home), but when the Enterprise was decommissioned after STVI, the traditional naming scheme should have resumed (i.e., *just* Enterprise NCC-1701).

  • ReveurIngenu

    Video’s not available anymore. I was able to find a copy of the video on Dailymotion (if anyone else is having trouble finding it).

    Well, from the looks of the ship, I would say the show takes place between Enterprise and TOS. Not what I was hoping for, to be honest. As for the design, I feel it’s the kind of design that maybe would have been created back in the 60’s, but they really should have chosen a more modern design (in the sense that they should have used a design that today’s artists are coming up with for futuristic ships), not a design based on what past artists envisioned future space ships to look like.

    At this point, I’m wary… Don’t want to be overly negative but don’t want to set myself up for disappointment.

  • Guest

    If that’s not the ugliest starship I’ve ever seen, I don’t know what is… Doesn’t even look all that Starfleet to me. Looks more Klingon Empire or Romulan Empire, with a Federation flourish. I hate it right off the bat though. Never had that opinion of any starship design before.

    Also, this looks like it’s going to be another prequel. Not feeling that either. The franchise should be moving forward, not backward IMO. They’ve been doing prequels for the last 15 years, can’t we just get a show that takes place post-Nemesis?

    And if I’m really nitpicking, the title and Starfleet badge are both rather underwhelming as well. “Discovery” just sounds boring, and the new badge/emblem looks rusty and scratched up…

    Between the Abrams films, the new CBS fan film guidelines that will effectively kill fan films, and the growing prospect that this new show will probably not be my cup of tea, I’m beginning to worry that I’m gonna end up having to part ways with my favorite franchise, and as a lifelong Trek fan (since I was 3 or 4 years old), that’s very saddening. I just don’t feel like Paramount or CBS really care about the fans at all, and probably never did. They just see us as easy cash in their pocket, and take us for granted. There’s no one steering the ship anymore accept the studio, and studios almost always make bad decisions.

    As bad as Rick Berman was, he was still miles and away better than having some studio suits running the show, and was at least handpicked by Roddenberry to carry the torch. We still got the latter seasons of TNG, DS9 and First Contact under Berman, and Berman was wise enough to let Michael Piller and Ron Moore make a lot of the creative decisions for a long time (eventually throwing the keys to Braga was Berman’s greatest mistake, and the franchises ultimate undoing IMO).

    Now we’ve got studios running things. Sure, Bryan Fuller is the official showrunner, and Nicholas Myer has been brought on to do… something, but they’re only involved in the tv side, and how much creative control they really have and how many other cooks are in the kitchen is unknown, and nothing I’ve seen or heard thus far (as admittedly little as that may be), has been particularly encouraging. Vague platitudes about “taking the franchise back to it’s roots”, yadda yadda yadda, means nothing cause that could mean anything to anyone. They seem very timid to get specific, and won’t even tell us when this takes place (though that design seems to all but confirm that it’ll be set somewhere between ENT and TOS, sadly).

    • Methos6848

      Excellent analysis, which reflects a good many of my thoughts on this, thus far. Yet, I’m far more optimistic about the new show, given the producers and writers involved (namely Fuller and Meyer). I say we should all give it a chance and see where the chips fall.

      Hell…I just saw ‘Star Trek Beyond’. And while I can’t say that it was great, I can at least say that it seemed like a step in the right direction for me, Trek-wise, with particular regard to the TOS crew all having a part in the overall tapestry of the film.

      Creatively, Fuller’s record is light years beyond average and Nick Meyer’s done wonderful things for Trek. Hence, we should all have a bit of faith in this thing, despite the horrendous looking ship we’ve glimpsed via shoddy CGI.

  • Credo

    I like it. I know it will grow even more on me. I like that the warp pylons begin where the deflector is. Trailer feels like STO footage. And i think the Klingons are involved in designing the ship as wel. Whats not to like? It’s our much beloved Prime Timeline Series again! Cheers.

  • Dawn

    furthermore, Fuller has confirmed it is set in the PRIME TIMELINE

    • MJ

      If it takes place before TOS, the it’s in both the PRIME TIMELINE and the KELVIN TIMELINE.

      • Daaria Naharis

        again, no. see above

        • MJ

          Nope – not at all. See my response to Dawn above.

      • Dawn

        He specifically said prime

        • MJ

          Yes, do you not understand how the timelines work?

          Before Nero arrives in the Prime Timline, the Prime and Kelvin timelines are the same! So if this new series is before that date, the Prime Timeline and Kelvin timeline are the same universe/timeline.

          • Dawn

            its not. Its gonna be concurrent to the TOS movies or post movies.
            this comes from more reliable info than people think and a few easter eggs dropped here and there

          • MJ

            That’s your opinion, unless you have a definitive source that you can share that confirms that?

          • Dawn

            easter eggs alrwdy scene, we know that kelsey grammer has auditioned, bryan fullers page, the fact we have seen the ship in canon before

          • MJ

            That is all very interesting, but other evidence, such as the appearance of the level of technology of the ship, and the ships much lower registration number, point to the ship being in the post-Enterprise era before TOS.

            I suspect we will find out soon…

          • Dawn

            1) The ship is too big
            2) The technology points more too the motion picture era to me
            3) Heather KAmdin has said they rushed, and made mistakes on this teaser, on the basis that they had 3 weeks. CBS is unhappy however becuae everyone hates the ship. So things may change, And Kamdin has said things are going to change, possibl reigistry as well
            4) Even if they dont change the registry, we dont know how starfleet designates registry numbers, and there are multipleshipyards accross the federation. This ship came from an astroid. Not something you see at utopia plantia, and the ship designations at other shipyards could be different.

          • MJ

            Your conjecture has some good points to it, but let;s be honest here — the crappy CGI and presentation of this in the teaser can give each of our opinions some basis for being credible.

          • Dawn

            they had 3 weeks to prep it.
            They were going to announce cast but CBS said no becuase they had to give beyond some buzz this weekend

          • MJ

            That’s exactly my point.

          • Dawn

            I further submit, that we have already seen the Discovery class model used not once but twice in official canon. The ship was in the search for spock, in spacedock, and it was still in service durring the battle of wolf 359, as it was one of the ships destoyed

          • MJ

            Nope, as your own photo of that ship in spacedock shows, that is clearly a different ship — the nacelles are way too high in the ship in that photo. That’s not the Discovery, but it might be a Franklin-class ship.

          • Dawn

            you have seen it in Wolf 359 as well

          • MJ

            A Franklin-class ship, not a Discovery class ship. You are confusing the two designs.

          • Dawn

            no, TNG had the discovery class

          • MJ

            Nope, it did not.

          • Dawn
  • Shawn Conlin (Wulfric)

    First off, the author of the article should have looked at the trailer. The ship is the NCC-1031 and not the NCC-2031.

    From the fonts and insignia, it appears to set in Kelvin, but if it pre-dates TOS as the registry would indicate then either we’re in for another incursion or they are tossing everything out the window.

    The ship design itself looks like a cross between the NX-01 and a Klingon bird of prey. That is feasible since the NX-01 crew had the opportunity to gather enhancement ideas from Klingon vessels.

  • deanomh

    Yeah, it’s not a pretty design, but perhaps the show’s writing and performances will be so good it’ll make me forget the Discovery isn’t much to look at? Fingers crossed for that at least.

  • lars1701c

    someone on the YT comment section said that since all shows you acronyms this new show is going to be called STD lol

    • Brian Thorn

      Um… Voyager was VOY and Enterprise was ENT.

      • Personally I’ll refer to it as DIS.

      • Fctiger

        Yeah I dont think anyone has ever used ST as part of the acronym. Its usually TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT. Thats the way I always see people doing it. Even the films its TMP, TWOK, TSFS, GEN, FC and so on. STID seems to be the only exception because the brain trust at Bad Robot wanted to do something different and not add a colon after Trek so now everyone combines it. Its strange how the lack of a colon got people to mentally look at that title as one whole but there it is. Discovery will just be DIS but since everyone on the internet is 15 mentally I wont be shocked to see STD everywhere like whats happening now.

  • lars1701c

    ship sucked and the CGI sucked even worse

    • The Chadwick

      Yea I want too fond of the ship, but the more I watch the trailer the more its grown on me. I think A) they are going for a retro look/retro show judging by the look of the ship and space dock or B) this is after the Klingons have joined the Federation and this is a Klingon version of a Federation ship.

      With regards to the CGI both Fuller and Kadin said this is preliminary, test footage, not the final look of the ship. Cuz to be honest 2001 Star Trek Enterprise had better CGI than this, so this can’t be the final.

      When I see what sci fi shows like The Expanse can do with CGI, Star Trek should be on par if not better.

      http://www.rsvfx.com/?video=2%20-%20The%20Expanse

  • DamienL

    Wow did they just take that video down?! Good — it was awful. Terrible starship design, completely horrendous. I don’t care if I’m hurting the designers feelings, that ship is just bad design plain and simple.

    Also why the hell would they release test cgi footage so early? Talk about opening up yourself to massive unnecessary criticism…

    • Fctiger

      No its still there. Its all over YT.

  • Brian Thorn

    I like it. Finally… Hard information about the new show!

  • Locutus

    Just because it is NCC-1031, doesn’t mean it is pre-TOS. It could be a refit of an old pre-TOS starship, but set squarely in in the TOS movie era. After all, the TOS Enterprise underwent a major refit before the movies yet they kept the original registry. Personally, I am hoping that is the case.

    In the grand scheme of where they could have gone, I am happy we are getting a (more or less) established design from Star Trek lore. I would not dismiss the show based solely on the ship in any case.

    It is in my opinion one of the most fugly concept designs in Star Trek history, but not every show need be set on the newest fanciest starship or flagship of the Fedration. Fuller knows it is probably a little ugly I am sure, and that is probably intentional for some reason. Given how different the ship is from other starship designs of the era, it could have interesting origins. Perhaps it is a collaboration between the Vulcans and Starfleet.

    • Also, if you use the Technical Manual as some kind of reference (and you should because it was referenced in ST:TMP), there are ships with 500 and 600-series registration numbers.

    • Brian Thorn

      USS Constellation was NCC-1017 in “The Doomsday Machine”, though that was tweaking 1701 on the AMT kit.

  • MJ

    My reaction:

    1. I have always loved the original McQuarrie design that this new ship is probably based on. It’s elegant and sleek. This bastardized version of this though just looks ugly here though. Why didn’t they just go full bore with the McQuarrie design??? It’s almost as if JJ Abrams showed up and asked them to soup up McQuarrie’s elegant Phase II design to “make it more muscular, like a sports car.”

    2. The CGI looks horrid? Given the earlier title promo CGI where they essentially did a half-ass job that looked like a fan-made cheap rip-off of the end credits for a JJ-Trek movie, I can’t help but think they they are going cheap on the special effect for this series. The level of professionalism in the teasers so far on this new series is inexplicably Bush League. Pony Horton of STC for example, could do special effects on his home computer that would blow this out of the water. I can’t believe that they are going public with this amateurish looking crap.

    3. It looks to me based on this ship design, and noting the earlier NCC number for it, that this series will take place after Enterprise and before TOS….therefore, it’s in both the Prime Universe and Kelvin Universe, since the divergence had not happened yet. So yes, Fuller can state it’s in the Prime Universe, but it probably is also in the Kelvin Universe as well given the timeline (if I am right about the time period here).

    4. A professional studio doesn’t market crap like this, especially at Comicon — this is embarrassing for the Star Trek community, including us fans. We should all be concerned at this point, and Fuller’s masters at CBS need to step in an add some professionalism to the pre-marketing this series.

    • Thomas Elkins

      IMO, the original was never elegant or sleek.

      • MJ

        To each his own — I love McQuarrie’s bold and original design.

      • I’d like it more if the saucer section were larger and shifted back above the secondary hull. Not a fan of the super-thin neck, either.

        • MJ

          The next is impractical — agreed.

    • kadajawi

      Good lord. Get over the bad CGI. It is a teaser. Work in progress. Yes, if you give a decently talented artist A LOT OF TIME he will do something really good looking. They didn’t have the time to put much polish on this. Cut them some slack, seriously.

      The alternative would be showing nothing. This is not going to appear in the show, so chill.

      However the ship is ugly and not Star Trek, and neither was McQuarrie’s design. This might even be an improvement over that.

      • MJ

        Actually they should have waited and released something that looked professional. I could have lived with a bad ship ship design, but the inexplicably amateurish level of both this teaser and the title teaser is bizarre.

  • iamawild

    When I first saw the commercials for ST:TNG, I thought the Enterprise D looked pretty weird….but it did grow on me. This ship is leaving me with the same feeling, but I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Will this ship and series grow on me? I sure hope so, I’m really hoping for some good Trek.

  • Eagle Vision

    So, we just have the littlest bit of new information and everyone is already in complaining mode? Lovely.

    • …not to mention this is just the first look. The concept can be changed. See what happened with the USS Franklin since the 1st concept art…

      • Fctiger

        Yes but the Franklin didnt look this bad to begin with. This straight up sucks!

    • robjoh

      Of course they are,did you expect anything less? After all,they ARE Trek fans. LOL!!

      • Bifash

        Star Wars “fans” are just as bad too, sadly.

        • robjoh

          You got that right too!

          • Bifash

            Thanks!

          • Tone

            Oh you found a fan to agree with you. I’m so happy for you. Tearing up…..

          • robjoh

            Just stating the obvious. lol

      • Tone

        Drone

        • robjoh

          LOL! Do like that episode of Trek. But I’m no drone,but you feel free to be one if you want.

          • Tone

            Me having an opinion about something I love, and have loved since childhood is nothing like being a drone, however crushing the opinion of others, and joining up with others that also have a hatred of expression and opinion is very drone like. I really am starting to wonder what kind of community TrekCore is fostering here.

            There seem to be so many like you here that roll out the same lines and old routines whenever anyone says anything of interest and opinion here.

          • robjoh

            Not crushing any opinions,just commenting on the fandom,like so many othere here are. You included. Plain and simple.

    • Bifash

      This is the internet alas. Too many armchair “creatives” who complain if things are not what THEY imagine in their heads ( thank GOODNESS we are not getting what’s in their minds, mostly ). They are easy to dismiss and discard when we have no further details or context. It’s actually this kind of attitude that puts me off coming to comments sections often.
      It’s great to debate and discuss for sure, but thing’s like “It sucks”, “This isn’t Star Trek”, etc. etc. are just the worst.

      • robjoh

        Well said! Exactly how I feel too! It’s always the fans that put me off the whole fandom thing. I’ll just enjoy whatever I like on my own,lol.

        • Tone

          Go watch Days of our Lives, as that show has about as much thought and love put in to it as the kind of Trek you seem to crave.

          Without fans having an opinion, Trek would never have been brought back in the first place.

          You are the kind of “fan” trek does not need in this day and age.

          • robjoh

            LOL! HILARIOUS! Only “fan” I see here is you. I’m just a fan,like any other in this day and age.

      • Mark McCarrion

        Too bad. Get ready for more fan virtiol, because this thing has earned it by giving us this teaser showing the ugliest Starfleet flagship ever conceived. Axanar got the ships right. The CGI I can forgive, even though it looks like a video game cutscene. But the design of that ship UGH. The delta wing thing with those blue “jets” in the back, and the semi-nacells which look like they are rockets and not warp drive nacelles is not working for me. It does not look like a Starfleet design.

        We don’t have to like it, sorry. And we damned sure don’t have to pay for CBS All Access. Thankfully, there are not a lot of dumb slugs who will just sit back and suck in whatever is placed before them. You non-fans are not going to make this show a success.

        • Bifash

          “You non-fans”…um, okay. I believe you’re the one expressing that you are not a fan.
          Can you find it in your heart to be positive and hopeful for STAR TREK?

          • Mark McCarrion

            I LOVE Star Trek. I have been watching it since it first aired in 1966, and I have ever single episode of every series of this show on my hard drives. So yeah, I am a fan. I don’t want Trek in name only. CBS should have allowed the Axanar folks to create the new series. At least they know what actual Star Trek is.

          • Tone

            Hey Mark, you are 100% right, and the morons you are talking to are too dumb to have an opinion on anything, other than not liking other people having an opinion.

            I really wonder what the hell people like that are doing on any site that has a discussion/comments section, because all they ever do is complain about others that don’t have the same opinion as them.

            I also wonder if it is the same person using multiple “asshole” accounts.

          • Tom

            Hahahahah axanar ahahahah

          • Tone

            Nice way to state your obvious level of intellect.

          • Tone

            I must admit that after watching the Axanar mini-movie, I was actually thinking how much I would love to sit down and watch that. It was a really refreshing view of Trek, it’s a shame that it has been hijacked by the brainless as some kind of Anti-Trek that’s used as a weapon against anyone who would like Trek to become more modern in it’s storytelling. It seems obvious to me now, that CBS are actually going to try and copy Axanar with this new series, maybe not in it’s story, but certainly in it’s tone.

            If it does emerge that the new series feels a lot like what Axanar did, then maybe all the haters can actually thank Axanar for giving Trek the kick up the backside it so desperately needs.

      • Tone

        Why do you even come here if you have no interest in Trek? You would do us all a favour if you just left quietly, and left the community for which you have an obvious and open hatred for.

        People like you just love to sit in your mothers basement and pile the hate and nastyness on others just so that you have a reason to get out of bed in the morning.

        Are you also one of the “types” that love to jump on bandwagons, so that you can take the juxtaposed position to popular opinion just so you can attack others? Yeah, I bet you are.

    • Bifash

      Thanks to the “fans”, it seems the official Star Trek Youtube page has removed the Discovery trailer and Bryan Fuller’s short interview:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5Mn4PQcoOk

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqm9HSYbf0o

      • Thomas Elkins

        Both of those work when I click on them. I don’t know what trouble you’re having, but they’re not removed for me.

        • Bifash

          Ah, okay, thanks for the update. I tried it on a few browsers and it says it’s been removed. It may be a region thing as I’m not in the United States.

          • Thomas Elkins

            It could be. The whole region thing is stupid.

          • Tone

            Don’t have an opinion, and if you do, don’t be a stupid fan by sharing it on a Trek site, the natives don’t like it.

          • CAPTAIN D-MAN

            Yes, it’s a region thing. You need to use a proxy. friGate worked for me.

    • Neil Kesler

      Eagle vision, they want a new movie… yet, they complain, they want a new series, they complain even more

      Frankly , life is way too short to be extremely negative and nitpicky on star trek and life itself

      • Mark McCarrion

        No, we don’t want a new movie or a new series which just has the Star Trek name but is something entirely different. We want STAR TREK. Why is it so damned hard for these producers to get it right? None of them seem to understand that they can’t mark it as their own by changing things in it that make it no longer Trek. JJ Abrams has already failed but the studio does not see it clearly. Star Trek Beyond is dismal compared to his 2009 movie. This show is already a fail just because of the design of that ship. Vulcans are logical, not boyfriends. Intrepid class chips land on planets, not Galaxy or Constitution class starships. Transporters have a limited range. Things like that are established already.

        Why do these writers/producers think they can just change shit however they want? There will be and there is backlash from the FANS who are the ones who will make or break this show or any movies which come out.

      • Tone

        You must love everything

        • Neil Kesler

          Not everything… but I’m simply making a statement on the franchise of a series

          People complain about the new beyond , yet , they wanted a new movie to be released

          Secondary, they wanted a new series, here we are with Discovery, and again people are starting their rants again

    • zeeman1

      Not sure I blame the complainers, though I’m looking forward to the show. That was some pretty great 90’s era cgi used to tease their new flagship production. Oh, and using a rightfully discarded late 70’s design for the clearly retro starship was another misstep.

    • Mark McCarrion

      You only need key bits of information to decide certain things. Just one whiff of poo upon entering a room means that there is shit somewhere. An otherwise beautiful tuxedo with a spaghetti sauce stain in the center of the shirt is all you need to see to ruin the impression, etc.

      In this case, it’s that fugly ship. CBS All Access expects us to pay for that service and then watch that ugly ship trekking across the galaxy and like it? Sorry to inform you but the FANS are the reason that Star Trek still lives 50 years after it’s creation, not the writers, producers or even it’s creator himself Gene Roddenberry who is dead.

      Get off your soapbox and listen to the fans here. We count more than the writers and producers of this show. Without us, it will fail and die. Just ask the producers of Enterprise if that is true. And Enterprise was a free broadcast.

      • Eagle Vision

        Listening to “fans” like you is the last thing I want.

        • Mark McCarrion

          It does not matter what you want. CBS All Access wants Star Trek fans (like me) to shell out money to pay and watch this crap. Whiney non-fans are irrelevant when it comes to Star Trek. We were never okay with mediocre popcorn fare. That is why we can count heads of state, engineers, scientists and astronauts among our ranks. Stick to Star Wars.

          • Eagle Vision

            I’m a fan, that’s why I came here in the first place, but the gatekeeping and complaining about products that don’t even exist yet makes me not want to interact with the fandom.

          • Mark McCarrion

            The fandom is important. It is the reason Star Trek exists today, so this show cannot move forward and last if the fandom is not also a partner. From the beginning, the fandom has polished and focused Trek. So yeah, we can complain about it when they put any of it out there on the table. Why tease the show if they did not want responses?

            Why are the younger generations so passive and okay with so much dumbing down? Science and exploration were more important than music montages, CGI and pretty faces in Star Trek until JJ Abrams came along, and this show needs to redeem that in order to be a success, especially because this will be the first Star Trek TV series which will cost it’s viewers money.

          • Eagle Vision

            We’re passive because there just isn’t much there yet. Complaining about something that barely exists yet just seems so pointless and exhausting.
            I don’t really get the “dumbing down” argument either. There was never much sound science in Trek. Especially not in TOS, and yet people complain about it in the new stuff. Social issues were more relevant and if the new series does not consider this I’ll think about complaining, but right now? Just a few unfinished space ship designs. Without any context even, but rather than some friendly speculating we have…this comment section.
            I like Star Trek because it’s got nice worlds building and appealing characters. I also like the optimism. To complain about stuff like the ship design and CGI that isn’t finished yet for me misses the point.
            Another thing…it’s very possible to like both challenging Trek and the more blockbuster-y Trek. The films in general were so uneven that producing a successful reboot at all was an achievement. That some people make it sound like you can only like one or the other is part of what I mean with gatekeeping. There’s a lot of emphasising the negative it seems like.

          • Mark McCarrion

            Good response. I also agree there is not much out there, but there are some gems. The Expanse is one of them. Even Dark Matter is fun to watch. Star Trek TOS was a compromise because of Desilu and it was trying to blaze a trail where only westerns were popular at the time. According to Gene himself, Star Trek TNG best realized his vision for Trek.

          • Eagle Vision

            Yeah, I keep hearing good things about The Expanse. I will check it out later.
            And I’m sorry for being harsh earlier, the whole fandom thing frustrates me sometimes.

          • Mark McCarrion

            Im sorry too. When you love something…

          • Nforcer

            Now kiss each other

          • Tone

            You are not a fan. If you was, you would know that Trek owes it’s very existence to the “gatekeeping” and “complaining” of it’s fans, not trolls like you telling everyone to shutup and eat what your given.

            Go away and leave this community in peace, instead of attacking it.

        • Tone

          Then why are you here, on a Trek fan community website? You are obviously some kind of troll with nothing better to do than pretend to be a Star Trek fan which comes along to TrekCore to troll anyone with an opinion to make yourself somehow superior.

          Trust me, you come off as an uneducated keyboard troll.

    • Savanna Koertig

      It’s not -this- or -that- so it automatically sucks for them. Because all they need is a 1 minute clip of a SHIP to decide if something is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ or ‘trek’ or ‘not trek’ instead of waiting to pass judgement after ACTUALLY seeing the first few episodes.

    • DamienL

      We all love Star Trek, it’s very very important to us. Many of us complain not for the sake of complaining but because we are concerned with direction of the franchise. We care about Star Trek and we want it to be the best it can be.

  • Fiery Little One

    I’ve already watched the vid at least a dozen times by now, easily. I don’t mind the design. I’m just trying to figure out some of the details. Some of which I’ve nailed down in a rough sense, some of which I haven’t. Where in the timeline this series fits doesn’t help.

  • MR-AMF

    While the design of the Discovery I’m on the fence about (I’ll need more time to digest it) I am definitely not impressed by the CGI. With that being said, this CLEARLY was put together at the last minute for ComicCon simply to unveil the ship in a “special way.” With visual effects in TV becoming rapidly on par with big budget movies (GoT, BSG, etc), it would be logical to conclude the final product will look much better.

    There’s no way this would get approved for television. Heck, the CGI in later DS9 and Voyager looked better than this. Have faith friends.

    • voniatko

      Not for television, for Netflix. Thats why i am afraid of this streaming innovations. They make cheap shows … And this for sure look way cheapet than i imagined it could. Comeon, even many fan renders look better

      • Daaria Naharis

        not for Netflix either, but CBS AA. And I doubt those streaming shows are necessarily cheaper. Would Kevin Spacey star in one of them (and win awards) if that was the case?

        • Fctiger

          I’m a lot less hard on the CGI here because it was clearly something whipped up for comic con. The show is 5 months away and TV CGI still needs time to render. Thankfully not like the big screen but its still a process of months of work. This is something you see in video games and probably because its just a quick once over. If it looked like that in 6 months I would be very surprised…and disappointed.

        • startrekker1701

          Netflix outside US.

      • kadajawi

        Come on, can’t we get over the cheap CGI thing? They cobbled this thing together quickly in order to show SOMETHING. Obviously it will get a lot better than this when it hits the screen. It’s barely better than pre-viz.

        The problem is the actual design of the ship. It doesn’t matter how well it will be rendered, the ship is ugly, and it doesn’t really fit in the Star Trek universe.

        Netflix makes cheap shows? Really?! House of Cards, Orange is the New Black and Hemlock Grove each have 4 million dollar budgets, per episode. The Marvel shows are a bit cheaper than that, more like 1-2 million dollar, but the quality is extremely high, with excellent writing and acting. If the new Star Trek show was even close to this, I’d be very happy. I doubt it will happen though.

        • MR-AMF

          It fits in the Star Trek universe. It has all the staples of a pre-TNG post -TOS design. Also, it would be worth pointing out that the final design is a work in progress. After reading Trekmovie’s report they spoke with one of the producers and were told that this is not the final design. Probably after all this backlash they may make some more tweaks, which I could care less since I’m liking the design better as is.

          http://trekmovie.com/2016/07/23/breaking-fuller-announces-new-series-titled-star-trek-discovery/

          • voniatko

            yeah, they are pulling it out / damage controlling same as with the klingon concept art. I am wonderintg if they intentionally just try what works, or simply have no clue what they are doing. In every case, since the “tanginble” promo material for DSC started to show up, its going from bad to worse. I am already tired to the “its gonna be so trekky you’ll loose your mind” talks all over and over. Anything tangible about this project, to this date, looks like major cr4*p

          • MR-AMF

            It’s always a work in progress. I believe they want to do right by the fans and give us something exciting. I also know that they want the show to succeed financially since this is going to be CBS All Access’ flagship series. There’s pressure for them to succeed. With the creative forces behind the show being one of a solid reputation besides Kurtsman (depending on one’s view on him) I don’t think they are going to drop the ball on this. We just need patience. Every Star Trek series has faced major initial backlash from fans (who later grew to love it). There’s no reason to not expect the same thing here.

  • ncc50446

    Star Trek loves time travel.. maybe the ship is from the past, and ends up 25 years after Nemesis.. better than pre-TOS..

    • BigMountainFudgeCake

      It’s set pre-Nero. Would bet real money on it.

  • SoshiMECH

    Anyone else not able to watch these videos on YouTube? Are they geoblocked or have they been taken down for potential copyright reason? Seeing that they don’t have official clearence to user Ralph McQuarrie’s design… and I agree the CGI looks cheep and very much fan made. We have reached a point where CGI can look photo realistic with a little extra effort, it seems lazy that it looks so CGI looking.

    • GhostLoveScore

      Just use some proxy site to view the video. Choose US server. Here https://www.proxysite.com/youtube/

    • DamienL

      “A little extra effort” isn’t quite the case (great CGI takes a lot of time) but I agree it looks amateurish. This video has been unavailable for me since late Saturday.

  • Nicolas Sant’Iago

    Fans are just de worse kind of people. Already hating something they barely know … Makes me loose faith in the fandom

    • robjoh

      I lost faith in fandom YEARS ago,lol! Nowadays I just get a big laugh outta all the whining and complaining,lol!

    • Jean Michel

      Saying “I don’t like this” or “this is ugly” is not “hating”. If you can’t stand people expressing their opinions then why are you even here reading the comments?

    • DamienL

      We complain because we love Star Trek and want it to be the best it can be. We don’t want to settle for an average show.

      I’m primarily concerned with the hap hazard way in which the new ship was revealed — test cgi footage that frankly looks awful?.. is that the best way to present the new ship and series to the masses? A single high res image properly rendered or even a sketched concept would have been better.

      This franchise deserve the utmost care and attention. I remain hopeful and optimistic that CBS will be a proper custodian of Star Trek on TV.

  • Ben

    On second look the video is now unavaliable!?

  • Scottran7

    Anyone else notice that the music in the teaser sounded a bit “Wrath of Khan”-ish?

  • robjoh

    Wish they’d gone with the Enterprise-J instead. I know I’m the only one who likes that ship though,LOL!

    • Igor Marić

      It actually looks a lot like one of the J versions… http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/sfx/1701-J-Rejected.jpg

      • robjoh

        That’s a rejected design of the J. The J they ended up with looks nothing like the Discovery.

      • Fctiger

        I would love it if we got something to the Enterprise J. Yes it looked a bit cumbersome but that couldve been tweaked with redesigns for the show.

      • robjoh

        That’s a rejected design of the J. The J they ended up with looks nothing like the Discovery. It even differs a bit from this one.

      • Igor Marić

        I actually would LOVE if someday we get the series set in 26th century and on the J or this concept above, which I find maybe the best example of the ship design evolution and I really fancy it’s enormous plyons and kilometers long nacelles, combined with round saucer.
        This new design is almost the same, but it is to square-ish, with rough and sharp edges, even TOS’ Big E was sleeker, and had some amazing lines. I think after overwhelmingly negative response to the new ship, Fuller should go and sack the new production designer, because even his leaked Klingon ships have came across negative comments. It is obvious he is not capable of following and continuing one great design lineage and evolution.

      • BigMountainFudgeCake

        Actually it is quite obviously based on this design.

    • Alan

      You’re not alone in liking the Enterprise-J. I was thrilled to see it make a guest appearance in the recent Star Trek Online storyline.

      • MJ

        I look the look of the J, but windows on the bottom on the saucer make no sense, right?

  • Can we just get Star Trek Enterprise: Season 5 instead? With Manny Coto in charge. Please?

    • Christopher Roberts

      After a decade waiting, I think I’d probably give away all my worldly possessions to make that happen. Star Trek 2017 has had two goes at making a good first impression and none of them are doing it for me. Ugly ship. Ugly title series font. Cheapo CGI. After longing for my favourite show to return to television, I’m depressed it has come down to me saying I won’t be subscribing to Netflix for this. I’ll wait until some TV station picks it up for free.

  • Bjoernar Dohm

    Tried to watch the first video, but all I get is “video not available”.

  • So if it is set pre-Kelvin incident then it is the original timeline before the split occurs. The ship has a “kit-bash” look to it, so maybe it is cobbled together from parts of other ships…? If something has happened to the Federation post-Voyager then perhaps this ship is the beginning of a new Starfleet. So, it could still be further into the future. Why is it hiding out in an asteroid? Is that just for looks or is it relevant to the setting/plot? Something unexpected is going on here.

    • Thomas Elkins

      Asteroid bases aren’t completely unexpected. Bases along the Romulan Neutral Zone were built into asteroids in TOS.

  • Aaron

    Really hope that this is just way early CGI…because wow, that was not good CGI. Fan films have had better CGI. Also, to echo other comments, the design is at best odd, and at worst rather atrocious. I actually liked the saucer design, but then the engineering section comes out and it looks like a cross b/w a Klingon Bird of Prey and a Star Destroyer – decidedly un-Federation like. There’s still a few months to go before this even airs, so hopefully we’ll see and hear more before than. I still have high hopes given the creative team behind the series – but this teaser did the exact opposite of getting me excited.

  • voniatko

    Omg this look sooo FAAAAAAKE
    I really hope they improve upon cgi. even NX-01 looked better. Sorry to say this but Axanar renders looked better. Which would explain why they went to such lengths to take it out.

    I see where they are going with this – saucer is remarkably similar to that of the U.S.S.Franklin, but cgi is soo poooor

  • bytes

    Is this new show animated? That is CGI. Not very good CGI either.

  • Tone

    That ship is hideous… It’s hard to tell the time line, but I’m leaning to after TNG.

  • Toto’s Titan Toilet Twinkie

    All the moaning. SMH

    • Tone

      All the opinions that aren’t yours.

    • Jean Michel

      Moaning about moaning is somewhat better, right?

  • hellion

    I really don’t get the people who say that one should not judge the upcoming show by this trailer. The only purpose the studio released it was to generate judgements in advance. For what other reason would they show it? And I’m pretty sure the studio hoped people would make positive comments and look forward to it. It’s not like they promoted the new show with a hair tinting lotion commercial or some other unrelated visuals or themes, you know what I mean? There’s space, a starship, and the Star Trek logo. So in my humble opinion it’s perfectly fine for the audience of this trailer to make assumptions about the new show based on this trailer.

    On another note: Damn I’m happy to see red bussard collectors!

    • Ace Stephens

      For what other reason would they show it?

      Publicity. Not “judgement.” Yes, positive buzz would likely be better but some (not a ton, no) contention is generally good as it drives an interest in it “panning out” as good if one thinks it is or in being “won over.”

  • Daaria Naharis

    It’s ok. I agree that the CGI could use a little work, but then I was able to overlook the fakeness of TOS just fine when I started watching it in the 90s. The look has never been what made or broke Star Trek for me.
    What’s important is the stories and the characters. If they can make me care for the crew (a la TOS, TNG) or get me invested in the story (a la DS9), I’m gonna love it.

  • Cabo 5150

    I’m absolutely not prejudging the show at all here – I need to actually see it to form an opinion. But, for me, based on that trailer, the ship design is truly hideous – just butt fugly. I’m going to assume the CG is far from the quality we’ll see in the finished product – that’s not the problem here for me – just the misshapen, beautiless aesthetic.

    This marks the first time I’ve strongly disliked the design of the main ship/station in any iteration of Star Trek. I remain optimistic for the show itself, but that monster is going to take some getting used to.

  • startrekker1701

    Not pre-judging the series itself but I seriously hope that’s not the quality of the special effects – it’s like the intro to a Star Trek game from the 00s!
    Registry would put it pre-TOS.

  • sw gs

    From design it looks like a bridge between TOS and ENT series.

  • Christopher Roberts

    Star Trek 2017 has had two goes at making a good first impression and none of them are doing it for me. Ugly ship. Ugly title series font. Cheapo CGI a fan-film from 10 years ago would reject. After longing for my favourite show to return to television, I’m depressed it has come down to me admitting I won’t be subscribing to Netflix for this junk. I’ll wait until some regular TV channel picks it up for free.

  • Tone

    I really wonder if they are trolling us with this “CGI”. Maybe they want to make everyone talk about it, then it will be totally different when the show is released… I really can’t see this being anything else, as it’s so horrendous if it’s actually the real deal they are showing.

    • Christopher Roberts

      Ever since the official ST website started selling T-shirts with that awful logo, I’ve had a horrible feeling this isn’t a joke.

  • Erik

    “…set in the Prime timeline…” That’s the best part of the news for me. Finally it’s confirmed.

  • BigMountainFudgeCake

    Guessing the show is able to be set in the original timeline because it is set before NERO showed up in 2258. Hence the low registry number and the oldish design. There is no other timeline at this point in Star Trek history so Discovery and the Kelvin movies can coexist in the same narrative space because they share common history. What happens in this new series also has happened in the Kelvin universe, in other words.

  • jackson roy kirk

    The ship looks so much like a rejected design from one of the 1970’s concepts of the Enterprise for Phase II / STTMP. I like it!

  • Martin

    This is defo post ENT Pre TOS that ship looks like the USS Franklin seen in Star trek Beyond and the lights look like ENT, it will be set in 2167 12 Years after Enterprise

  • Jean Michel

    The Klingon-inspired aesthetic of the ship, the music and the Klingon de-cloak sound at the end… To me it’s clearly post-ST6 setting, probably an experimental Starfleet-Klingon ship with an experimental Earth-Klingon crew (more than a token Klingon like Worf).

  • Jason F. Perry

    I loved the trailer! The music was absolutely epic as well, does anyone know who the composer is? There for a moment I was back listening to James Horner or Jerry Goldsmith at their best. It was wonderful and absolutely moving and I could feel the excitement.

    I rather dig the new ship. It’s like a mixture between Federation and Klingon – I’m assuming this is some type of joint endeavor the two species are going to undertake together? When the Discovery came out of dock you had the Federation music at first but then when the remaining half of the ship (Klingon design) came out it switched over to a Klingon type of music.

    I, for one, am incredibly excited by the new design, soundtrack, and the potential of this new series.

    • MJ

      Is that you, Moonvies?

    • The composer of the music is Fil Eisler, supposedly as a sort of audition piece. But it’s maybe confirming he is the composer of the series as he has been tweeting about the trailer. Twitter.com/fileisler

  • The ship has a lot more points and sharp angles than Starfleet ships usually have. Even though it didn’t resemble theirs particularly, the ship made me think more of Klingons and Romulans than of Starfleet.

  • StarTrekfan

    Very ugly ship, I hope they change it. I also hope that they shoot the new series in 4K(2160p)

  • Wyle E.

    When it Flys over, all I see is a Star fleet insignia, with a saucer and warp nacelles.

  • DSM

    Ok – let me get this straight,

    It’s the 1st Star Trek series in a decade;
    You want it to launch an online network;
    You’re gonna charge for it,
    You debut it the weekend of opening your apology movie to the fans (which was good by the way)
    You go to comicon,

    And you . . .

    You use a rejected art project from he 70’s,

    Name it STD . . .um oops

    Oh wait you meant Star Trek: Dis . . . Nope

    DSC yah that’s it!

    DSC-Dis Could Suck

    Now you’re saying the ship sent finished,
    The graphics aren’t final,
    these are the letters to use . . .

    I don’t think this is the wow factor they had hoped for.

    Somebody is getting fired.

    Before you rage at me – I’m looking forward to to watching it, and I’m going to subscribe, I’m just saying this was a PR fiasco.

    • MJ

      You nailed it !!!

    • Brian Thorn

      I doubt most people who see this are as relentlessly critical as you are. I mean, seriously, dude… “Dis Could Suck”? You’re trying way too hard to find fault.

      • MJ

        Well it sure as hell ain’t promoting confidence though. This looks Bush League…fact!

    • James Bray

      Wait… DSC would be Dis Suck Could!

      I think it looks cool.

  • Xandercom

    This looks like a really bad parody of Star Trek. Who the hell have they got designing this crap?
    My enthusiasm for this new series has just gone from 10/10 to 1/10.

  • Harold Heretic

    WTF was that? Is this a joke? I’ve seen better fan-produced FX.

  • GIBBS v2

    USS Cheese Wedge or maybe USS Little Ceasar would have been better names

  • Christopher Roberts

    Star Trek 2017 has had two goes at making a good first impression and none of them are doing it for me. Ugly ship. Ugly title series font. Cheapo CGI a fan-film from 10 years ago would reject. A spin-off subtitle that sounds like it was randomly generated in the 90s. After longing for my favourite show to return to television, I’m depressed it has come down to me admitting I won’t be subscribing to Netflix for this junk. I’ll wait until some regular TV channel picks it up for free. Well done for returning to the Prime Universe — not that the Kelvin timeline doesn’t have potential if Beyond is anything to go by — but so far that’s all I’m happy about.

    You want something that straddles both universes? Please… just make Season 5 of Enterprise.

  • Pedro Ferreira

    Looks like the ST: Enterprise mixed with a Klingon ship. Not good.

  • Pedro Ferreira

    Yeeeaahh. Seralised Star Trek. What I always wanted. (sarcasm).

  • Thomas W.

    Great Scott! This is really embarrassing. 12 years without Star Trek on TV and then this…

  • The Chadwick

    Well, the fan base it split…yet again. Happened with TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, Kelvin movies and now Discovery. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6lHgbbM9pu4

  • The Chadwick

    Lets not forget the USS Discovery is a John Eaves ship. A man who has been with Star Trek since The Final Frontier, worked on TNG, DS9, TNG movies, consulting (and some designs) for Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness, not to mention the man who designed the second best looking ship, the Enterprise E. Sorry Constitution refit (1701A) wins the award for best looking ship. This is early stuff people, have faith. If the Discovery is based on a retro design I for one am thrilled. If Star Trek Discovery did not go into the future past Nemesis then my next choice would be some earlier era. Right now this show – from the ship and captain’s chair design – is looking retro…new age futuristic 70’s retro, and I am all over that!