At today’s CBS All Access panel for the Television Critics Association in Los Angeles, showrunner and executive producer Bryan Fuller finally made the first major reveals about next January’s new Star Trek series.

The lead character will be female Lt. Commander in Starfleet – and human – not the captain of a starship. The rank comes “with caveats,” Fuller detailed cryptically.

Fuller elaborated on the choice to not center the show about yet another captain:

The story that is fascinating for me is, we’ve seen six series from captain’s points of view… to see different characters from different perspectives, we thought it would give us different contexts.

A different dynamic and relationship to the crew. For [her] to truly understand something alien, she has to understand herself, [and her journey will] teach her how to get along with others in the galaxy.

We haven’t cast her yet, so we don’t know what level of diversity she will be.

As for you timeline targeters, the show will be set approximately ten years before James T. Kirk takes command of the Enterprise, in the Prime timeline. 

Says Fuller, the show will launch from an event that has talked about in the Original Series, but never fully explored. He did specifically state that the Kobayashi Maru, the Battle of Axanar (plus the Earth-Romulan War, from the 2150’s) are not the events to which he was hinting.

We’re much closer to Kirk’s universe [than that of Archer’s], so we get to play with all of that [TOS-era] iconography of those ships and those uniforms.

In terms of other casting, Fuller stayed mum on if the captain of the USS Discovery will be portrayed by a male or female actor, but did say to expect both “robots” and “a few more aliens than usual” in the lead characters – including some “reimagining of existing alien [species]” – and he confirmed the show will “absolutely” have a gay character. 

In addition, Fuller hinted that the character of Amanda Grayson – Spock’s mother – “maybe” will factor into DISCOVERY at some point; he also said that “it’s not impossible” that Section 31 may come into play. The producer would not elaborate further on either point.

ussdiscovery

As for viewship of the new series: CBS is projecting that the network broadcast of the DISCOVERY pilot will be watched by nearly 15 Million people, before the show transitions to All Access for the remainder of its release. Once on CAA, the network is not expected to release ratings – just like Netflix’s reporting – but will detail subscriber numbers.

In addition, regarding CAA’s advertising content, the current estimate is that each show will feature approximately twelve minutes of commercials per hour, which is about 25% fewer ads than a normal broadcast in the United States. As we’ve previously reported, CBS is looking at a possible ad-free pay tier, but has nothing yet announced on that front.

The streaming service will be serving up content in 1080p high definition, but will not be streaming in 4K at present – though that may change in the future.

Fuller addressed the next step of the STAR TREK: DISCOVERY information rollout, saying that the next data dump on the series is likely to come sometime in October.

  • So, now that we know the lead is a Lt. Commander and not a Captain, my vote is Nicole Beharie. She’d be great but a bit too young for a Captain. My vote for a Captain would have been Gina Torres.

    And chance we’ll see an Admiral Archer even though he’d be pretty damn old?

    • Credo

      I really hope to see Archer. I’m still pissed that they cancelled Enterprise.

      • Enterprise had a rough start and for a lot of the show it felt like the writers had no clue where they actually wanted to go. They cancelled it right as it started to get good though. I’m still mad we never made it to the Earth/Romulan war.

        • Credo

          Agree. Would have been an interesting story, the Romulan war and the build up to the Federation.

          • I actually wrote up something once about how the whole series could have been fixed if the aliens introduced in the first episode had been Romulans instead of Suliban and they had removed all the Temporal Cold war stuff.

            Basically, the way I layed it out is that the pilot episode played out almost exactly like it did original except we never get a good look at these aliens. We only see very generic looking shuttles that they are flying. Then the last shot of the first episode we see one of these shuttles docking with a bigger ship in a close-up and as it pans out the ship is something close to the old style Romulan Warbird. Then the series could have played out with the Romulans being the mysterious enemy all leading up the the Earth-Romulan war in the final season.

          • Credo

            And because of that war the Federation was born. Without that it wouldn’t. I would have liked that 🙂

          • The Bandsaw Vigilante

            Although, according to sources, the whole Temporal Cold War-arc was basically foisted upon the producers by the studio against their will, who insisted upon some connection to the 24th Century and beyond, despite ENT being a prequel to TOS.

          • Fctiger

            Wow dude you have blown my mind lol. Yeah imagine if it was the Romulans from day one who was part of the Temporal Cold War. That would’ve got people excited about it because we actually know the freakin Romulans are part of the other centuries and a major adversary in the ftuture. That was the problem with the Suliban, we never heard of these guys before and yet they were part of some expansive time plot. If we saw them in Kirk or Picards time it would add more weight to it all. But it just told us they are basically a plot device and little more. I cant remember anything about them other than the main guy appearance here and there. But the Romulans wouldve had major implications and as said could’ve been the catalyst to the Romulan war.

            I always said at the very least the Romulan war shouldve started in 3rd season or at least build up to it like it was brillantly done with the Dominion on DS9. Instead what did they do? The Xindi. Again this is so frustrating, no one really wants a prequel and then the stuff people were excited about it who did want a prequel they totally ignored and shoved in new aliens. Thats fine but why shove in all these guys when you already have well known ones to use? And made more sense? The one thing I can say Enterprise did well was the Andorians. I think they really gave that species a real purpose and they looked less goofy. If Discovery can do something like that, cool, but if they are going to set it at an old time just to set it around some new species whats the point?? Anyway liked your idea.

          • Coupon: The Movie

            Yep. Could’ve replaced the Xindi with them as well then the super weapon would have carried more weight and made more sense leading up to the war.

        • Meg

          I got so mad when I realized that was what they had planned for season 4. Would have been so good .

          • SpaceCadet

            I think you mean season 5. 😉

      • And if not Admiral Archer… an appearance by Admiral T’Pol might be fun.

        • Fctiger

          HOnestly I still think T’Pol wouldve been an amazing cameo in Beyond. Could you have imagined an aged T’Pol meeting Spock telling him Ambassador Spock died? That wouldve been so cool and even help tie in the Franklin stuff a little better since all that happened around the Enterprise timeline.

          • TheRenegadeRebel .

            I would have totally lost my shit in the theater if that had happened. Enterprise deserves so much more respect. Especially from the Kelvin movies.

      • Nicholas Ryan

        Archer died in 2245, before Discovery will take place.

        • Wouldn’t be the first time Star Trek has ignored some minor bit of continuity for the sake of story.

          • Nicholas Ryan

            It’s rare for Star Trek fans to encourage it though. He died in 2245, let’s leave it at that. Hoshi died in 2246 also, and Trip in 2161. T’pol would be good, and I think Denobulans have long life spans.

          • Fctiger

            I don’t even remember when and where it said he died??? Was it the finale because I guess that would be the only time they would even bring it up. Still though I think something that minor could be overlooked. Its not like we saw him die on screen or anything.

          • Datshon

            It was mentioned in a graphic that was produced, but not shown in the two-part mirror universe episode where Mirror Archer was looking up info on his counterpart while he was aboard the Defiant.

          • Darkthunder

            Not-shown, means not canon. We don’t know for certain when he died, but he would be quite old in 2255 (10 years pre-TOS), if he was born in 2112.

          • Eric Cheung

            Not shown, but it would be cool to show him as President in a pre-recorded message, like they did with Zephram Cochrane in ENT. They would need little to no make up.

          • Fctiger

            Ok thank you! And yeah thats pretty minor to me. Yes its canon but its not exactly some major plot point that can’t be overlooked either.

        • Artaxerxes

          Still not impossible. Don’t forget that Enterprise featured a cameo by Zephram Cochrane himself. Sure, he’s technically still alive in the TOS, but he might as well be dead as far as Enterprise is concerned. A message or photograph of an older Archer wouldn’t be unbelievable.

        • Harry Kane

          There was no where in Enterprise, that mentioned the dates of the Enterprise crew’s deaths. So we may see cameo’s and ENT is what is before TOS.

      • iamawild

        Funny you should mention Enterprise…I found myself whistling ‘Faith of the Heart’ today. Lol, maybe that tune is growing on me.

        • Bifash

          The lyrics are actually very good.

        • Fctiger

          You look at all the fan made homages to Star Trek on Youtube, about a third of them uses that song and its usually done so well. Its actually a great song but they tried to do something different and the fans went ballistic over it.

      • Coupon: The Movie

        That would be cool because he would be the retired first president of the Federation by that point. Maybe he’s writing his memoirs?

      • If I were wealthy enough I’d commission a fifth season of Enterprise. Ignoring the 12+ years of cast aging and I’d pretend “These Are The Voyages” never happened.

    • Brian Thorn

      Bakula is probably going to be too busy filming NCIS: New Orleans.

      • Lauren Gonzales

        So interestingly enough, I listened to Scott Bakula at Star Trek Las Vegas, and he said he had talked to Bryan Fuller and he would love to appear in some capacity and the good thing is that he would be allowed to do so since his show and Discovery are both on CBS. So, it gives me hope for a cameo!

        • Fctiger

          YEah it wouldn’t be all that hard. We’re talking a one episode cameo end of the day. They could work it out, especially on the same network.

          • Brian Thorn

            Except that NCIS films in Los Angeles and Discovery films in Toronto. At least two days away from NCIS for Bakula.

          • Unless his appearance will simply be Admiral Archer doing a Skype call to USS Discovery and giving a motivational speech. 😛

          • Fctiger

            We don’t even know the filming dates for the new show or if there is not down time between NCIS when its filming. I dont think it will happen but its not THAT hard either if we’re talking a few days of work. Michael J. Fox went to work on Family Ties back in the 80s and filmed Back to the Future literally the same time, an entire film. George Cloony worked on ER every day as he filmed Batman and Robin for 3 months at nights and the show gave him block schedules so he would be able to shoot 3 days straight a week. This isn’t that difficult. If they want them bad enough they figure it out.

          • FrostUK

            Ah yes, Batman and Robin. That masterpiece of film.

          • Fctiger

            LOL I was just talking about the production of the film not the film itself.

          • Brian Thorn

            I’ll accept that they could squeeze in a Bakula cameo, but Discovery airing staring in January means NCIS:NO and DSC must be filming concurrently this fall.

          • Fctiger

            No I mean in general. Sure we know when filming starts this season I mean next season the schedule may be completely different. Thats the other thing about streaming shows they don’t have a fixed schedule like network shows for obvious reasons. And I highly doubt he would make an appearance this season anyway. But I dont see it happening at all to be honest lol. Its really just for arguments sake.

          • Datshon

            Well, technically NCIS: New Orleans does film in New Orleans. But still, they could easily redress one of their sets and have him film a scene while still in New Orleans.

        • Corndog

          Does he still have that broom handle right up main street?

          Most wooden Trek actor ever….

          • Darkthunder

            Guess you’ve never seen Quantum Leap. He was terrific in that role. And in his new show NCIS: New Orleans.

          • Corndog

            Man, i absolutely loved Quantum Leap when it was first run on television! That is part of the problem, what happened? He was great in that, but seems to have completely forgotten how to act between QL and Ent. I could never understand it. I can’t speak for the NCIS show you mentioned as i have never see that.

        • Harry Kane

          It would be pretty silly not to have cameo’s from the ENT crew, because ENT is what was before TOS, and discovery with be just at the end of ENT. Which we never got to see as we only reached season 4. Its fair to say that on the decomisioning of the NX-01 Captain Archer became and Admiral. Discovery needs to have a proper passing of the torch, and I think we could have a regular cameo from a slightly older T’Pol, Jolene still looks very sexy, and vulcans live far long than humans as we saw with Spock. I hope Brian Fuller and Alex Kurtzman take advantage of ENT and use it to help start Discovery, providing they sort that bloody ugly ship and don’t make a JJ interior. It must look canon. But they can flex a slightly with the TOS look, But this ship must look like it was from the TOS era, with a mix of late ENT looks and the newer TOS cleaner smooth minimalistic style.

      • Nicholas Ryan

        I like some Sarah Shahi ever since I saw her on Alias.

      • BatesHotel

        Sarah Shahi would be perfect for the role. She fits the bill for diversity as a female Persian (and Hispanic) commander. If they decide on a black actress, then make the character African, not African-African as we already went down that story road with Sisko. Make it truly diverse, one American is more than enough, and one European at most, and the rest should be from the rest of the world as demographics suggest.

        • Fctiger

          Wow it just hit me, but 4 of the 5 Captains have been American. Yeah maybe it would be nice if they at least find someone from another continent like Asia, Africa or South America. An Asian Captain would be a nice change of pace as well.And I say this as an American.

    • Eric Cheung

      I hope it’s a recorded message as in Broken Bow. Because, I liked the idea of Archer dying the day after the christening of the Enterprise NCC-1701, which would be ten years before this show. It should also be a message of his as president, where he goes by the nickname “Admiral.”

  • Daniel Shock

    A question that I would like to be asked is: Will the series be available to purchase on iTunes soon after initial availability on CBS All access? This is how I watch Star Wars Rebels …since I don’t have DisneyXD. My best guess is that the answer will be no…and they will probably emulate Daredevil. But… I’d like to know for sure.

    • Mrplatitude

      At some point they bring it to iTunes and/or DVD/Blu-ray, but my guess is that it isn’t something that will happen soon after airing on All Access. They gotta get us to subscribe, unfortunately.

    • based on the way iTunes charges for single episodes, even if they did drop new episodes there soon after they air, it would probably still be cheaper to subscribe to CBS all access. (if you can.)

      • Daniel Shock

        Sure. But, I don’t like commercials… and I like to have my stuff all in one place.

        • makes sense. i’d like it if they put them on iTunes as well. i mean, if it’s good.

  • Mrplatitude

    “We’re much closer to Kirk’s universe [than that of Archer’s], so we get to play with all of that [TOS-era] iconography of those ships and those uniforms.”

    Very curious about the look of the show. Does this mean they will be wearing the classic uniforms?

    • Credo

      I remember the uniform Mirror Archer was wearing when aboard the Defiant. Lovely captains uniforms. I would be happy to see those again.

    • Aqua

      It could mean the classic uniforms.

      It also could be the versions we saw in The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before.

      • Ed Lilli

        Good point.

      • awesomesocks42

        My bet is that they will use uniforms inspired by the TOS pilot uniforms as you say. They look really nice imo, and I seriously doubt they would want to put the women in miniskirts in this day and age. That wouldn’t exactly be very progressive.

        • NeoTechni

          “That wouldn’t exactly be very progressive”

          But I like wearing miniskirts…

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I am a modern man, and a bleeding heart liberal, etc…but I can’t help loving the mini-skirts!

        • Aaron

          Well they’ve got ’em in mini-skirts in the Kelvin Timeline…

    • This show is almost certainly going to have its own unique uniforms. The show will want to have its own identity and to be easy to spot amongst the crowd of other Trek shows.

      TNG, Deep Space Nine and Voyager all took place during the same time period yet all 3 ended up having their own distinct look. (Even though, admittedly, there was plenty of overlap.)

      • TheRenegadeRebel .

        Voyager had the same uniforms created for DS9 through it’s entire run. You can’t count Voyager.

        • But Voyager had the jumpsuits for the entire run, so people seem to deem those “Voyager uniforms”.

          Deep Space Nine is a mess as far as the outfits go. They had TNG’s uniforms, the [Voyager] jumpsuits, and the uniforms from TNG’s films. The show is easy to spot though because of the Bajoran uniforms.

          Enterprise had its own distinct look of course. As did TOS.

          • TheRenegadeRebel .

            The uniform code made sense to me. TheTNG uniforms were the standard starfleet style. The ds9/jumpsuites wrre the “deep space” uniforms for use on deep space duty assignments. That is until the Grey version became standard for all duty assignments.

    • kadajawi

      So… the show will look like Star Trek Continues? No wonder they aren’t too fond of fan films…

  • Jason Aud

    Whether you like Enterprise or not it would be cool to have at least one cameo by Archer or one of the others as it has kinda become a tradition for the pilot to have someone from the previous series…would be nice to continue it! Also 10 years before Kirk takes command of the Enterprise does that put it between “The Cage” and the rest of the original series? As I recall it was set 13 years earlier.

    • Mrplatitude

      Maybe Shran!

      • Jason Aud

        I would be cool with that, would be awesome to see Shran again!

    • mp2357

      It definitely takes place during Pike’s captaincy. Would be cool to see that brought in somehow.

      • Brian Thorn

        When did the accident that crippled Pike happen in the Prime Universe? Was it a recent event in “The Menagerie” or was it years earlier?

        • Justin Olson

          It was recent, just a few months before the events of “The Menagerie.”

          • mp2357

            And “The Menagerie” took place in 2267, 12 years after the setting of DSC.

      • TheRenegadeRebel .

        I’m pretty sure April was captain at that time.

        • mp2357

          Nope, check the Memory Alpha entries on April and Pike. April was captain of the Enterprise from 2245 to 2250. Pike was captain from 2251 to 2262.

      • awesomesocks42

        We even have an actor available to play Pike! Hopefully he’d be up for it, same goes for Zachary Quinto, since Spock was on the Enterprise at the time as well.

    • Brian Thorn

      I vote no. It would most likely have to be an elderly version of one of the Enterprise characters. TNG did that with McCoy in the pilot episode, and the comparisons will not be friendly to DIS copying TNG. Move on. Maybe name-drop a relevant name (Sarek, Decker, or Pike?) but otherwise… don’t.

    • TheRenegadeRebel .

      I’d love to see T’Pol again.

      • I wouldn’t be surprised if we had a “passing of the torch” moment a la Doctor McCoy in “Encounter At Farpoint”. T’Pol and Phlox would likely still be alive. And if Star Trek 2009 is to be believed it seems humans live to be 140+ by the 23rd century

        • Darkthunder

          McCoy was 137 in TNG, so it’s quite clear (in any timeline) that humans live considerably longer.

          • Yes, by the 24th century it’s well established that humans live a very long time (Noonian Soong), but I don’t recall any examples off the top of my head from TOS.

          • Brian Thorn

            McCoy actually hints that his age is unusual. He sarcastically says something like “what’s so unusual about not having died?”?

  • Still not too fond of the design.

    • rrcivil

      I’ve seen reports quoting producers sayng that may not be the final design.

      • Fctiger

        Funny how NO ONE brought up the ship lol. Lets hope its getting redesigned…big time.

        • Steve Cramsie

          No one brought up the ship because they’re too busy bitching about EVERY single other aspect of the franchise. #NeverHappy

  • How the pilot goes will determine if I spend additional money on a CAA subscription.

    • MattR

      That’s perfectly reasonable and actually how everyone should go into this show. Watch the pilot on CBS and decide based on that whether to subscribe.

  • Fiery Little One

    I’m not thrilled by the idea that the captain isn’t the lead, other than that everything else seems okay to me.

    • I’m kind of intrigued by this actually. It is a different perspective and could be really interesting.

      • Fiery Little One

        I see the captain as the moral compass of the crew. Even if they may not agree with the captain’s decisions, they know that his/her heart is *usually* in the right place.

        This? ‘You may be in the right, but I have more stripes on my sleeve than you do.’ That bothers me.

      • jonathanwthomas

        Yeah I think the Captain being sort of aloof from the main characters would add an air of mystery and complexity that could be interesting.

      • iMike

        I’m also excited about seeing this from a different perspective.

    • Artaxerxes

      If I may, I’d like to suggest reading or watching the Horatio Hornblower series. Nicholas Meyers cited it as his main inspiration for Wrath of Khan. The miniseries in particular emphasizes his early missions as a junior officer and is very much in line with what I think they’re going for here. It also shows, incidentally, that having the focus be on a junior officer doesn’t mean that the captain has to be wrong all the time or somehow questionable in judgement.

      • Fiery Little One

        Having stewed on it a bit since that post, I’m willing to admit this might be one of the few times I allow myself to succumb to knee-jerk. (it doesn’t happen often.)

    • Eric Cheung

      In a way, TNG and DS9 already kind of took this tack a lot. There were tons of episodes where a character would take a shuttle out to some planet and the captain was pretty much there to sign off on the mission.

      • Fiery Little One

        Yeah, but that was just for the episode. This is for much longer.

  • Newdivide1701

    Funny thing is that even though Kirk was suppose to have been the hero on the original series, but how much focus went to Spock? Even Data on TNG.

    But I do recall the episode The Lower Decks where the focus was on Alyssa Ogawa, and other junior officers. Their relations to their senior officers, their dynamics as characters, and their own positions.

    I’m still not a fan of the Discovery, but then again I keep saying the Odyssey class is not worthy of the name Enterprise — in fact we need the Kelvin timeline hoping to erase that eyesore — but they might work on it so it will be more appealing as in balanced.

    As to the caveats of the lead character’s rank, I think about Tom Paris when he was released from prison to be an observer for the USS Voyager to help hunt down his maquis “friends”. Possibly Starfleet marine who pissed of the wrong person, got out of prison under the condition that she’s essentially under the Captain’s custody. It was a Star Trek/War of the Worlds crossover I did for fanfiction.net a few years ago.

    All speculation.

    • Justin Bozalina

      I also immediately thought of Lower Decks, which I still think is one of the finest hours TNG produced.

      • Brian Thorn

        Not sure there is enough of a foundation for a TV show with the “Lower Decks” concept, though. “The West Wing” more or less tried that. That show was supposed to be about all the President’s staff and junior level assistants, and the President (Martin Sheen) was only to appear occasionally. Didn’t work out that way. Viewers wanted more of the President, and soon “The West Wing” was almost as much “The Oval Office”. That’s why Moira Kelly and later Rob Lowe left. They were supposed to be the stars, but Sheen really became the star.

        • FrostUK

          Show centered around an officer is fine. It’ll be like Hornblower in Space. Again. 😉

  • ButtonShoes

    Hey everyone: I’m new to the website, but a longtime, devoted Trekkie always looking for great conversations about Trek! So here are some of my extensive thoughts on this new show if you’d care to hear them. I’d love to hear any responses, too:

    – I don’t feel great about the female lead not being the captain. The captains have always been the focus, and it makes sense considering the settings are ships/space stations, and they have captains, who set the tone in each instance. Does this mean that the Discovery might not be the main setting of the show over the course of this run? If the focus is on this female Lt. Cmdr instead of the captain, the ship, and its mission, then her journey could take her anywhere, really. Maybe there’s a season where the ship isn’t even a part of the show. After all, the title of the show is “Discovery,” which could mean more than just the ship.

    – The suggestion that the show might take after “Lower Decks” sounds interesting, but I wonder if Trek fans are up for watching a show that doesn’t focus on the bridge crew/senior staff. I’d be fine with it. I just want more Prime Universe Trek. No more Kelvin Timeline, please. I don’t hate the Kelvin Timeline, but the meat of what Star Trek is, is all Prime Universe.

    – Also, on AICN I read that Fuller said that the lead would “have many ranks.” If she’s a character who is going to learn to get along with the rest of the galaxy, then maybe she starts out bigoted, and learns to accept diversity by the end. Then she could possibly get demoted and promoted over the course of the show. Maybe she gets drummed out of Starfleet and then re-instated, like Tom Paris did in Voyager. Things like that. Or she could get standard promotions, like going from Cmdr to Captain the way Sisko did.

    – Ten years before Kirk’s 5-year mission as Captain of the Enterprise. So that puts the show in 2255. The only thing I can find from that year is the establishment of the treaty with the Sheliak, and I can’t believe for a second that the show will revolve around that. And it’s not about the Kobayashi Maru, or Axanar, or the Earth-Romulan War (which is too far back, anyway). So what unexplored event is he talking about? Someone’s going to have to do a deep dive for TOS to figure this out.

    – I don’t think Amanda Grayson would have much of a role in this show. It feels like someone wanted to ask a question about her, and Fuller was being diplomatic by saying how much he likes the character. Saying she could be in this show just sounds like his way of not wanting to rule anything out. I’d say the same for the implication of Section 31.

    – Since we’re only 10 years out from Kirk’s 5-year mission, does that mean the uniforms will reflect the fashion of that era? Will redshirts be fodder again? Sexy, body-hugging outfits with miniskirts and hose for the ladies? I wouldn’t mind that, personally. 🙂 And will the technology resemble TOS-era tech in look and form? Because that would be weird.

    – Everyone is saying Archer might be able to make a cameo, which I would love. I want cameos from as many Trek characters in earlier shows as possible. But in “In a Mirror, Darkly,” it was stated on that display on the Defiant that Archer dies in 2245. That’s 10 years before the beginning of Discovery. I don’t know if that’s official canon, though.

    – A gay character. About time. And robots, and more aliens. Plus some updates to aliens we know. I can’t wait to see what he has planned here.

    – I’m definitely eager to see this show. A lead being a woman of color keeps in line with what Star Trek is all about, even though I don’t like that she isn’t the captain. But I’m disappointed that we keep looking backward instead of forward. Investigating some of the area between ENT and TOS is nice, but I want something post-Nemesis. I want to look towards the future, not further explore the past. Give me the 25th century, already! With Cardassian and Bajoran membership in the Federation, and the first steps toward peace and reconciliation between the Federation and the Romulans. You don’t even have to make the ship an Enterprise. Just push the story forward. Forward, not backward, like Gene Roddenberry always believed.

    – Oh, and I hate the Phase II Ralph McQuarrie ship design. Please re-do Discovery to something that has more curves, dammit. She shouldn’t look like the bastard child of a Constitution-class and a D7. I mean, there’s a reason they didn’t pick that design for TMP, everyone. It just ain’t so great.

    • In a Mirror, Darkly was completely mirror-verse, wasn’t it, though? Mirror-verse always has similar but tweaked versions to the actual timeline, so it’s easy to say that Archer could be alive and well, albeit a crotchety old man because that’s like…what, eighty years after the time of ST: Enterprise.

      • ButtonShoes

        It was mirrorverse. But the Defiant was from the Prime Universe.

    • ThomasTr

      As to Archer, it could be set in 2255 but with a prologue set earlier.

    • Brian Thorn

      – re: “would have many ranks”. Something happens that a Lt. Cmdr becomes commanding officer of the Discovery. Hence she starts out as Lt. Cmdr but becomes Capt.

      – re: “unexplored event”… Lt. Kirk saved the USS Farragut after Captain Garrovick and half his crew died, 11 years before roughly the middle of the 5 year mission.

      – re: “short skirts”. The women wore pantsuits in “The Cage”.

    • Bifash

      “She shouldn’t look like the bastard child of a Constitution-class and a D7” – perhaps there’s a reason as to the way it looks.

      • ButtonShoes

        I hope so.

      • kadajawi

        It’s a Section 31 ship built from stolen bits and pieces of alien ships, including large portions of the D7.

    • M33

      Unexplored but referred to event is likely the long simmering conflict with the Klingons. My best guess.

  • Trent

    It was pretty well established that the Constitution class ships were the big boys in TOS , they are going to have to do some splaining about the Discovery cause it looks to be a hell of a lot bigger than a Constitution class ship .

    • Brian Thorn

      Was it? Constitutions were better, certainly. But bigger? I think the opposite may be true. Daystrom’s duotronics revolution allowed much more automation, thus smaller crews, and thus smaller ships.

    • We haven’t really seen this new ship in comparison to anything though so it could be smaller.

      • Trent

        True but it has a lot of decks and portholes ,something the Constitution class didn’t have ,structural integrity and all that .

    • kadajawi

      I think the only thing that could make sense is if this ship was designed and developed by Section 31. The name Discovery would be rather ironic then. Maybe a Section 31 warship that was found out and taken over by the Federation, so it is manned by a Federation and not by a Section 31 crew? This way they can explain away the differences in technology, and even the odd looks. Section 31 captured a D7 battle cruiser and used parts from it for their ship. And other stolen technology too, from other races.

      • Trent

        that’s possible but it would be surprising for them , to slap a Federation designation on it
        .They always seemed t work in the background and shadows .
        The ship would better be unnamed with no designation with its weird design it will become known ,…hey you see that weird Federation ship ?.

        • kadajawi

          Unless it was built by Section 31, but then discovered by the Federation and used by them. I suppose Klingons wouldn’t be too happy with the Federation flying around with stolen parts, but Klingons aren’t going to be happy anyway.

          • Trent

            Good point …. still used to the Federation colors ,maybe this is a Vulcan ship ….wonder which Klingons we will see …….I’m going with a mix .

          • kadajawi

            Hm… but Vulcans also have a different style, and it kind of looks militaristic. Klingon vessel makes more sense, but really, it is a hybrid between a Federation and a Klingon vessel. A cooperation seems to be impossible, given that at this time they were enemies. If the show happened after UDC, then ok, but this is long before that. So if there are truly Klingon parts in there…

  • Gilbetron

    I’m pretty confident I’ll like the show once it gets going, but the concept of another TOS prequel is pretty disappointing — and I hope they don’t fall back into the same narrative traps that afflicted Enterprise. And also, this is the era with the fewest opportunities for character appearances from the other series. With a few exceptions (T’Pol being one), the Enterprise crew would be too old, and obviously the TOS actors can’t reprise their roles, and everyone else hasn’t been born yet. Though I guess we could see some recasting of characters that appeared in TOS? Generally speaking, I really dislike recasting, but maybe if the stories are great enough I won’t mind.

    So I really just want to move forward. But I’m sure I’ll get over it.

    • Fctiger

      Yeah I think they are just thinking about recasting some of the TOS characters since Fuller suggest we may see a few of them. Sure they could use the actors from the KT films but I dont see that happening at all. But like you I was hoping to go into the future, even if not past TNG time then at least past TOS. This feels like a big step backward to me.

      • I wouldn’t be surprised to see cameos of the Kelvin timeline actors as TOS characters. Why not?

        • Fctiger

          Its possible but the age thing COULD be an issue though. None of them are that old but I imagine Scotty would be a lot younger than Simon Pegg is now for example since its a full decade before the 5 year mission but yes there is make up. I just think CBS and Paramount has some kind of pissing contest with this franchise and partly why they put back in the prime universe. I just think its not the “we’re all one family” vibe when Star Trek in the 90s were going on and you had everyone from various shows cameoing in films, etc which is why Trek was so much fun back then. It did feel like one big universe at the time.

          • It is obnoxious isn’t it? I almost wish some large company would come along and buy up Star Trek (or Viacom+CBS for that matter) and treat Trek properly. Disney is doing amazing things with Star Wars and I’m jealous Trek doesn’t get the same treatment.

            Then again, media conglomerates = bad.

          • FrostUK

            What amazing things is Disney doing with Star Wars? A kids cartoon and remaking a new hope (pretty poorly, I might add), and does anyone care about a Han Solo origin movie? Note how they’ve gone dead quiet about that.

            Seems that Rogue One is going to be good though.

          • awesomesocks42

            I don’t think age is a problem here. in Star Trek 2009, the scenes where Kirk signs up to Starfleet and meets McCoy, Pike and Uhura for the first time are all in 2255, the same year that Discovery is set, and I don’t think they looked too different in Beyond, implying they would still be able to play their characters at that age.

    • Ace Stephens

      I understand your concerns and share them to an extent but I wouldn’t mind brief moments that don’t detract from the immediate work’s ability to stand alone. Would I utterly object to something like what Doctor Who did when it used doubles and all this to suggest/imply a differing actor’s presence? No. I mean, they could have someone who looks like Nimoy’s Spock from behind in the background with a bit of audio from Nimoy briefly overheard. Something like that – basically only if it somehow influences the immediate story in a meaningful way. They could have an “aged” version of a character played by one of the surviving actors and suggest that they “fell through time” or something (or were radically aged when transported back) and the point of the episode is to get them back to where they belong, maybe at some point between some TOS or TNG or whatever episodes. Or they could simply have somebody show up who is technically from post-Nemesis. And that character could then struggle with adjusting (perhaps even changing their name/identity?), not knowing what they’re allowed to mention…trying to figure out how to approach the subject of events which they know cost many lives but they can’t tell anyone about or else risk damaging the timeline…and all this.

      I mean, there are possibilities here. I certainly wouldn’t “force” any of these scenarios if they don’t have “the right” (as in “very good”) ideas surrounding them or really know how to integrate them without making it feel like, “Hey, you remember this other thing you liked before but which isn’t this immediate thing? How about that other thing, huh?” But I could see a couple instances of this (one of which could maybe even involve a recurring – for the new show – character or the like), across a show that lasts at least a few seasons (particularly this closely to TOS, if involving one of those characters/actors/etc.).

      Regardless, my point is that I think there are possibilities you didn’t mention which could be explored – if done well – without feeling cheap or necessarily involving a genuine recast or things like that.

  • Chris

    Does anyone have an ideas of what the event is that Discovery spins off from? Honestly, I’m clueless, not Kobyashi Maru, not Axanar…Hmmm

    I’m also keen to know if the separated fraction of the Delta has a deeper meaning, possibly hinting towards a S31 bias in the show?

    • Jason Aud

      I wondered about Section 31 with the first trailer, an asteroid base and NCC-1031…probably just a coincedence but gotta speculate!

      • Bifash

        Wild speculation on my part – what if the Lt. Commander is a wet-behind-the-ears, but incredibly skilled officer who has been tasked with recording and exposing a covert Section 31 officer in the highest eschelons of Discovery’s crew – the Captain. That could be intriguing.

        A Section 31 lead in the form of the Lt. Commander herself may be too obvious, and Discovery being a Section 31 endorsed ship may be also be too obvious – they have “31” emblazoned on their hull – not exactly covert.

        Still excited to mull over all these possibilites.

    • FrostUK

      Things that happen around that time… (give or take 10 years)

      The events of the Cage
      Engagements with the Klingons (mentioned in The Trouble With Tribbles)
      The massacre on Tarsus IV
      Starfleet loses contact with ‘Friendship One’ which later re-appears in Voyager (in an episode written by Bryan Fuller)

      None of them particularly jump out at you, though I can imagine a cheeky Friendship one reference popping up.

      • Brian Thorn

        The Cloud Creature that shows up and kills half the crew of the USS Farragut.

        Roger Korby finds “The Old Ones” civilization on Exo III?

        The settlement of the “Spore Planet” Omicron Ceti III?

        John Gill’s arrival at Ekos?

        I thought about Kodos/Tarsus IV too, but 20 years before TOS is really stretching the “about 10 years” claim by Fuller, so probably not.

        The Cloud Creature is the only one that seems to have any real story possibility here.

        • Eric Cheung

          Well the fallout from Tarsus IV extended at least into the 2260s, as Kirk, Kodos, and Riley all still were effected by those events. Ten years after Tarsus IV, and it would be even more viscerally felt by involved parties.

          • Brian Thorn

            Still a stretch, I think.

    • M33

      One area with broadest story telling possibilities is the long-simmering conflict with the Klingons over disputed areas as mentioned in Errand of Mercy.
      It also explains the prior concept drawings about the Klingons.
      Maybe 1+1=2?

  • Cory Turner

    It really seems as though CBS right from the start wants this to fail. Muddy details, sloppy roll out, re tweeking of know species.COMMERCIALS. Why? I hope I’m wrong.

    • Brian Thorn

      Just my opinion, but I very much prefer the “tweeking of known species” to the endless parade of bumpy foreheads and silly noses we got on DS9 and Voyager when they explored the far reaches of the galaxy.

    • Bryan Murphy

      I think CBS is limited in what it can do right not because we’re still in the STAR TREK BEYOND release window. There are some rules that CBS and Paramount have concerning Star Trek TV and Star Trek film. One of those is that no new series can begin within six months of a feature’s release. It’s possible promoting a new show — essentially stealing the spotlight — is strictly limited. Fuller said he will reveal more in October. October 22 will be the 3-month mark of STB’s release and it would seemingly have completed its domestic theatrical by then (and most of its int’l territories as well), so this is probably why the rollout is inelegant at the moment.

      Also, they haven’t even started casting or perhaps even building sets, but by October, a lot of that will no longer be the case. There’s just not a lot for them to show and there’s just not at a ton that’s written in stone about the whole project.

  • Dr. Cheis

    Interesting! I expected it would predate the Kelvin timeline so as to tie into both the Prime timeline and the new movies.

    Although, I can’t help noting that 10 years before Kirk took command of the Enterprise, Captain April was in command of her (if you count TAS as canon). In other words, the Enterprise may well exist (or other Constitution class ships) at the time of this series. Plus, if the series takes place in an era where those ships are around, we might expect to see much more “retro” style sets, That could end up being a significant budget saver.

    • awesomesocks42

      We know that the Enterprise is around and well. The events of “The Cage” with Pike in command occur 11 years prior to Kirk’s command. No need to look at TAS for that.

      • pittrek

        13 years before The Menagerie

    • Fctiger

      I have a feeling the Enterprise will make an appearance somewhere and it will also signify this is definitely the prime universe since in KT the Enterprise was built much later.

    • Bill Cademy

      As I recall, Kirk mentioned he met Pike when he took command of the Enterprise from him. April was pre-Pike, he was NCC-1701’s first captain.
      And of course the Enterprise existed 10 years pre-Kirk. Pike was in command, Spock was his Science Officer at the time.

  • mattcoz

    Wait, we have to pay for the streaming service AND watch commercials? What the hell?

    • DamienL

      Yepp have fun!

    • Yeah, that sucks. I’m fine with paying for CAA — making shows costs money, and making GOOD shows costs a LOT of money — but we shouldn’t have to watch commercials if we’re paying for content!

      • iMike

        Apparently you don’t subscribe to HuluPlus. The only reason TV shows on Netflix (network shows, not referring to Netflix originals here) don’t have commercials is because they’re not current … they’re a season behind.

        • Anon

          Actually, that depends on the show and contract with netflix. Once Upon A Time was done for the UK last season and they put the episode up two days after it aired in the US. And they did the same for Shadowhunters, except that was put up mere hours later in most countries. It depends on the contract between the streaming service and the studio.

        • Eric Cheung

          Obviously there are at least two reasons, if Netflix Originals don’t have commercials as well.

          But there are lots of old shows online that still have commercials. TOS or even Dick Van Dyke or I Love Lucy will still have commercials on Hulu.

        • LS650

          Hulu is US-only, as far as I know.

      • Somebody

        And yet the cable and satellite tv companies have been doing that since they first started up….

    • Xandercom

      Paying for adverts is in serious risk of pushing people to torrenting to bypass the paywall altogether.

      • Somebody

        Torrent? LOL. There are so many better and easier ways….
        Which only exist as a direct result of the way the content producers are treating their customers, as you suggest. Just do a google search for “exodus”, and skip the biblical references.

    • Shawn

      My understanding is it depends on the plan you choose. There is something like a $4 and $10 plan. Depending on your level you get commercials or not.

      • Sara Llewellyn

        Currently you get 12 minutes out of every 60 minutes viewed as commercials. This costs $6 a month.

        So, you’re spending maybe $4 more a month to get just 12 more minutes of view time per hour.

        • Shawn

          1) You don’t seem to understand the difference between revenue and profit. What is their profit? That will make your case. Revenue is irrelevant.

          2) Commercial time is increasing on broadcast TV. 12 minutes seems on the light side for today.

          3) For other shows you can still get them free with digital TV signals.

          4) Streaming is different than signals. It’d doesn’t scale. A million people can watch your signal at no increased cost to you. But if a million people start streaming your service it costs you a lot more than if a single person did.

          Anyway, points 1&2 are important to your position. You’ll need to do more research on those points to successfully argue your point.

          • Somebody

            On top of that, if the target is to fill an HOUR, then every minute of commercial is a minute LESS CONTENT that they have to produce to fill that time. I.e., it reduces the production costs by 25%.

          • Shawn

            Wow. That’s looking hard for the silver lining! 🙂

    • ADeweyan

      OMG It’s almost like Cable!

      I think this comes from CBS coming from the perspective of a TV Network wading into online content rather than an online company offering TV content. How much can they possibly make on the commercials for a single viewer in a month? I bet most subscribers would be more than happy to pay that extra to get commercial-free service.

    • Somebody

      So…. exodus, and then buy the DVD set later when they make it available. That way studio gets their money for production, and you get to enjoy it near launch date. Call that ethical piracy.

  • Brian Thorn

    Could the event “talked about but not explored” be the USS Farragut disaster? That was 11 years before “Obsession”. Half the crew was said to have been killed, with Lt. Kirk saving the day.

    • M33

      The most likely event is the “long-simmering conflicts about disputed areas” with the Klingons which eventually culminated in “Errand of Mercy”.
      Having reviewed the chronology several times, this was the only thing which makes sense.
      Their long-standing conflict was suddenly brought up in the beginning of Errand of Mercy, as if it had been going on for some while despite it never being brought up in prior episodes.
      It also is from the TOS canon, not added after like the TNG Sheliak treaty in that same time period.
      Indeed, we always heard about the TOS era conflict with the Klingons in the show, but pretty much only got to see post-treaty relations with them. I think it fits with what Fuller has hinted at, plus Klingons are a beloved staple of Star Trek and most viewers, new and old will know what a Klingon is, so it helps to overcome a new audience knowledge hurdle.
      Otherwise, I can find nothing else from around the 2250s of any major signifigance that fits.

      • Brian Thorn

        But if it turns into a shooting war with the Klingons, why didn’t the Organians intervene then, instead of getting between Kirk and Kor 10 years later?

        • M33

          Maybe they weren’t “observing” yet. Skirmishes probably, too, not all-out armageddon.

          • Brian Thorn

            Just clearing up, I know you were kidding, but we saw the Organians ‘observing’ Archer and Co., so yes they were watching all along.

  • Havenbull

    I know I am going to get some down votes, but I’m not just feeling any of this… was very much hoping for a post TNG time frame.

    However, I believe that could be a “starter” series for an eventual tent pole prime post TNG series that could come in a couple years (providing DISC is a a success).

    In much the same way we once had concurrent series running 20 years ago, can we also have two concurrent series taking place at different times?

    God I hope so. I just can’t believe the timeline will never be expanded into the future post Nemesis.

    • NeoTechni

      Agreed

    • Fctiger

      No you’re not the only one. I think a lot of people feel this way which is weird they dont do it. Enterprise got cancelled and Beyond isn’t exactly burning it up at the BO. I dont think this period is ratings gold and yet they seem to think fans are dying to go back to this period over and over again. Don’t get it. I will stay positive of course but I’m bummed too.

      • iMike

        ENT didn’t get canceled because it was a prequel. It was canceled because it was on a network that had moved away from the sci-fi element, and that only half the country (maybe a little more) had access to.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          And there was the fact that Enterprise stunk…just a minor point.

          • Bifash

            I think the issue with ENT was that it was run in the same manner and had the same feel as the rest of the Berman Trek series ( which by that point ) had become stale.
            Setting it in the prequel era was fine, and the crew was a good crew, but too often the series fell back on the over-familar tropes you’d already seen a thousand times before ( and told in the same way more or less ).

            Season 4, when Manny Coto came onboard was a shot in the arm, but by then it was already too late alas.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Agreed.

          • Yeah, early Enterprise felt very much like Voyager Season 8 and 9 to me. Often the same kind of storytelling, dialog, etc. And the attempt to be “more adult” was just embarrassing with clumsy profanity and frequent visits to the Decon Chamber.

          • Somebody

            Perhaps a link to these mystical Voy season 8 and 9 for those who aren’t aware of seasons past 7?

          • Michael Spadaro

            This. They righted the ship too late. It also didn’t help that UPN simply wasn’t a good idea to begin with. The whole ‘fourth network’ thing had already been done by that point (think it was called Fox or something), combined with a revolving door of forgettable sitcoms didn’t help either.

          • Aaron Patrick Morse

            Agreed. Manny Coto and Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens were making it rock again! But I fear the NX-01 had already been torpedoed. 🙁

          • kadajawi

            ENT was bad for season 1, and still not good for season 2. That puts it in line with TNG, DS9 and VOY. It is a Star Trek tradition. And season1 of TNG was way worse than anything ENT ever produced. Season 3 was fine and season 4 were good to great… sadly there were two stinkers, and right after them the show was cancelled. But I believe season 5 would have been great.

          • pittrek

            Oh come on, it was much better than e.g. Voyager. I never understood the American hatred against Enterprise in Europe it’s quite popular, e.g. according to many sources in UK and Germany it’s almost as popular as TNG

          • kadajawi

            They rarely show ENT on TV in Germany. Maybe it was on 3 or 4 times, ever, while TNG is on constant rotation, VOY is often too, and DS9, well, not as often, but still more often. I guess TNG was on TV something like 15-20 times.

          • Corndog

            Enterprise was not better than Voyager. I am European, and i have never met another human being that actually liked that show. This of course is just my own personal opinion and experience. Ent is the worst Trek show of all. Truly awful television.

          • grandadmiralbinks

            I agree. Comparing it to VOY is blasphemy.

          • i’m european too (not sure how that matters here), and i love ENTERPRISE.

          • Corndog

            It doesn’t really matter, just that the other dude said it was very popular in Europe. Personally, i hate the show. The setting, the acting, the characters, the stories and the dialogue all sucked. I was glad when they ended it, and please that we got another TNG episode instead of an Ent episode when they did:)

          • SFSeries&Movies

            Same here!

          • Zarm

            Same here!

          • Bifash

            Worse than Voayger? Surely not. But I appreciate we all have different views – I’m sorry ENT did not work for you.

          • Corndog

            When Voyager first aired i really didn’t like it at all, but i have found that it has grown on me over the years, and now i have to admit that i quite like it. Enterprise on the other hand, never liked that show, and the more time passes the less i like it. It was dreadful.

            My favourite Trek is DS9, but i loved TNG also, and grew up on TOS.

            No need to be sorry buddy, wasn’t your fault:)

          • Bifash

            Haven’t revisited VOY in a long time myself – I wonder how it’ll hold up.

            For me, TOS & DS9 are my faves. I still highly enjoy the old TNG eps even though I used to be highly critical at the time ( and much preferred the latter seasons ). Still very enjoyable though.

          • Corndog

            I can’t watch the first season of TNG. It’s scary bad:) It was like they still thought they were making a show in the 60’s.

          • Zarm

            I’m revisiting it currently, on the heels of a full DS9 rewatch, and so far it’s fantastic.

            Then again, I never disliked it to begin with.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Thanks! The show was not liked that much worldwide — that’s a fairy tale.

            The first two seasons of Enterprise were some of the worst TV ever done, let alone Star Trek. The fact that by the end of its runt the episodes were up to the level of somewhat watchable, I don’t find very compelling. And the ratings went down each successive season – fact!

            Voyager was not great Star Trek either, but that’s another story….

          • Corndog

            Enterprise really was dreadful. The only thing I actually liked was the ship design even though it was just a recycled Akira class. Shame they never used the refit version with the drive section. Thought that was really nice.

          • Wow. Awful television? Seriously?

          • Corndog

            Yep, seriously:)

          • Zarm

            Very seriously. 15 minutes worth of boring plot stretched into 45 minutes of sniping, petty cardboard cutout characters every week, with a large middle finger directed toward TOS mixed in for good measure. (Some of which improved in seasons 3 and 4, and some of which didn’t).

            Awful TV.

          • Brian Thorn

            pittek… I don’t hate any Star Trek. I’ll even sit through “And the Children Shall Lead” every few years. But I prefer Voyager to Enterprise by quite a large margin. Voyager actually stuck to its premise of the crew trying to get home from across the galaxy. Enterprise didn’t embrace its premise (birth of the Federation) until the last season. The first two years had far too many stories that could very easily have been told just as well on Voyager (and I suspect they were Voyager rejects.) Voyager was a far from perfect show (when it was bad, it was spectacularly bad) but overall I think it was a better show than Enterprise.

          • kadajawi

            AFAIK Enterprise suffered from a lack of writers in the beginning. They were stretching thin, and well, the scripts weren’t good. Things got better over time, especially in season 4 when Manny Coto took over (I’d like to see a Star Trek show where he is the showrunner…). Looks like he wanted to accept fan submissions for season 5, as was done on TNG for example, and I suspect that would have improved quality even further. It’s a damn shame that we had to sit through the first two, bad seasons.

            As for Voyager… Voyager had a great premise, and lots of potential. But AFAIK Jeri Taylor insisted on episodic TV. What happened during an episode shouldn’t affect the next. People should be able to skip episodes. (What were studios thinking… isn’t it better to make it so that you have extra incentive to watch every episode, and with it all the ads?). That was fine on a show like TNG, which didn’t have an arc. But Voyager suffered badly from it. It could have been such a great show, it hurts. Then there was Neelix. I’d much rather watch Jar Jar Binks. And finally the characters. Janeway was, at times, just mean, and most of all she seemed to have multiple personalities. One episode she had a certain character, next episode she was a different person, who just happened to look the same. Tom Paris was Wesley Crusher all over again, just more extreme even. Was there anything he couldn’t do? Was he modeled after MacGyver?

            IMHO, season 4 of ENT was better than any season of VOY. Sadly, season 1 was also worse than any season of VOY. VOY was more consistently meh, while ENT was all over the place.

          • Brian Thorn

            Funny, I always equated Harry Kim = Wesley Crusher. I never saw any Wesley in Paris. (Paris started out being Nick Locarno, Wesley’s academy classmate, who was basically the anti-Wesley. But they decided Locarno was too far gone to turn into a nice guy/hero. So Paris was born.)

            Also, I’m pretty sure that UPN insisted on the episodic nature of Voyager, not Jeri Taylor. She was just following her marching orders. Same studio meddling was behind the Temporal Cold War on Enterprise, from what I’ve read.

            God willing, being on CBS All Access this time, and streaming available 24/7 (no worries about people being lost if they miss an episode), Discovery will get more flexibility to chart its own course, free of (too much) studio meddling.

          • kadajawi

            Hm. Interesting. Harry was smart, and in terms of character more like Wesley. You’re right. But was there anything Paris couldn’t do? He was a medic, the greatest pilot ever, he designed the Delta Flyer, invented a Warp 10 engine, and on and on… what couldn’t he do? It’s like he took the role of 5 very skilled crewmen, but for budget reasons he got all of their skills so they didn’t have to have 5 more regular actors.

          • LS650

            I’ve never understood the hate towards Enterprise. I enjoyed it quite a bit, and thought it was much better than watching the Neelix and Paris clown show on Voyager.

          • SFSeries&Movies

            Same here

          • Alessandro Tidu

            It was mixed.

            What a prequel series set in the time of the imminent birth of the Federation should have did was to explore the pre-federation balance of the quadrant with Vulcans, Andorians, Tellarites and Humans with no idea to become one civilization and see in detail what set the stage for that event.

            We had only a little bit of that and before we could realize it we were watching nazi aliens traveling through time. THAT sucked and killed the series. By that time people had lost interest.

            All we had was a couple of good episodes with the Vulcan-Andorian Cold War and a ridiculus episode that popped the Romulan hand to “explain” why the Federation was born, seeing which you ask why they just didn’t a loose alliance.

            Anyway better than Voyager, of that I don’t save that much, I concur.

          • Somebody

            It isn’t as if KIRK didn’t have his own encounters with Nazis and time travel… and while Kirk didn’t have them both at the same time, both themes are hard baked into Star Trek tradition.

            And FYI: The real andorian/tellarite/romulan political power show was in season 4 AFTER the time travelling nazi aliens. Which BTW: The aliens didn’t invent the nazis, they CASHED IN on them.

          • Alessandro Tidu

            I didn’t say the aliens invented the Nazis.

            And the theme of relations between Vulcans and Andorians was treated from the start of the series.

            And the point is you can have time travel or nazis or aliens, but a nazi alien travelling back in time is just so ridiculous they did a meme out of it.

          • Loved Enterprise. It certainly had some missteps, but name me a Trek show that didn’t. They also pushed at the normal constraints of episodic television, doing a year long arc and a year of multi-episode stories, which in the early ’00s was not as common as today.

            I enjoy all four seasons, but seasons 3 and 4 definitely turned things up a notch.

          • Brian Thorn

            Part of Enterprise’s problem might be that it didn’t last long enough. Voyager really got good in its later years, after 7-of-9 joined the crew in Season 4. Enterprise started getting good in Season 4, too, but it was a foregone conclusion that would be its last season and there would not be a Season 5, 6, or 7. So many missed opportunities on Enterprise was just infuriating.

          • Sara Llewellyn

            Honestly the best and worst episode of Enterprise was the very last episode at the very last minute. The moment that could have delighted Trek fans around the world..’Computer: End simulation.’ shot down without fanfare.

          • Julian Glover

            I found enterprise the least enjoyable star trek series, but at the beginning of season two, its still an amazingly entertaining series. There’s nothing wrong with it, and its still pretty high up there, just not as high as the other star treks.

          • Somebody

            I strongly disagree. Enterprise was brilliant.

        • mswood666

          When Enterprise aired UPN had coverage of 92% of the US market (some individual weeks had sports preemptions in multiple cities that could impact another 10% at the most and that wasn’t common, but it did happen once or twice a year too that degree. By the end of Voyager’s 1st season uPN reached 86% coverage. The vast majority of the nation had broadcast coverage.

          • Brian Thorn

            mswood666… But not all coverage is equal. I lived in two cities during the life of UPN, and neither (Colorado Springs and San Angelo, TX) had a dedicated UPN (or WB) station. So UPN shows like Voyager and Enterprise were relegated to post-primetime on the local FOX station. Voyager and Enterprise were run on Sunday nights at 9, which meant near constant delays due to FOX football and prime time running long, and recording them was difficult.

            So sure, UPN had 92% market presence. But often their shows were not run at the time it was run in the rest of the country, but wherever the local co-affiliate could squeeze them in. This was not a recipe for high ratings.

        • Corndog

          …and the fact that it was crap.

          • kadajawi

            Season 1 was. Season 2 was… a bit better. Season 3 had some really strong episodes, but overall it was a rather mixed bag. Season 4 was very good, except for 2 episodes. After these two episodes, ratings dropped, and the show was cancelled. Didn’t matter that the following episodes were strong again.

            Had ENT gotten into season 5, I’m sure it could have recovered and gotten to 7 seasons.

            Sadly, by the time ENT was aired, it wasn’t such a foregone conclusion that a Star Trek show would survive 7 seasons. In today’s environment, and without the Star Trek bonus enjoyed back then, TNG had been cancelled after 1 season, perhaps even earlier. DS9 would have. And VOY too. These days, a show has to do great from day one and keep it up.

        • Judith Rodriguez

          Very true, I remember frantically looking for a way to watch ENT and there was just no way in south Texas. I finally saw it years later.

      • Shawn

        Where did this ‘Beyond is doing poorly’ nonsense start? It’s done better than each of the original 10 prime movies in a matter of weeks. It’s doing less well than the other Kelvin timeline movies. Still, I expect it to run up to 150 million dollars. That’s a good amount of money. I’m glad Star Trek is doing so well. Beyond is the 3rd highest world wide grossing Star Trek movie ever created.

        http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Star-Trek#tab=summary

        • Fctiger

          Shawn, Star Trek Beyond is doing very, very, very poorly. I can NOT stress this enough. It cost $185 million not to mention another $100 million for marketing. At MINIMUM it would have to make $370 million just to break even, and thats without marketing. It still has $170 million to even get there and it has premiered in every major market minus one. Its only at $200 million and has dropped 60% two weekends in a row in America. You have any idea how bad that is? The last two films both dropped LESS than 50%. To drop that much two weekends straight is bad. Its overseas numbers are even worse. It made a total, a TOTAL now, of $10 million in its second full week abroad, in 32 markets.. It looks like it will be lucky to get over $150 million overseas. Thats deplorable for a film this size.

          Beyond will be only the second film to lose money at the BO. The only other one was Nemesis. I can’t not stress how badly this film is doing. I won’t call it a bomb but its definitely turning out to be a flop.

          • Brian Thorn

            Beyond has not done well, I agree. But that seems to be true of almost every movie this year except for animated fare like Finding Dory and Secret Life of Pets. Captain America is about the only live action movie that lived up to box office expectations (despite being just a mediocre movie that didn’t actually have an ending.) BvS opened huge but faded fast, and looking at fan reaction I expect the same for Suicide Squad. Beyond has not done well, but it looks great compared to highly-anticipated Alice 2, Independence Day 2, Ghostbusters, or Hunstman: Winter’s War. This has just been a very weird year at the US box office, and Beyond (despite good to very good reviews) is caught up in that.

          • Fctiger

            Well sure, I agree. But the OTHER problem is most of those that flopped this summer was just bad films. That can’t be stated enough. IDR was the worst thing easily this summer IMO, its no secret why that bombed (although it didnt really bomb because it made a profit but probably noting Fox was hoping for). BvS also got slaughtered by critics. Alice 2 was so mauled I think they only found the white rabbits bones. Huntsman same. Ghostubusters actually got decent reviews, not great but OK. But its no secret how fans have been reacting over that film. I think sadly the whole female backlash on top of making it another tired reboot is what did that film in.

            And then we have Beyond, which is why there should be major concern because believe it or not Beyond was the BEST reviewed film since Finding Dory. That tells you the amount of crap Hollywood has released this summer because between Dory and Beyond was a landfill of mostly poorly received films. Then Beyond shows up, actually GOOD, the first big action film since IDR several weeks prior. The reviews alone shouldve got people in who was looking for a good time. But it didn’t happen. In fact what happened? The film had a 60% drop. Thats easily the highest out of the new movies and the second biggest out of the entire series. The only other film with a bigger drop was Nemesis. The one after that was The Final Frontier. Again pretty bad movies.

            So yes I agree part of it is just being in a bad summer of films but there seems to be something more with Beyond. For the record I have been saying (in other places) I did not see this film doing well at all,mostly over the poor marketing and I frankly thought it would just be bad. But I always said the film should be fine if its actually good because the word of mouth will most likely save it and these films actually has pretty strong legs. And yet looks like neither happened. So again this is probably a big problem moving forward. If they said the film didnt perform because it was bad, the competition was too heavy, too many similar films put out in the period, OK I can see that. But none of that existed.

            Maybe if they do make a fourth one obviously they will have to cut the budget now but maybe move it back to the winter season like the TNG films use to do. Maybe a big star involved. Elba is famous but I wouldn’t call him ‘big’ either. Someone whose name is going to get people curious just because he or she is in it. I don’t know just throwing things out but this film is not going to earn its money back in the theaters, only the second Trek film for that to happen to. And again the fact its the 50th anniversary and your big film flops when it should’ve pulled a Skyfall can’t feel all that great either.

          • Brian Thorn

            I just want to say that I didn’t think “Independence Day 2” was a terrible movie. I never thought the first one was that great (it succeeds almost entirely by charismatic performances by Smith, Goldblum, and Pullman), so my expectations may have been more realistic than some others. I thought it was okay. Nothing great, but certainly not the worst movie in decades as some critics try to make it sound. I liked it better than a few recent clunkers, like Pacific Rim, Godzilla ’14, and Prometheus.

          • Fctiger

            Ok fair enough but in terms of reviews and audience consensus it is seen as a pretty bad movie. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 32%. The audience score on that site gave it a 34%. On IMDB its rated around a 5.9 I think. Every barometer out there says the film is pretty bad and why I’m not shocked it did so poorly at the BO either.

            BTW, Star Trek Beyond fell in 8th place on Friday and did less than $2 million. It looks like its going to eek out about $6 million total this weekend and its only in its 4th weekend of release. Its now getting beat by Secret Life of Pets again which came out sooner. For comparison sake STID did a little over $11 million on its fourth weekend.

            I don’t know what happened but this thing is a big fact stinker. This is how bad this is, it may NOT even reach $300 million. Now I’m not saying it won’t, I’m only saying is there is a actually a chance it may not get there now and thats horrible no matter how you spin it.

          • Brian Thorn

            But again, that seems typical of live action fare this summer. You’re singling out Beyond, but Beyond is just the latest of a long list of mediocre performers this summer. Ghostbusters and Bourne have had steep drops in weeks 2-4, too. And Suicide Squad plunged 70% in week 2. Only the kiddie movies seem to really hold up well this summer.

          • Fctiger

            Again the difference being Beyond is a sequel to STID which wasn’t a great BO winner but it still did nearly $500 million. This film will easily be off by $100-150+ million. GB is a reboot to a 30 year old film only people over 30 have nostalgia for and yeah it was THEM that was so against the reboot in the first place. Bourne had steep drops but its clearly going to be a success, especially with a smaller budget. And its already made more money than this film overall.

            And again Suicide Squad SUCKED!!!!! It got lower reviews than IDR. Clearly the word of mouth is what is killing a lot of these films. Are you suggesting thats what happened to Beyond as well? Because other than pure lack of interest what else can it be?

            This isn’t a scientific study, but take a look of all the films that got at least around 80% on RT this spring and summer. Those were all actually BIG hits. Civil War, Finding Dory, Secret Life of Pets (well it got 77% but close enough), Zootopia, Jungle Book, etc. Some of these films were huge, because they got great word of mouth. Beyond is the ONLY film with such a big budget and great ratings that flopped. So yes I am pointing it out for a reason because all the bad or so-so films made what they made for mostly being a bad and so-so film while the few films the last 5 months actually were big hits. Beyond is one of the only rare exceptions, especially one in this budget bracket so yes its a concern.

            Beyond looks like its losing its fanbase with each film. In America alone the first film made $260 million. The second film dropped to $230 million but that included 3D the first didn’t have. Not this film will be lucky to even make $150 million. Thats not a great trend there no matter how you slice it and would give any studio pause.

          • Somebody

            Hmm? According to the charts, it is FAR from $170M remaining to get to YOUR assumed break-even point… given that it is at $318M worldwide. 370-318=$52M remaining. So either they made a poop-ton of money in the last month since you posted, or you are making things up.

      • Matthew Kresal

        If the fans aren’t dying for more TOS era stuff why are the most successful fan film series (New Voyages and Continues) both set in that era? Why is the fan film making the biggest splash (even without a lawsuit) a prequel to TOS? I think there’s interest in it still even from people like myself who only know TOS from re-runs, home video and Netflix.

        • Fctiger

          Dude those are fan films. I would be shocked if more than 5% of most Trek fans ever watched them or knew what they are. I been a fan over 30 years, never seen any of them. I’m talking about mainstream. No one is saying TOS doesn’t fans lol, I’m one of them. I’m saying is its NOT a guarantee for success either, thats all. Beyond is proving that in spades.

          • Matthew Kresal

            I’m aware those are fan films as I believe I said above. The point is that there is clear interest in that era at least from the fan base and those productions have also gotten attention out in the mainstream as well with CNN and The New York Times giving them coverage. I think that says something…

          • Fctiger

            But its not ENOUGH, to guarantee success. Again all I;n saying. I dont think the Trek fan base as a whole love TOS as the studios think they do or Beyond wouldnt be flopping at the BO, especially one that has great reviews and celebrating its 50th anniversary. I’m not one of them, I saw it twice. I really liked it.

        • kadajawi

          The problem is that those fans tend to be pretty anal about continuity and looks. Look at all the trouble these fan films go through to get the look exactly right. Give those fans a new show playing in that timeline that doesn’t look even close to what TOS looked like, and they won’t be happy. Making a show that looks like TOS is impossible though, unless you’re a fan film and thus small enough. Then again, The Force Awakens is like a big budget fan film that is pretty anal about getting the look exactly right…

          Anyway, there is an interest in a TOS era show, but it’s pretty impossible to do one that does TOS justice AND doesn’t get laughed at by modern audiences.

          Plus, TOS is a pretty tough show to watch these days. It _really_ isn’t fitting with modern viewing sensibilities. Personally I prefer TNG and DS9 over TOS. To make those hardcore fans happy, not only does the looks have to be right, the plots also need to feel as if it is a continuation of TOS… basically season 4.

          IMHO the right way of doing this would be to give Continues say, 100-200k per episode to produce more episodes. At their leisure, and with money, under the condition that the episodes are exclusive to CBS All Access, and whoever CBS sells the rights to internationally. In turn part of the budget can go to salaries for the people involved. That way, once in a while hardcore fans have a reason to spend $10 a month or so to watch the new episodes. They’d probably do it.

          For everyone else, there can be a modern Star Trek show. Just don’t try to pander to hardcore TOS fans. Give the show some distance to TOS. Yes, connections are possible and good, like ENT did it in season 4. They were even on a Constitution class ship! It is possible to visit such a ship, looking TOS-like, once in a while. But base a whole show on it? It would look odd to newer viewers.

          • DaMac

            I think the movie studio and CBS are both blinded by thinking TOS fandom drives the franchise. Today it is much more TNG and DS9 in my experience, and the movies. I’ve been a “Trekkie” since Khan came out but have very little interest in TOS nostalgia. It’s the least enjoyable show for me to watch if I’m honest.

          • kadajawi

            Agreed. But I think they think everyone knows Kirk and Spock, and it’s only fans who know and care about what happens later. And they want to attract normal people too…

            To me TOS is too campy too. But we’ll see…

          • DaMac

            Yeah, I’m sure the goal was to turn casual cultural knowledge of Kirk and Spock into a big new franchise with a new audience. However the box office isn’t really working out and if they want to focus on core Star Trek fans I think original series nostalgia is a limited prospect.

    • lukedevine

      Yeah I was thinking it would be way in the future, like Renegades but actually well done. Kind of in the vein of the Singer reboot that never happened because ST isn’t twinky enough.

    • Michael Spadaro

      The problem with doing anything post-Nemesis (or post-DS9 and Voyager) is that you either have to line it up with the relaunch novels or set it far enough ahead that he novels aren’t constricting you from a storytelling standpoint. As excellent as the relaunch novels have been for TNG, DS9, and Voyager, I doubt any of the events depicted in them will become canon any time soon.

      That being said, were I in charge, I’d have called Nathan Fillion and asked him if he wanted to play a Starfleet captain aboard either a Sovereign- or Akira-class ship in the aftermath of the war.

      • SpaceCadet

        Well, for the exact reason you pointed out that what’s in the novels won’t be considered canon, it shouldn’t be a problem for a series to take place post-Nemesis for writers to come up with whatever original stories they want.

        • Michael Spadaro

          That’s just it though: the only rules for the novels is that they have to agree with established (on-screen) canon, they don’t necessarily have to agree with each other (and a lot of the early ones didn’t), and that’s one of the great things about the relaunch novels (that they agree with each other). It’d be a shame to rain on what has been a pretty good parade.

          • DaMac

            Not trying to be mean but no one cares. The studio doesn’t care, the vast, vast majority of fans do not care, the writers do not care. When post-Nemesis stuff finally comes the books won’t even be a thought in the writers room.

      • Corndog

        So they just ignore the books. Problem solved. Worked for Star Wars;)

        • Michael Spadaro

          And that went over real well with their fanbase.
          /s

          • Corndog

            Yeah they weren’t too happy as i recall. I was only joking about SW, but is it even the same sort of situation? SW fans took that stuff as gospel, but are the Trek books even considered canon? I haven’t read a Trek book for a long time. Last ones were the Shatner ones, and to the best of my knowledge they were not canon, but i don’t know about these relaunch ones you mentioned.

          • Michael Spadaro

            Officially, no Trek novel is considered canon (though I seem to recall that Pathways by Jeri Taylor might be, never got into the Voyager novels so I’m not 100% sure).

            That being said, since we haven’t seen any 24th century adventures on screen since Nemesis, it seems like TPTB have granted partial canon status to the relaunch ones (otherwise I doubt effort would have been made to make them all agree with each other).

          • Corndog

            So these new books are all connected in some way? That actually sounds quite interesting. Do you know if there is a reading order list i could take a look at somewhere?

          • Michael Spadaro

            Yeah. Punch ‘DS9 relaunch’, ‘Voyager relaunch’, and/or ‘TNG relaunch’ into Google and the Memory Beta pages should be the first results for each. The Destiny trilogy uses characters from all three (primarily TNG and DS9, as well as some side characters) for the final winner-take-all Borg invasion.

          • T Shull
          • Corndog

            Many thanks:)

          • Mike C.

            We DO know of one cannon post-Nemesis event – the destruction of Romulus.

          • OnlyManWhoCan

            If they had to choose between pleasing Star Trek fans who’ve read the books *and* cared versus millions of potential fans who haven’t read them and/or don’t care I think the answer is clear!

          • Michael Spadaro

            I’m aware. I still think they’d be doing everyone a disservice by not incorporating some of the events from the relaunch novels into a potential post-Nemesis/DS9/Voyager series, particularly things like Bajor entering the Federation and the Borg invasion detailed in the Destiny trilogy.

          • OnlyManWhoCan

            The Borg enters the Federation in one of the books?! My interest is piqued!

          • Michael Spadaro

            I said BAJOR, not the Borg.

            The Borg invade about 2 years after Nemesis with the express intent of curbstomping anything and everything in their path.

          • OnlyManWhoCan

            Gah! But now I want to see a story about the Borg becoming part of the Federation! (As impossible as that might sound!)

          • LS650

            Considering that TFA made more than a billion dollars in box office, I’d say they built a whole new fanbase without issue.

          • Fctiger

            Dude I doubt more than 10% who saw TFA has ever picked up a SW book. The great majority of SW fans are just casual fans. They go out and see the movie in droves, they dont care about anything else outside of those.

      • Steve Cramsie

        The novels have never been canon. The closest we came were the Countdown comics that told the story of what happened leading up to Star Trek (2009). It was written by the same people who penned the movie and the studio deemed them to be official.

    • Captain Nog

      They may already be considering another series, possibly set in another point in the prime timeline. The original teaser stated “New Crews”, and could very well indicate a second series, depending on the success of Discovery. With a shortened season of 13 episodes, they could very well release a second series, during the break between seasons of Discovery.

      • ItsOverJillBots

        I just assumed “new crews” meant that Discovery would be an anthology series and would change every season, like “American Horror Story.”

  • Brendan Jones

    Who’s got two thumbs and uploaded a speculation video hours ago that has been completed contradicted? This guy!

    Still super excited for the series, especially making a mid-ranking officer the main character.

    https://youtu.be/k-MGFdFAXas

  • NeoTechni

    I like everything except the “We’re much closer to Kirk’s universe [than that of Archer’s]” part. I want the future, not the past.

    • SpaceCadet

      All of Star Trek takes place in the future. 😉

  • Harold Heretic

    Ad-free….pleeeeeease. I long since cancelled my CBSAA sub because of the un-ffwd-able commercials. Or at least let us buy the episodes on iTunes!

    Seriously if my love for Stephen Colbert didn’t make me sit through commercials, then Star Trek won’t either.

    • Cabo 5150

      I’d love to see interim iTunes HD downloads for the episodes in advance of an eventual Blu-ray box set. I’d certainly buy them both!

      However, because the show is locked to CBS-AA domestically and Netflix in the rest of the world – the chances of iTunes availability in the near future is almost zero IMHO.

      They’ll presumably be looking to maximise streaming revenue through extended platform exclusivity.

      Also, I have a strong feeling any physical home media releases will be delayed quite considerably for the same reasons – similar to Daredevil on Netflix for instance.

      Hope springs eternal though!

      • DaMac

        Daredevil is just now coming out in the UK. Still no sign of a US release. They definitely want to keep the shows exclusive for as long as possible to drive subscriptions. Not having this show on disc next to all my others would be pretty weird though, so hopefully it happens.

        • Cabo 5150

          Yeah, I’m with you!

          There’s going to be a gap on my shelf just aching to be filled with a Discovery box set – not matter how long it takes!

  • Fctiger

    Someways this show feels like its going forward, other ways backwards. In one hand you can see that they are trying to really be bold and different almost like how DS9 just by the look of that ship (yes its hideous but still) having the lead not the Captain, sounds like it wont be the same bridge crew POV like we’re use to and I’ll be honest all of this scares me lol. But I can’t be a hypocrite I been saying Trek needs to shake things up and not just seeing Kirk in a different universe really do something different with it again and it sounds like they are really trying so we have to give them credit for that. Still dont have to like it but yeah.

    But the backward part is by setting it as a prequel, AGAIN!!! These people are afraid to move forward for some reason and I dont get why? Not everyone is enamored with that part of the time period and seeing what happened to Enterprise and what is currently happening to Beyond I don’t think its something fans really care all that much about. And it just seem to me since we have the KT films and yes Enterprise get AWAY from this period and do something different. No it doesnt have to be the 29th century or anything but what is wrong with post TUC at least? Or 10 years before Picard took the Enterprise. I just feel tired of going back to this period and frankly because neither Enterprise or the KT films has excited me about it. This could be different but I was hoping for something post TOS at the very least. Now its going to be a lot of refrences about Enterprise and TOS cameos, and I dont mean just the main characters I mean characters from the show in general. They will be doing a lot of that and Fuller all but said it saying he wants to see Spock’s mom show up at some point. I can do without all that fan service stuff but its what is coming. I guess as long as Khan isn’t white in this one I’ll live.

    • Havenbull

      I’ve been saying this since they first announced the series… WHY can’t we move the hell forward post-TNG.

      I hope Fuller addresses this… the hard question, at one point.

      My only theory is that CBS wanted to hold off to see how this series will do before they continue the post-TNG timeline where where canon hasn’t been established yet.

      • Fctiger

        I don’t get it either? We had one show set before TOS and now an entire film series redoing TOS. Now we have this show. Why are people so afraid to go forward again? I don’t care about cameos with a young Dr. McCoy I just want to see a new era and shake things up a bit.

        • kadajawi

          Because if you move too far in the future, the Federation becomes too powerful, too modern. By the 26th century the Federation is travelling through time? That’s going to cause some headache.

          Now, a show right after DS9, dealing with the post Dominion war fallout would be interesting and great. However I fear studios are afraid that people think knowledge of previous shows is required, and that may turn off viewers.

          I believe that would be a mistake though, because you can always tell it in a way that prior knowledge isn’t really required. All you need is to show that there was a big war, and there are a couple of factions in this regions of space that fought together to fight an evil empire. That they, despite being enemies, worked together to defeat their common enemy. But now that the war is over… sounds like the aftermath of WW II. The Federation may want to keep peace with the Romulans, while the Romulans may think that the Federation is very weak right now and now is the time to defeat them. And maybe some other opportunists will join in. There can be discussions within the Klingon Empire to ally with the Romulans to destroy the Federation, with some wanting to stay loyal to their closest ally who helped them defeat the Empire, and others who are more sneaky.

          You can go all these places without much prior knowledge. And a big advantage of having a show that follows all this is… people like to binge watch. Those who get into the world of the new show may get curious about the Star Trek world. Yes, it is a lot to catch up with, but it can be done. And so people will start watching TOS. (And probably decide to skip it because it is terrible). They will start watching TNG, and especially DS9. There’d be a need for DS9 to be remastered in HD/4K. Maybe the showrunners can integrate VOY somehow, some species from VOY for example. The Borg could reappear as one of the opportunistic races. There is still exploring that can be done, Voyager has returned and the Federation may send ships to explore the Delta Quadrant.

          Staying post DS9 also has the advantage that what you see there is already quite modern. With some minor changes it is a believable future, unlike TOS era which looks ancient and outdated. It’s the same problem ENT suffered from.

          • Michael Spadaro

            That’s partially what has been done in the relaunch novels.

    • I actually think a TOS prequel could be a really excellent thing if done properly. I really want to see humanity’s first steps out of the solar system. I want to see the Earth-Romulan War. I was sad to see Enterprise drop the ball so badly when it debuted. Season 4 started to get things right but it was too little too late.

      • Fctiger

        You’re right Enterprise was getting good in the 4th season but I still didn’t feel too excited about it and neither did the fans because with all the talk that it was ‘better’ people still bolted. And thats the other thing, the Earth Romulan war would be nearly a decade ago, ie, near Archer’s timeline, not Kirks. So I mean at the VERY least if you’re going to do another prequel why not purposely set it around a time that people want to see. They basically set it around this time because they want the feel of TOS but there is no real reason to do it outside of that and hey if they can do it just great, but we’ve had one show and a direct reboot of TOS and no one seems to think either got it right. I just get tired of this, when you set things in a frame where you are handcuffed to canon basicaly people are going to call you on it and I just don’t know if we won’t end up in the same boat yet again. Throw in a time period where we know squat people bitch less when you screw it up at least. But we’ll see.

        • kadajawi

          The part of ENT that was good was when they showed how everything came into being. The augments. The foundation of the Federation. The augment virus. etc. And that is what a prequel can do.

          Unfortunately I agree with you, those things happen long before TOS. I would have liked this show to be a 5th season of ENT, just with a more competent captain than Archer. But this is not going to be that.

          It is odd how he wants to keep the aesthetics of the TOS era, but presents a ship that visually has NOTHING in common with TOS. Are they doing that to explain away the different, less 1960s interior design the ship is going to have…?

          If they want to tap in with TOS nostalgia, why not make ST Continues official? Give them a budget, maybe replace some of the actors with better ones, and produce more episodes. Fuller can then take care of a proper new show.

          Btw., didn’t Fuller say he wants new aliens etc.? Then pre-TOS is REALLY not the right choice. They tried that on ENT, and that’s when ENT failed. Once they introduced known races and known events, it became much better.

  • Bifash

    Very excited by Fuller’s comments! Cannot wait.

    So glad they they are not ( yet ) going for Post-Nemesis era – I still want a show set in a time where Space ( in-universe ) still has many, many mysteries to explore – the pioneering era of Pre-Kirk is such a time.

  • M33

    Thrilled about the TOS era, but sucks that they have to pigeonhole someone as the “gay” character.
    How about dont define their sexuality at all.
    If they like men, great. Women, great. Both, great.
    It really shouldnt be the defining characteristic of the person and it is really shallow to do so otherwise.

    • Richie73

      You’re demolishing a straw man here. Fuller didn’t say that this character would be defined by their sexual orientation, or be offensively written as a token gay character. Fuller is gay himself; let’s give him some credit and assume that he’ll do this right and create a genuinely interesting and original Trek character who just happens to be gay and would just be as interesting and original if he was straight.

      • M33

        I sure hope so.
        Just because he’s gay doesn’t mean he can’t be superficial either. I have many friends in the community and some fit that bill exactly.
        I will hope for the best but some things he’s been daying have been raising some flags for me.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      The fact that you chose to write an entire post about this highlights to me that we do in fact need a gay character on the show.

      • M33

        Heres the thing. My wife is bisexual (monogamous). I helped organize gay pride events for years before now. I am the most supportive of equality you could be.
        Its just ridiculously superficial to make a character gay because you want to prove you are openminded. Thats like saying “oh yes, we will definitely have a hispanic character”, “black character”, “muslim character”, “short person character”, etc. They are really shallow stereotypes and it would be nice to see Star Trek do what its philosophically espouses:
        Let people be people.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          First, wow – you won the lottery. 😉 (just kidding)

          Secondly, OK, I get your point. Fair enough.

    • pittrek

      I hope that the character won’t be like “hey, look at me, I’m gay, do you see how gay I am?, wanna f**k? Cause I’m gay….”, but something more like “I am a competent officer just doing my hob. And BTW I am gay”.

      I hope that they understand why Uhura was so popular and inspirational. It wasn’t because they didn’t portrait her as “the black woman”, but as a competent communications officer (and a great singer) who is BTW female and black. That’s how I hope they will portrait the gay character.

      • kadajawi

        Ideally he doesn’t even have to mention it. Just the photo frame on his desk shows his husband. Or at some point he’ll casually mention his husbands name. Something along those lines, because in the Star Trek society it should be nothing special. If he has to mention and btw. I am gay, it shows that it is something special.

        • pittrek

          I agree. I have to think about the anecdote when somebody asked Patrick Stewart why didn’t they in 24th century cure male baldness or something like that and the answer was “because in 24th century nobody cares”. That’s the kind of attitude I’m hoping for.

        • AlanMorlock

          Why can’t a gay character have romantic subplots the same way any other characters have over the years?

      • Steve Cramsie

        They treated it perfectly in Star Trek Beyond. Methinks that’s how it will be in Discovery. Remember, this is 2016… Will & Grace was like “Woah!” Now? They are just as common as black actors, Asian actors, Indian actors, you name it.

        • pittrek

          The movie wasn’t released here yet so I don’t know “how” they treated it 🙂

          • Brian Thorn

            Pittrek… It’s all of about 10 seconds of screen time. Not quite as “blink and you’ll miss it” as the same-sex couple in “Frozen”, but close.

    • AlanMorlock

      They won’t be pigeonholed any more than the straight characters.

  • Darth Trulane

    I think the odds are pretty slim at this point that this series will feature any straight white caucasian male cast members… well, with the exception of the red shirts of course.

    • iMike

      There are plenty of other representations of humanity. Also, not every alien species has to be defined by the same gender/orientation roles that represents humanity. I’m sure the series will feature at least one heterosexual Caucasian male. My question to you, though, why does it have to?

      • Darth Trulane

        The idea that the show ‘has to have’ a heterosexual caucasian male is entirely your assertion. I stated no opinion on the matter, only a prediction.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Remind me not to take your betting advice in Vegas.

      • Darth Trulane

        There’s no need. I promise not to enable your gambling addiction.

    • kadajawi

      You haven’t watched much Hollywood, have you? Gods of Egypt (you know, set in Egypt) almost exclusively consisted of straight white male dudes and a couple of blonde women. And there’s this movie set in ancient China, headed by Matt Damon.

      It will be a mixed cast, yes, mixed also means straight white male. But yeah, believe what you want in your bubble.

      • Darth Trulane

        Star Trek and Hollywood are not the same thing, my bubble entrapped, thin skinned friend. This is the newest Star Trek show where a myriad of aliens are on the table which is why I merely surmised only that the odds would be slim. Also note that I’m excluding red shirts. lol …Regardless, if you want to entertain the idea of Klingons in God’s of Egypt and insist that Star Trek and Hollywood are one in the same, then knock yourself out.

    • Xandercom

      Welcome to the trek universe us homos have been completely absent from for 50 years.

      • Darth Trulane

        Exactly… you’re illustrating my point.

        • Xandercom

          I’m satirising it, and it appears to have gone over your head.

          • Darth Trulane

            If you’re suggesting that my mind is being clouded by the Dark Side of the Force, you are mistaken.

          • Xandercom

            ??

    • Steve Cramsie

      Yeah, 70 years of having predominantly that on TV was rough, wasn’t it.

      • Darth Trulane

        Exactly! We must make restitution my friend.

    • Ace Stephens

      I met a straight white Caucasian male once. It was the worst. Prior to that, I thought they were merely a fictional construct, given their prevalence in most entertainment media. Personally, now knowing that these horrors are out there, I hope to see far fewer of them in Trek.

      • Darth Trulane

        Exactly, I think it goes without saying that straight white males should be banished from entertainment until the powers that deem that they have sufficiently paid for the injustice that they have perpitrated on the entertainment industry and culture at large.

  • SpaceCadet

    This is probably not one of the most pressing questions but I’m really curious to see if the will depict the Klingons of this era as smooth-headed? Lol. I mean, they made the whole thing canon in Enterprise anyway. I just wonder if Discovery will stay consistent on this fact or they’ll reimagine the look of the Klingons again.

    I’m not super-excited by the pre-TOS setting but I guess it does open up some story-telling possibilities. The Klingons made for great adversaries after all.

    I’m excited for the diversity in the cast. It’s way past time Star Trek moved past it’s heterosexual exclusive casts and actually reflect the real world for once. A female lead makes sense since there’s only been one other one prior. Maybe they can make the captain female too so we can have the second female captain in a Trek series. Or they could have a female majority main cast just to flip things around from how it’s always been before. Yes, to more “robots” and “aliens”, just hoping there isn’t a Vulcan main character because that’s been done to death and I find the race kind of bland in general. Having the POV from a non-captain character seems daring and fresh.

    Not liking the ship design but hopefully that will change as well.

    And to those who were hoping for a series set post-Nemesis, who’s to say that won’t still happen at some point. I’m sure there are plenty more Trek series to come! :o)

    • Eric Cheung

      The writers of ENT said that their episode left the option open to interpretation. The Klingons could be ridged or not, depending on if they had the virus.

      • SpaceCadet

        Sure. But in TOS they were all exclusively smooth-headed. So it might seem a bit odd that in a show set 10 years before TOS they have ridges again. But really, I wouldn’t mind. Nothing wrong with a re-imagining. After all, ridges were added to Romulans in the TNG-era and retroactively in Enterprise and that was never bothered to be explained.

        • Eric Cheung

          They could be a mix too though. I think Star Trek: New Voyages/Phase II used this approach.

  • Locutus

    I appreciate the effort to shake up the Star Trek storytelling recipe. Focusing on a Lt. Commander might not have been the way I would have done it, but I’m willing to give it a shot since we still really know so little. I could imagine the “caveat” being that the character is on a secret mission and given Lt. Commander ranking for purposes of the mission. Perhaps even a Section 31 agent. As for the time period, I like the TOS era so I am okay with it and maybe even prefer it to going post-Nemesis, if done right. It does seem fraught with continuity pitfalls. However, Fuller knows his way around Trek, so I doubt we’ll see the TNG-lite problems I felt with ST: Enterprise (Ferengi, Borg). He seems far more likely to stay true to the era.

  • Havenbull

    Fuller : “Well… If asked, 95% of the fans would want a post-Nemesis
    timeline. Its unmarked territory, and we could literally take the Star
    Trek saga and ethos into any interesting and unforeseen direction using
    modern serialized storytelling.”

    CBS : “We don’t feel that will work… We need to set the series prior to the most popular timeline, using the ‘prequel’ design.

    Fuller : “Prequels don’t generally work. They disappoint the established fanbase and confuse the non-fans who might be interested in giving it a shot.”

    CBS : “Wouldn’t Hannibal be considered a prequel of sorts? That was a great show.”

    Fuller : “Yes, and it was cancelled.”

    CBS : “hmmm… We see your point, but we’re paying the bill for this experiment so we need to play it safe. Screw the fans.”

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      What a load of crap. Take less meds and you will stop having these weird dreams. 😉

    • Eric Cheung

      That’s exactly the opposite conversation Berman and Braga had with Paramount back in 2001. Paramount wanted them to do a show set in the future, but B&B wanted to do a prequel. Even then, they didn’t get to do the show they wanted really, where the first season would be about assembling the crew and ship, without the Temporal Cold War, and then they’d set off in season two. That would have been fascinating.

  • Bifash

    Another report makes mention of ‘a Klingon captain’ – this might not necessarily mean he captain of the Discovery, but could be heading up a Klingon vessel that encounters the Discovery.

    • Eric Cheung

      SPOILERS

      There were quickly deleted pieces of concept art that included a design for a ship called the Klingon Sarcophagus, that looked like a cathedral. Possibly an ancient Klingon design, with a resurrected crew?

  • The Science Fiction Oracle

    A Lt. Commander would never be given a ship. A Commander might. This is kind of nonsensical?

    A hope we get a female gay character this time instead of male.

    And it this is going to work for me, we better get “clean ships” that look more like TOS Enterprise versus the horrid busy designs that Berman gave us on Enterprise.

    PS: Trekcore, please, I beg of you to stop showing that butt-ugly ship.

    • Bifash

      Lol, I personally love the ship design – it looks like the vulcan IDIC, AND ( a symmertical version of ) the Star Trek logo. I think it’s aggresive, clunky look will have some significance to the story. As it’s not a “U.S.S. Enterprise” but another vessel, I am open to it not looking ‘beautiful’.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Well, it does look better than the NX-01; I’ll give it that much. 🙂

        • Bifash

          You didn’t like the NX-01? That’s a pity, I really dug that design.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I suppose you love the D as well?

          • Bifash

            That’s a GHASTLY ship, lol! Like a flying teapot. My fave Trek ship is probably the refit ENTERPRISE and the ENTERPRISE-A from the movies.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Well said! My opinion of you is way, way up now. 😉

          • Bifash

            I think if the Discovery design had been for an Enterprise, it may have been wrong – in fact, it would definitely have been so.
            As it’s a totally different ship, without a fuller context, it’s hard for me to dislike it straight off – I suspect its looks/design/function will come into play in the series.
            I could be wrong, but I have faith in Fuller as I’m a huge fan of his HANNIBAL series which was rich, mysterious, and visually intriguing.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Well, I will try to have an open mind, The shoddy quality of the special effects from that demo they released has undoubtedly effected my opinion. Seeing that ship done with great special effects could sway me.

          • Bifash

            Fingers crossed. I think the next thing to sway the fans will be the casting – which each new Trek series since and including TNG, I’ve always been excited to see what the new crew looks like.

            My hope ( and wild speculation ) is that Lt. Commander ________ is NOT a Section 31 member, but someone who will evolve over the course of the series to ultimately become the Captain.

            Perhaps the DSC Captain is a secret Section 31 operative who will ultimately be exposed by our Lt. Commander – that would validate her role and evolution into a true Roddenberry-esque hero for the Trek universe.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Interesting. Personally, I am thinking the ship design points to some joint venture or relationship to the Klingons.

          • Bifash

            Yep, that’s a strong possibilty too – the look, the music ( in the teaser ) and the sfx sounds would suggest so.

            That may also lend credence to the idea of the lead who is “a Klingon captain” – while not necessarily indicative of the Captain of the Discovery – if he IS the captain of the Discovery, then it could suggest an ( uneasy ) alliance between a Klingon faction and Starfleet, during a desperate time for a mission dealing with a bigger threat.

            Perhaps it was the Discovery mission itself that paved the way for the unholy union between Section 31/Starfleet and the Klingons again during the Khitomer Conference affair in STAR TREK VI.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Yea, or maybe a special one-time cooperative effort into deep space between the Fed and KE for a special purpose….which would then explain the story arc concept for the first season.

          • FrostUK

            It’s supposed to look like a flying teapot.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU338bxB5Lo

    • kadajawi

      The reason why the NX-01 looks so busy is because it’s an older design. It was cobbled together, and not as technically advanced. Design wasn’t as important, and they couldn’t make the ship so sleek. It had to be functional.

    • Eric Cheung

      In the real navy, Lieutenant Commanders are given ships all the time, just of smaller ships. Even in TOS, Spock started out as a Lieutenant Commander. Sisko was a Commander, and administrator of an entire space station. Surely he could have had a command when he was a lieutenant commander.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        I meant large ships, obviously. Look at the size of this ship from the artwork — it’s huge. In the real Navy, no way would a Lt Comnader be given full long-term command of an Aegis Cruiser or and Aircraft Carrier…fact!

        “Sisko was a Commander, and administrator of an entire space station.”

        Exactly! He wasn’t a Lt. Commander. As I said…

        • Eric Cheung

          But if he was a commander and had an assignment much larger than simply the captain of a ship, it doesn’t seem implausible that he could have commanded a starship as a lieutenant commander.

          And Dax was in command of the Defiant as a lieutenant commander. There are other canon examples of lieutenant commanders with more permanent commands: Piersall of the USS Prometheus and Tom Markel of the USS Ariel.

          Anyway, it doesn’t matter, as the lieutenant commander mentioned isn’t even the captain of the Discovery anyway. She’s the lead, but not the captain.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I don’t think commanding DS9 was originally deemed by Starfleet to be up there with a Starship Captain’s assignment.

            Dax commanded a small ship that flew intermittently.

  • Cold Case Posse Supporter

    I have a big question. Now that we know the series is set 10 years before TOS, can someone explain why the USS Discovery has a recessed blue navigational deflector dish, a dish that won’t be seen until TMP refit Enterprise era?

    • Bifash

      Perhaps the Refit got the idea from the Discovery?

      • Cold Case Posse Supporter

        I guess you could be right.

        • Steve Cramsie

          Then why does the Constitution-class, launched in the 2240s, have the old school gold dish? Let’s face it folks, the ship just doesn’t fit.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Because this is fiction and Fuller has already stated that they are going to reinvent the look of that time period significantly.

          • Cold Case Posse Supporter

            That’s the reason I asked the question. It doesn’t make sense and no blue navigational deflector dish was ever seen in any comic or on a novel cover covering TOS era

          • Brian Thorn

            High cost and reliability problems drove them back to the gold dish? Why is that so hard to accept?

    • Brian Thorn

      I’m going with the notion that Discovery is a testbed of new technologies for Starfleet. Some pan out (the recessed, glowing deflector), some don’t (nested nacelles.)

  • Visitor1982

    Exciting times!

    What I don’t get: the next ‘dump’ of information is coming in October? I thought they were gonna start filming in September? Wouldn’t they normally held a press conference before that to present the cast? I mean, a month into filming, we probably see which actor hangs around the set all the time, won’t we?

    • Bifash

      I imagine they’ll release a full cast-and-character list soon enough, as they did for the previous series.

  • bytes

    Will the show “absolutely” have a straight character? Such progressive thoughts are important for mankind to reach the future.

    • kadajawi

      He said there will be ONE gay character. Unless it is a really, REALLY tiny ship, I don’t think you have to worry.

      • bytes

        I am being snarky. But I do get the feeling that a campaign exists to include a focus of topics regarding diversity and sexual orientation. Thing that do not need to be pushed. If they want to include this into the show, then just add it. Sisko being black was never pushed. Janeway being a woman was never pushed. Kirk kissing Uhura was never pushed. Jadzia kissing a former lover, now in a woman’s body was never pushed. They just added these things and allowed us to react as it happened. It feels political now, and the shownhas not started.

        • Ed Lilli

          It’s a very different time than it was then. The Internet changed all that. The “campaign” to focus on diversity does need to be pushed. CBS is heading into next season with five new series, all featuring white male leads. Bet they’re all straight, too.

          I’m not being snarky, but truthful.

          • bytes

            Why does it need to be pushed?

          • Ed Lilli

            If you need it explained, I don’t think anything I can write will help you understand.

          • bytes

            I doesn’t hurt to try.

          • Eric Cheung

            Without Uhura, there might not have been a Whoopi Goldberg, LeVar Burton, or Mae Jemison. They might not have felt the empowerment of seeing people like themselves on screen and had the confidence to pursue their careers.

            How many engineers cite Star Trek as the reason they chose their career? Many women scientists, doctors, and law enforcement officials cite Dana Scully as the reason they had the confidence to pursue their careers.

            Representation matters.

          • Steve Cramsie

            Because people like you are scared of change and seeing the real world on a show like this. People like you didn’t want women or minorities “pushed” onto them in TV decades ago, but good producers did.. and we are better for it now.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Exactly. The fact that so many people have posted in the last 24 hours about “oh, this is not necessary, etc” is EXACTLY WHY THEY NEED TO DO THIS.

            When the day comes that nobody whines about this — that will be the day that the character announcement as gay wasn’t necessary.

          • bytes

            My question is, why does it have to involve us the viewers to have it pushed for production? Why not just do it and show us like they always have? Let us react in surprise when it happens. No need to campaign to involve us in the production.

          • Steve Cramsie

            The guy is having a casual conversation, discussing unique tidbits about the show. You are basically implying it should be kept quiet and not be known until one of the characters reveals it by circumstance? Like it or not, it’s news.. you’ve made it clear that this sort of thing gives you the “eebie jeebies”, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth talking about now.

          • bytes

            Please state “eebie jeebie” moment.

            Yes, I am suggesting to let the viewers watch the show and decide their feelings about each fictional character. We should not be expected to like a character simply because they have freckles. People with freckles can be jerks, and we are allowed to dislike them for their attitude, and take no inspiration from them. Even if there is a political campaign about a fictional show based on “the human adventure to the stars”, to force us to like freckled people for bearing the burden of freckles.

          • Steve Cramsie

            He’s not asking fans to like anything. He was simply stating one of the characters will have this trait, which is significant because this is the first time a show in this franchise will have done this. With race you can be “discreet” like you ask because we can physically see it without anyone saying anything. This is different.

          • Eric Cheung

            Disliking anyone for any trait that is beyond their control is silly and wrong, and your hypothetical example of being “forced to like people with freckles” illustrates this perfectly. Why would you have a problem liking anyone with such a trait substituted for your variable. No one’s forcing you to like anyone, but how can that trait be the deterrent?

          • bytes

            Voyager was my favorite Trek, and I named a network server Janeway.

        • Eric Cheung

          Oh those things absolutely were, and needed to be, fought for. The reason they don’t seem like they were is that they don’t read that way on-screen, and from a 21st century perspective.

          But even on-screen, Sisko certainly understood the weight of history, as did Picard when he felt the responsibility of his ancestors’ treatment of American Indians.

          It’s political now, and that can’t be helped. But in the future, when another underrepresented people seeks a place in media, the gay character(s) in Star Trek: Discovery will be cited as an example of how “it wasn’t a problem then, but we can’t do that now! They could never execute as well as they did back in 2017.”

        • kadajawi

          Didn’t Roddenberry have to fight for having a black woman on the bridge? For having Kirk kiss Uhura? They didn’t even want to kiss, according to the plot, they were forced to. Couldn’t one of Kirk’s lover of the week be black? No, they were always white, and that one kiss didn’t happen out of free will, giving white people some relief. Still it was a scandal. Oh, he was forced to kiss her. Phew. He didn’t want to do it.

          TOS was supposed to have a female first officer… and gosh, she was competent and professional, and not hot eye-candy. Studios intervened.

          Some stations didn’t want to air the kiss between Jadzia and her former lover… and again, there it just happened to be that she is a woman now. She didn’t fall in love with a woman, she wasn’t gay. Even DS9 was as straight as hell. They kept explaining away that people could actually be gay, or straight, or anything. Still, it was a scandal.

          JJ Trek’s Sulu was the very first time one relationship was shown that wasn’t straight, and there were quite a few shown. Considering that society has a certain percentage of gay people, that seems rather odd.

          And Janeway? Her character was overtly male, she was bossy, and at times even insane. She couldn’t be an ordinary woman.

          We don’t know how this gay character will be interwoven into the series. For all we know it can happen completely casual, without a political agenda. Anyway, having gay characters on a show is hardly progressive at all. Many mainstream shows have been doing this for quite a while… even while Star Trek Voyager was still on the air.

  • kadajawi

    Hm. Not my favourite part of the timeline. I would like to see something closer to Archer, or at least in the middle between ENT and TOS. Or between TOS and TNG. Post TNG series sadly don’t make too much sense. You quickly become too technologically advanced to make for interesting drama. Unless it is right after DS9.

    If that ship is a section 31 ship the design might make sense. As a regular ship it doesn’t. It doesn’t look anything like what Starfleet did around that time.

    I wonder how they will solve the outdated looking interiors of the ships… by our standards the Constitution class looks outdated.

    • Jason Aud

      A ship of this type was seen as far back as The Search for Spock so it’s not completely out of the question for being around even earlier it just usually shows up in the background.

      • kadajawi

        Yes, I guess it is canon, but it still doesn’t make any sense if it is a real Federation design. It doesn’t speak their language.

        • Brian Thorn

          There is no reason it couldn’t be a one-off from an experimental class of starship, a design that was built with high hopes of improvement but generally failed to meet expectations and was not followed up. See the USS Zumwalt in today’s US Navy. Looks unlike anything else in the fleet.

        • Shawn

          I think it does look like a pre-constitution class ship. If you look at the design, you see the star drive becoming a smaller part of the ship as engines get more advanced, and the saucer section becoming a larger portion of the ship as more crew and families live on board.

          Also, this ship design was features in one Star Trek movie and one TNG episode.

  • Thomas W.

    Just one word: *yawn*

    • What would you do if you were in charge?

      • Thomas W.

        Boldly going forward where no man has gone before.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Yep. I’d reinvent Trek for this new show and free it from existing canon entirely. Now that would be bold.

      • Jean Michel

        Between TOS and TNG. Between the series that people cared about. Can’t say the same about ENT and TOS.

      • Brian Thorn

        My proposal: Set 10-ish years after TNG/DS9/Voyager, the first circumnavigation of the galaxy aboard a fleet of ships led by the USS Magellan, with a crew made up of all the Alpha/Beta Quadrant powers. The mission is to pick up the pieces after the collapse of the Borg and Dominion.

    • Steve Cramsie

      So you’ve watched the entire series already, eh?

  • pittrek

    Well, why do you care about “diversity” so much? If you want a strong female lead, OK, just hire a GOOD actress and write her as a interesting character, most of us don’t care if she’s black, white, yellow, red, or orange with blue dots.

    • Michael Spadaro

      Seconding this. As long as person can act, most people don’t care about skin color.

  • pittrek

    And BTW there goes my hope for the Romulan war 🙁

  • kadajawi

    If Axanar is not part of the show… he’s a wild idea: Let Axanar proceed. Make it canon. With financial backing (and profiting) from CBS/Paramount. A small 100 million dollar movie to fill the gap until ST14 comes out. Rogue One will probably work, and is more militaristic. There’s no reason why Axanar wouldn’t work and gather big audiences. The crowdfunding shows that there is an audience for it. Just don’t make it too over the top in terms of JJ Trek fighting style… it plays before the Kelvin incident and needs to have ships that have some weight and heft.

    • Eric Cheung

      Even nowadays a $100 million movie is not small.

    • Michael Spadaro

      That is never, EVER going to happen.

  • lukedevine

    I’m a little creeped out that I picked this title over 20 years ago. Does that just mean it’s a really obvious title?

    • Eric Cheung

      I actually made a kitbash of the 1701-A that I called the Discovery-class, basically a movie-era version of the Nebula-class. My idea was that it was a patrol ship in the wake of the Khitomer Accords.

  • i hope they will keep this consistent and not mix up things between the Prime Universe and the Abrams Parallel Universe. they really shouldn’t bring actors from the Abramsverse into this, as it has been established in the comics recently that the same characters actually do look different in the two universes. the characters themselves have even noticed and acknowledged that visual difference. so it would make no sense to bring in (for example) Karl Urban to play McCoy.

    • TUP

      I can see that point. To be honest, the actors who brought the original characters to life in a good way have a pass in my mind. For example, if we see Captain Pike’s Enterprise, I’d just as soon see Bruce Greenwood in the role. If they use a young Spock, as much as Quinto is hit and miss, I’d be fine with seeing him.

      Speculation of Spock’s mother being involved…I’d like to see Ryder in that role again. If the choice is between NEW actors and actors who have done the roles justice, then lets see the actors reprise them. Urban as Bones for example.

      And ofcourse William Shatner as James T Kirk. Might make for a great season two arc.

  • Corndog

    Another prequel, confirmed. Seriously, do they even know what Trek is about? I’m sick of prequels. It didn’t work with Enterprise, so why on earth do they think that it will work now?

    Trek is supposed to be about the future. Why are they so afraid to make something that is post Nemesis?

    I was looking forward to a new Trek show, but now, not so much. Not at all actually.

    • isn’t TREK also about optimism and a scientific approach? so stop being pessimistic, and observe the actual series before you make baseless claims about it 😛

      • Corndog

        I take you point, but i don’t know what to tell you. I hate prequels. I already used up all my Trek related prequel optimism before Ent came out, and looks where that got us….

        Surely i can’t be the only person that wants to see what happens next in the Trek timeline? I don’t want to go back to TOS again, again!

        • sure, on the one hand, it would be great to see what happens after NEMESIS and STAR TREK (2009) in the Prime Universe…

          on the other hand, does it really matter? sure, they could make even more streamlined starships and whatever new technology they could dream up… but isn’t STAR TREK really about the stories? it is to me. you can tell great stories in any time period.

          • Corndog

            Respectfully, yes of course it matters. The location, the setting, is a massive part of the story and will directly affect the type of things you can do on the show. If it wasn’t important, then why bother setting the show on a spaceship in the future at all?

            If it is purely down to interpersonal drama being the only thing that matters then all shows should be set in contemporary times. There would be no need for additional story elements such as the scifi location and setting.

          • that’s a slippery slope fallacy now. i never said it didn’t matter wherever and whenever the series is set. i said it doesn’t necessarily matter if it’s set after 2370 or around 2240.

          • Corndog

            I think it does, personally. I already know all i want to know about the TOS era of Trek, but i would love to know what happened after Nemesis, beyond what i have read in comics ETC.

            No disrespect meant by any of this at all. Just my own preferences. As a general rule, i’m not overly fond of prequels, reboots or reimaginings:)

          • TUP

            How do you know you know everything you want to know about the TOS era? We were shown three years of it during a low tech period of the 1960’s. We know virtually nothing. Sure, we can extrapolate some stories and we can read novels. And we know the Federation and Starfleet exist and survive. But we dont know anything that happened outside of what three seasons of TOS shows us happened on the Enterprise.

            Judge the show for what it is once you see it.

          • Corndog

            I guess feeling like i ‘know how it ends’ is one of my main issues with prequels, and part of the reason i would prefer post Nemesis; we don’t know what happens next.

          • Shawn

            Ha! That is hilarious. What if we choose a movie at random. Or TV show. Or TV episode. I turn to you and say ‘the antagonist’ or villian or enemy wins.

            Would you believe me?

            Or would you say that in these things the protagonists usually win. You already know how it ends.

            Am I the only one here who rewatched stuff? Can you really be a Star Trek fan without rewatching things and ‘knowing how it will end?’

            Now that I think of it, this obsession with knowing how it ends shows the biases of science fiction fans in general.

            We accept poor characterization as long as they get some interesting or important seeming plots. Don’t believe me?

            They have been pretty clear that the new show will personally follow the Lt. Cmd. around and will be her story. The focus will be more personal than before. I suspect it will be small scale. It won’t be about the rise and fall of the Federation. It will be about someone in the Federation.

            Despite them being clear about this, we are talking about the big picture. I admit, I could be wrong.

            “Consider Phlebas” is a sci-fi novel where at the end the author skips forward a thousand years. It highlights how nothing that happened in the book actually mattered in the long run. I’m not opposed to that view.

          • Eric Cheung

            I wouldn’t mind that either. The first ever proposed spin-off was Assignment: Earth after all. They could do a show about the lead-up to the Sanctuary Districts. That would be compelling and totally relevant.

            Roddenberry’s original reason for setting the show in the future was to tell contemporary stories without network notes. So, yeah contemporary stories are always on the table. Nicholas Meyer observed that no matter when your movie is set, it’s always about the period it’s made anyway. So the 70s musical 1776 has a different point of view from the HBO miniseries John Adams.

            The time and setting matters in terms of setting the show up, but the quality of it will only be determined by the execution of that show’s premise. I think what brightgeist probably meant wasn’t that it doesn’t matter, but that there’s nothing inherently detrimental or beneficial to setting it in one time period over another.

          • TUP

            The time doesnt matter though. Whats the difference between 2250 and 2550? You dont know the story or the tone of either. Why be pessimistic? Now, I can tell you why I dont prefer a 2550 time because I want the focus to be on the characters and not the technology and going further and further to the future makes the tech too critical to the story.

          • Corndog

            That is my point though, if it was purely about characters and their interpersonal drama, then there would be no need for the SciFi setting at all. It could just as easily take place on Earth, in 2016.

    • TUP

      @Corndog – sorry, you dont know what Star Trek is about if you think its just about moving the bar further and further into the future. Ten years before TOS is still OUR future. Its not like the series takes place in the 1930’s.

      • Corndog

        We’ve already seen the TOS time period, so here in the real world it’s the past; been there done that. I want to know what happens next, not what happened previously…

        I’ve been watching Trek for 35 years. I think i have a fair idea what it is about.

        • TUP

          And yet you don’t. Weird.

          • Corndog

            Don’t be such a condescending ass. It’s really unnecessary.

          • Ed Lilli

            I’ve been watching Trek for 35 years. I think i have a fair idea what it is about.

            Condescension seems to be catchy.

          • Corndog

            That’s wasn’t condescending. It was matter of fact in response to an already condescending post. ‘you don’t know what Stat Trek is about’.

          • Ed Lilli

            Corndog, I’m sure you’re a really cool corndog, but when you write stuff like, “Seriously, do they even know what Trek is about?” You show your ignorance about all of it. Also, I struggle to see how this initial comment isn’t condescension. It begs dispute, too. Star Trek is different for everyone. Your statement suggests monotony, sameness. Might as well be Berman and Braga doing the show. They knew what it was about, no?

            You wrote, “Why are they so afraid to make something that is post Nemesis?” You suggest fear where you cannot know it exists. The reason a prequel didn’t work with Enterprise was the writing; the veneer of time period was not the basis for its demise.

            I’ve been watching Star Trek for 45 years. Does this mean I know a fair more about it than you? Maybe.

            You do realize who all the WRITERS involved are, right? These people ARE writers. That’s their job, which only makes your original emphasis the more ridiculous. They’ve worked with these ideas further than you have, unless you got a hidden list of writing credits in the Star Trek canon hidden inside your torpedo tube. 😉 They probably know even more about it than you or me.

            I am sorry that the show’s setting isn’t what you’d hoped. Maybe you might muster a kernel of anticipation when they give us a full trailer. I’m cautiously optimistic. Like I stated before, I’ve been watching Star Trek since the early 70s. It’s taken this long for a gay character to get a station on the bridge. I hope you don’t have to wait as long to see a post Nemesis show.

          • Corndog

            Sure, why not.

          • Arch Stanton

            He’s one of the abusive PC police that have infested fandom. I saw his comments on Trekmovie.com. Anyone not thrilled with the token gay character he calls a bigot and a homophobe. He doesn’t get that tokenism is more offensive than exclusion. It’s comments like his that have turned so many fans off.

          • Eric Cheung

            I don’t think that the gay character(s) will be tokens. But generally, the road to representation for any underrepresented people is a rocky, but necessary one. That may even include tokenism as a step in that direction, because invisibility really is worse.

            Campaigns to get more minorities into films and television are generally not propaganda, nor are they space races. Hopefully I can clarify why they’re not.

            A larger sociological issue is that there are several stages an underrepresented people go through in the media (they’re more or less linear):

            1. Invisibility
            2. Caricatures as played by the dominant people, white people in blackface or yellow face, often as villains or comic relief (the Amos n Andy radio show).
            3. Caricatures as played by representatives of the underrepresented people (the Amos n Andy TV show, Long Duk Dong).
            4. Token characters (what in television would be called extras, with no lines, or co-stars, with lines that render the character someone whose sole purpose is to move the plot forward, i.e. a nameless helmsman on the Enterprise).
            5. Noble characters played by representatives of the underrepresented people (which itself is a problem as it’s a large contributor to creating false idealized portraits. Rightly or wrongly The Cosby Show was criticized for this, and it’s a major factor in the concept of the Model Minority).
            6. Characters that are minority versions of sanitized white sitcoms with recycled plots.
            7. Flawed and complex characters written and performed by the underrepresented people that tell that people’s story.
            8. Saturated proportional representation that allows honest representation, both in numbers and in the diversity of characters within the underrepresented people.

          • TUP

            If you’re referring to me, you are dead wrong. And I;d dare say the anti-token crowd is just a new twist on the same old bigotry. I’ve stated many times a gay character in Star Trek should exist in the same way a straight character does – in the sense their sexuality doesnt matter.

            Was Uhura a token black? Was Chekov a token Russian? Maybe so. But the tokenism was to make a point about modern society and sensibilities. You could watch TOS and say gee, why is it a big deal that Kirk kisses Uhura. Why is it a big deal that there is a Russian on the bridge. Let’s make everyone white males because why bother being different? Why have a female captain? etc.

            Homophobia is the new racism. The struggle for gay rights is the new civil rights movement. And anyone who disagrees with that will, in time, be akin to your racist old grandpa that everyone rolls their eyes at but doesnt take seriously because he’s an old crank anyway.

            If the Captain remarks to the gay office that he’s proud he can be openly gay, then yes, I will cringe. If the gay officer kisses his/her partner and no one bats an eye, then its exactly what it should be. And Im all for that.

          • TUP

            Not condescending to point out you’re making blanket statements that Fuller doesnt know what Trek is about when you have no clue as to the quality or tone of this series. “Going forward” isnt about literally going forward in time. That’s incredibly simplistic and silly.

          • Corndog

            Fair enough, I concede that Fuller knows his stuff. Poor choice of words, I apologise.

            Don’t you think it’s a little stagnant to keep revisiting Treks past though? Feels like they’re repeating themselves. When this show comes out it means the last two shows and the last three movies have all been prequels; alternative timeline in the movie though of course.

            If I can use a book analogy, I want to read the next chapter in the Trek timeline rather than skip back to previous chapters, that’s all. Don’t you have any interest in what happened post Nemesis?

          • TUP

            I understand your point. And I can see the relevancy to it. But to me, its not the “past” because its still our future. We saw TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and some weird hybrid with the JJ films…those were all TOS and beyond. We saw time ships and temporal wars. The future has been more explored then the pre-TOS time.

            Enterprise was a GREAT premise that never actually embraced its premise. It was Voyager Season 8.

            Star Trek is us extrapolated into the future. Its what becomes of humanity. Its the hopes and dreams of a peaceful & united earth with space exploration and the wonderment of discovery. So the closer connection to our present time is actually a breath of fresh air and a great opportunity to tell the kinds of stories Trek has become known for.

            Us in 2016 is so different from us in 1987 and 1995. But once you go to 2500’s, then it becomes more about the fantasy technology, the science fantasy, not the science fiction.

            Thats why I like the idea of a “prequel”. Because it grounds the show in some semblance of recognizable reality. Its barely 200 years from now as opposed to 200 years beyond TOS. And quite frankly, it IS an unexplored era. Sure, we know Starfleet survives because we saw it in TOS…but that world is still a gigantic ocean with lots of exploration left.

          • Corndog

            You make good points, and although I may not agree with everything you said I can certainly understand where you’re coming from.

            All I can say is that I’m cautiously hopeful, and I will give it a fair shot when it’s released.

      • Eric Cheung

        And even if Star Trek did take place in the 1930s, that wouldn’t make it a good or bad show. I mean Boardwalk Empire was a hit, and that was the 1920s.

        Star Trek can literally take place any time it wants. There could be a show about Vulcans’ survey missions circa the 1950s, but at other worlds. They could intercept our TV broadcasts.

        We could see a show about Redjac’s or Adonis’ or Gary Seven’s exploits through history.

        We could do a show about undercover El Aurians in the present, or even something like Greg Cox’s Eugenics Wars books about the hidden history of Earth during the turn of the millennium.

        The possibilities are infinite.

        • TUP

          I agree, Eric. Some people are more focused on the time period than the quality.

          • Eric Cheung

            If there’s anything that makes me think this is a bit of a retread, it’s that the show is on another Starfleet vessel. I’d love to see a civilian ship, or even a non-Federation ship. Or even no ship, but something planet-side. DS9 was originally going to be set in a Hong Kong-like city instead of a space station, but budget wouldn’t allow for it. I think they could do that now if they wanted. I just wish they thought a bit more outside the box. The non-captain lead thing is promising though.

            But again, if it’s executed well, it doesn’t matter.

  • Guest

    Meh. Really not jazzed about most of this, particularly the timeline. Yet another prequel… Between Enterprise and the Kelvinverse, they’ve been doing nothing but prequels for the last 15 years, and frankly, I’m quite tired of it. The franchise should be moving forward, not backward. There’s so much to be explored post-Nemesis, which would allow for some of the older characters and actors from the 24th century era to return, all older and wiser now. Furthermore, doing prequels just ties your hands creatively and paints you into a corner, ala Enterprise, because you’ve got 4 series and 10 movies that take place after, who’s toes you must constantly avoid stepping on, continuity-wise.

    I’m also a bit concerned about his comments regarding “reimagining of existing alien [species]”. That worked with the Klingons when they were reimagined/redesigned for the TOS movies and TNG, but the post-TOS era shows and films were mindful not to change too much, and to be respectful of what had come before. The Romulans and the Andorians got very slight tweaks in their designs, but in essence were the same. I wouldn’t call those “reimaginings”. The Trill were completely redesigned for DS9, but that’s mainly because the original design was so bland and forgettable, hardly anyone even noticed or cared. Then you look at how Abrams and co. “reimagined” the Klingons for Into Darkness, and they looked terrible… Basically, I don’t want them f**king around and playing fast and loose with any classic alien species. There’s wiggle room for improvement with say the Gorn or the Tholians, none of whom were ever really fleshed out to begin with, only appeared once or twice in TOS and looked cheesy anyway, but is a classic species like the Klingons, Romulans, Andorians, or any of the species introduced during the TNG/DS9 era like the Borg, Cardassians, Bajorans, Ferengi, etc. show up on Discovery “reimagined”, I’m gonna be f**king pissed…

    As for having another robot main-character, Data was supposed to be the first synthetic lifeform serving aboard a Starfleet vessel. So not only would this potentially break continuity if you’ve got a robotic crew member, but it also robs Data’s of his uniqueness. Also, between Data and The Doctor, I think Trek has already covered pretty much every story you can tell about a synthetic lifeform seeking to become more human. Spock, Odo and T’Pol kinda fit into that category as well even though they were not synthetics. It’s been done to death.

    IDK, most of what I’ve seen and heard about Discovery thus far just screams “creative bankruptcy” and “stale”. Having a gay character is progressive I suppose, but we’ve had prominent gay characters in television and film since the 90s. This isn’t some new novel milestone anymore, it’s quite commonplace now. So the fact that they included that little tidbit in the press release, as if to say, “look at how current and ahead-of-the-curve we are, just like the original show!”, just shows how clueless and out of touch they are. Buffy beat you guys by nearly 20 years… If that’s the best you’ve got to show in the way of being ahead if the curve, you’ve got a problem…

    Also, and this is a somewhat minor nitpick, but it just feels off to me to center a show on the Lieutenant Commander. Trek was always an ensemble show, with the Captain having first billing. That’s just sort of the format, but now it’s sounding like this show will have a single main character, and the rest of the cast will be supporting characters. You know, like nearly every other serialized show out there at the moment… And that’s another thing, this show will be completely serialized, and feature one singular story/plot played out over a mere thirteen episodes. Again, not Trek… DS9 found the perfect balance between episodic storytelling and serialized storytelling IMO. This show should’ve taken a few pages from DS9’s book. Sadly, they seem to be taking pages from every other book but a Star Trek one.

    • Ace Stephens

      There’s so much to be explored post-Nemesis, which would allow for some of the older characters and actors from the 24th century era to return…

      In a franchise featuring time travel as much as Trek has, I don’t think the timeframe of this show precludes things along those lines occurring in some form or fashion if they have a meaningful story to tell surrounding them.

      but if a classic species like the Klingons, Romulans, Andorians, or any of the species introduced during the TNG/DS9 era like the Borg, Cardassians, Bajorans, Ferengi, etc. show up on Discovery “reimagined”, I’m gonna be f**king pissed…

      I understand your concern. I hate it when things don’t line up in continuity in ways that just don’t really make sense (like it’s hard to even conceive of why exactly they might have changed or differed) but there are always possibilities for change in these realms. For instance, perhaps we encounter a “reimagined” version of some species and it winds up being the case, in-canon (although we may not find out ASAP), that this is some racial variation, subdivision or is actually a “further evolved” version from the future or on and on. I don’t think we should be so quick to assume that simply because something is revamped in a manner beyond what we immediately know, it is inherently bad. Since getting more involved in the fandom as of late, I have been rather consistently surprised with how “narrow-minded” many fans can be about certain elements even while claiming to love this property (in general) that in many ways is basically a flashing neon sign saying, “DON’T BE NARROW-MINDED.”

      As for having another robot main-character, Data was supposed to be the first synthetic lifeform serving aboard a Starfleet vessel. So not only would this potentially break continuity if you’ve got a robotic crew member, but it would also rob Data of his uniqueness.

      Who said “main character”? What are you talking about? And who said they wouldn’t be from post-Data? Why do people purposefully limit their considerations in these regards when they plainly don’t know the variables at play and it isn’t directly related (in its specific limitations they’ve imposed) to what was said?

      So the fact that they included that little tidbit in the press release…

      What press release? Also, is it understood by you that he’s discussing the nature of the show, including elements, various questions or probabilities, etc.? It said he “confirmed” it so I got the impression that someone asked, “Is there going to be a gay character?” or it otherwise came up during conversation. Lots of cynicism here from fans of a franchise that seems to be about opposing it…

      As for issues with its “serialized” nature differing…I can understand concerns with approaching a new “format.” But your comment about it basically not being exactly like what Star Trek was before (“Sadly, they seem to be taking pages from every other book but a Star Trek one.”) once again stresses for me this notion that there’s a lot of narrow-mindedness being directed toward a property that seems built upon denouncing that.

  • Jean Michel

    “We’re much closer to Kirk’s universe [than that of Archer’s], so we get to play with all of that [TOS-era] iconography of those ships and those uniforms.”

    That’s a dangerous territory IMO. They would probably have to come up with an explanation of either:
    – why the tech looks more modern than TOS set 10 years later
    – why the tech looks so backwards (compared to present day) if they decided to mimic TOS aesthetics

    That was a problem for ENT as well…

    • Eric Cheung

      If it has a similar look, but done with better materials, then I think it still looks futuristic because of its simplicity and logical design. What looks more advanced, and iPhone or a Motorola DynaTAC? If you didn’t know its function, the iPhone looks like something from TOS, while the Motorola DynaTAC looks like something from ENT.

      • TUP

        Modern SFX is fine. But I do hope they make it look like it could exist in the same time period as TOS. In a way Enterprise somewhat did (small, cramped, buttons/switches) and JJ’s Enterprise didnt (iBridge).

      • Xandercom

        If you remove the function of the device from the equation then of course you can use that silly example it to suit any argument you wish.
        The issue Jean is demonstrating is that established functional devices can in no way have modern design aesthetics applied to them if it is supposed to appear chronologically less advanced than previously established “futuristic” devices.

        For a design to appear believably futuristic to the viewer it must be at least as modern as our current design aesthetics.

        The prop designer is in an impossible situation of trying to advance our modern design aesthetics to props supposedly hundreds of years more advanced than ours, yet less advanced than something created by his counterpart in the 1960’s.

        That issue not only effects the prop designer, but literally every single aspect of the show, from graphics to that god awful ship design, to uniforms, to the way characters speak and interact.

        It results in a lame duck concept doomed from the outset.

    • Xandercom

      It’s even worse when considering that the stuff in Enterprise looked more advanced than TOS, yet STD is going to have to look more advanced than Enterprise! The suspension of disbelief doesn’t extend to an entire series, and why Ent bombed.

      I hope to christ we’re not going to have another “faith of the heart” style intro too.

  • ltrasczak

    I think it is very sad that he is all excited about gay characters and “levels of diversity” and not things like plot, story, and hiring good writers. That does not bode well for the series.

    • Eric Cheung

      The wider the range of characters, the better opportunity there are for a wide variety of stories. The more different the characters are the better it is for the show.

    • Steve Cramsie

      All he did was mention some tidbits about what would be in the series… to assume that means those things are all he cares about (and not plot and story) is reactionary, naive and uninformed. Take a breath and wait for the show to come out.

  • Eric Cheung

    My dream show would have been a parallel between the WWIII Reconstruction period and the Romulan War/Birth of the Federation period. It would have historians of WWIII advising Starfleet and the Federation on how to unite the Vulcans, Andorians, and Tellarites with humans to form a society that allows for civil discourse and a post-scarcity economy, even without the replicator. I want to see civilians in Trek.

    I’m kind of sick of Starfleet, to be honest. But I will say that I’m glad it’s not set after Nemesis because the tech would start to get ridiculous and unrelatable. The people would likely be too far off from us. Plus, the premises for post-Nemesis shows I’ve seen (David Rossi’s Final Frontier and Bryan Singer’s Federation) were all about how the Federation was crumbling. It all seemed a little too bleak for my tastes.

    I want to see the Federation face tough challenges, but I also want to see how they overcome them without losing their identity. I think DS9 and ENT threaded that needle pretty well.

    • Xandercom

      You’re obsessed with prequels.

      • Eric Cheung

        Not prequels as much as I am interested in the workings of civilian life in the Federation. I’m interested in seeing how that system came to be, but I’d probably be just as happy with a post-Nemesis series that dealt with the same issues, from the point of view of such a system that’s existed for centuries already. I think DS9 came closest to doing that type of thing, with a strong supporting cast of civilians, both Federation and non, who could provide commentary on Federation life from different perspectives.

        • Xandercom

          “Not prequels as much as I am interested in the workings of civilian life in the Federation. I’m interested in seeing how that system came to be”

          Two completely contradictory statements. Again, you’re obsessed with prequels and origin stories. You’ve got ST2009, Enterprise and First Contact + many retrospective and time travel stories to enjoy.

          For the rest of us this is a boring, uninteresting and overdone premise which is enjoyable from time to time, but not yet another entire series. We want to see what comes next, not how we got to where we just were.

          • Eric Cheung

            Yeah they’re contradictory. I’d be happy with either series. If I’m obsessed with prequels, then I’m equally obsessed with post-Nemesis shows.

            And I am interested in how we got to where we are.

            “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
            –George Santanaya

            The past is prologue to the future. So, if we get a show that’s post-Nemesis, we’d still have characters that have to reckon with the history of the Federation, or else the true rehash would occur due to their ignorance.

          • Xandercom

            Fuller is clearly more aligned with your wish for origin stories.
            This is why the majority are having such trouble understanding how this could possible be a success as it’s not what the show is about to us.

          • Eric Cheung
  • Michael Spadaro

    “As for you timeline targeters, the show will be set approximately ten years before James T. Kirk takes command of the Enterprise, in the Prime timeline.

    Says Fuller, the show will launch from an event that has talked about in the Original Series, but never fully explored. He did specifically state that the Kobayashi Maru, the Battle of Axanar (plus the Earth-Romulan War, from the 2150’s) are not the events to which he was hinting.”

    So I was half-right. Cool.

    Wonder what this event is. Couldn’t be fallout from The Cage, that was dealt with pretty well in The Menagerie…

    • Eric Cheung

      The biggest thing seems to be Tarsus IV.

      • Michael Spadaro

        But that takes place in 2246, 10-11 years before Discovery.

        • Eric Cheung

          As you theorized, it could be fallout from a previous event, such as Talos IV. But in terms of things that happened exactly in 2255, there’s the Treaty of Armens between the Federation and the Sheliak. That seems less likely a jumping off point, but still possible.

          • Michael Spadaro

            Meyer said that Star Trek VI was a jumping off point of sorts…that’s why I had thought that it’d focus on the beginning of Federation-Klingon relations, specifically the ‘almost 70 years of unremitting hostility’ that Spock mentioned, so I dunno.

          • Eric Cheung

            I think most people are taking that comment way too literally. I took it to be thematic only. It’s a murder mystery, it deals in politics, has some creative kills, and it has bizarre food, all things that Bryan Fuller incorporates into most of his other projects.

          • Michael Spadaro

            Fair enough.

          • TUP

            My wild guess is involving the Klingon/Romulan alliance but if rumors of a Klingon captain are true, then thats either a defector (which is possible) or Im flat wrong. Maybe Michael Dorn will be in it playing his ancestor as seen in TUC, someone who seemed enlightened and sympathetic to the federation. Uh oh, that would give us a round about way to a Captain Worf series. Darn it.

          • Ed Lilli

            Last night I wrote a suggestion that it had something to do with The Talosians, but I erased it. I thought people would think I’d lost my mind. I think they would be an interesting adversary. Didn’t some stuff happen before that chic, Vina or Rina or whatever her name was landed? Anyway, fun to speculate. 🙂

          • Eric Cheung

            The SS Columbia landed there, yeah.

          • TUP

            If it takes place in 2255, then that would put it around the same time as The Cage, correct? So thats a possibility…

    • M33

      Posted elsewhere, likely it is the prior long-simmering conflict with the Klingons that is mentioned but never explored in Errand of Mercy. Check out Okuda’s Chronology.

  • Jason Binzer

    There seems to be some naysayers about setting this 10 years before TOS. But i think this is quite calculated on the part of the producers. If you think about it it puts it relatively close to the same time that the Kelvin timeline is taking place. This could allow actors portraying (kelvin) original series characters to crossover into the Prime timeline with no major issue to play their prime counterparts as cameos or part of a story arch etc.

    • Xandercom

      No one’s going to want to watch another obnoxious kid Kirk, young versions of established characters or namedropping fan lipservice. It’s cheesy and shoehorned, much like Enterprise was. “Until we figure out some kind of… directive” and the likes.
      No thanks.

  • Xandercom

    The more new news comes out, the more disappointed I’m becoming.
    A few months back I was hyped for a new Trek TV show, now I feel like it’s made for a different fanbase I clearly can’t relate to.
    I grew up on TNG, Voyager, DS9, the whole future beyond that is untold and there for the taking.
    First we get Enterprise which was OKAY, but not trek. Then the film franchise is rebooted, going back again.
    Now another series crammed in to the tiny space remaining in between the stuff already done do death.

    For god’s sake Fuller, make way for someone who dares to dream about the future, not someone obsessed with a series time period most of us are fed up to the back teeth with. Sure, it’s nice to have fun with The Trouble With Tribbles, In a mirror darkly etc, we all like that and most of us consider them to be somewhat separate easter eggs from the storytelling, but this guy is obsessed with making an entire series out of it at the expense of the last 10 years of hiatus Enterprise caused.

    This is doomed to fail, I fear we’re going to wind up with a battletrek galactica style reboot with no hint of a future in which humans are more enlightened, less conflicted and a driving force for good.

    I await the next disappointing clarifications of just what the hell is going on in Fuller’s head.

    • Eric Cheung

      As it takes place after the Birth of the Federation, and after a United Earth, there’s a pretty good chance it does take place in an enlightened future. The tone that Fuller has struck in most interviews is that he wants to get back to that optimism anyway. I mean the show and ship are both called “Discovery.” That’s pretty optimistic.

      • Ed Lilli

        Eric, I like your optimism! Really.

      • Xandercom

        I was never a fan of TOS, yet we’ve had nothing BUT TOS era stuff for what, 15 years? I’m sick of it! This is the worst that could have happened IMHO.

        • Desert Runner

          Me neither. Granted, no show is perfect. But I was never a fan of TOS in particular. Most events in the original TV series (TOS films are fine though) don’t seem believable or promising as the future to me, personally; They just look like artificial events. So I don’t want TOS reference(e.g. Tasus 4 Masscre). I am so disappointed at Discovery being set in TOS era.

          • Shawn

            I get where you are coming from. But I really think this show will be as Fuller describes: modern storytelling, not 60s era storytelling.

            I remembered that Kirk was involved in that masscre. Looking it up, it seems painfully believable to me. Especially in an emergency situation. Depening on how it’s handled. But I think this will be a far more personal story, given what Fuller said. I hope so.

            I don’t mind the era. I mind the stories. We will see how those pan out. As someone who has been a fan of Fuller’s story telling for a decade or more, I think he can do it right. But we will have to wait until January to discover if he pulled it off or not.

          • Xandercom

            It’s just TOS fanboy claptrap. He’s lost most of the fandom before he’s even started, just like JJ.

          • Shawn

            Consider you might be in a bubble of eager to pre-judge Star Trek hyperfans that do not represent all of fandom. People felt the same way about TNG, I think.

          • Desert Runner

            Well, I don’t think you do. I would not like to focus on a personal story. I have always thought Trek is not about a single character, or character-driven story. At least that has been what I like about Trek.

            Events that I referred didn’t seem believable were other events. In case of the Tarsus IV Massacre, it was believable, but wasn’t promising as the future to me. But I wasn’t bothered by canon itself, because when it was aired, the story never focused on the aspect of Kirk’s backstory. It served as plot and that’s the way I prefer it. And I feel that I had enough of it and that it doesn’t needed to be repeated or retold, for I can see those kinds events as much as I can outside Star Trek. Things like it are already out here and there, including in reality. I love Trek when it shows me optimistic vision of the future.

            But as you said, I think they will do better in making other things believable in a modern way anyway. I mind the era, because I think the 24th century is far advanced than the 23rd century. I like enemies to friends stories like TUC and I think I will find Discovery interesting if they deal with Federation-Klingon relations. Just my wish.

    • AlanMorlock

      The fandom doesn’t need you.

      • Xandercom

        ??

        • TUP

          How are you fed up with a time period that has never been explored? The vocal minority (and bigots) sure are running their mouths today.

          • Xandercom

            It’s been done, and redone to death. There’s nothing to gain from expanding upon a tiny slither of the timeline which has had series and movies on either side of it.
            This all started with First Contact. Since then obsessive TOS fanboys have risen to showrunners and done a 180 over, and over again. It didn’t work with Enterprise, creating an “alternative timeline” in films has resulting in insulting a large portion of the fandom, and now here we are again with CBS backing a lame duck once again.

            Look at that ship design for Christ’s sake. There are a minority of the fandom who are looking at this through rose-tinted glasses, but for the rest of us it’s like watching a slow motion car crash, again.

          • Eric Cheung

            To say that the TOS era has been run into the ground because of ENT is like saying the 21st century has been run into the ground because there were recently shows like The Knick, or Mr. Selfridge, Boardwalk Empire, or Downton Abbey (they’re about as far from the present as TOS was from ENT). And in each of those examples, the time period itself didn’t mean the shows themselves were similar. They each told starkly different stories.

            It’s at least possible this show will be as different from past Treks as the shows I mentioned were from each other.

          • Xandercom

            Irrelevant example. The shows you mention do not cohabit a canonical timeline, which makes it clear to me you don’t understand the issues we’re all raising.

          • Eric Cheung

            Actually, most of them do, as all of them except Downton Abbey and The Knick are based in real events and on real people. What about 1776 versus the HBO John Adams miniseries? They have wildly different tones but tackle nearly identical subject matter.

            But if you want an example within the same fictional universe, I’ll give you two: The Mary Tyler Moore Show and Lou Grant were two shows with completely different tones in the same universe. One was a sitcom, the other a drama.

            Not only that, but Gene Roddenberry himself, was open to the idea of a show with a completely different tone within the Star Trek universe; he was even pitching a Lwaxana Troi sitcom at one point.

          • Xandercom

            Again, it shows you don’t understand the issues we’re all raising. It’s like talking to a brick wall.

          • Eric Cheung

            I can understand them and disagree with them at the same time. I think that any show could be great or terrible. I just don’t think it’s possible to know that until we actually see an episode or two. And even then, it could get better, as TNG did after its first few rocky years.

            But I’ve been a fan for twenty-five years. And every time there’s a new iteration, it gets met with hostility, no matter what. People hated that DS9 was on a space station or that it seemed too dark. People hated that VOY was in the Delta Quadrant. People hated that ENT’s ship looked like the Akira and were afraid it would tarnish the canon. People hated all sorts of things about the JJ films. Even before I started watching, people hated that TNG wouldn’t include Kirk & Co. or they hated that they destroyed the Enterprise, or killed Spock, or that Spock wouldn’t be in Phase II or TMP.

            And you know what? In some cases, I’ve even agreed. But I’ve given each of the iterations of Trek a chance, at least to start.

            I think it’s prudent for all fans to remember that whatever version we like was met with heavy criticism out of the gate.

            If you don’t want to give the show a shot, then fine. But I do get where you’re coming from. I understand why you’re skeptical of the show. And you may even be right that it might not be very good. But I also think that there are factors working in the show’s favor, that just might make it good. There are factors that won’t be to everyone’s taste too. Do I know if it will be good? Nope. But then no one does, not before we even have a cast.

          • Xandercom

            There’s those rose tinted glasses again.
            Look at the comments on this page and wake up to the reality of what’s happening.

          • Xandercom

            You’re mind is bazaar. I can’t figure out if you’re taking the piss or unhinged.

          • Eric Cheung

            My mind is not at all a shopping center.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazaar

          • Xandercom

            That’s the second time you’ve felt the need to highlight dyslexia. Any more?

          • Eric Cheung

            If there was a previous time, I’m truly sorry. I didn’t know you had dyslexia. I used to volunteer for Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic, where I would record textbooks for the reading disabled. I’m sorry. I’ll delete the comment.

          • Ace Stephens

            I get the impression that they’re only focused around world-ending and world-altering stakes rather than the character-driven drama many of us enjoy and so they feel all the stakes are hollow if we “know what winds up happening to that larger entity down the line.” That’s the indication I got from a point they made which I addressed elsewhere here.

            They seem to think knowing that Starfleet/the Federation/etc. “survive” means nobody will be able to invest at all. Which I don’t think matters much since the point will ultimately be the characters and their relationships surrounding life/death stakes – including their sense of discovery (potentially including things we aren’t even aware of which do influence continuity) – which will remain since, for the most part, I doubt it will all be established characters within the canon before later moments we saw.

            It feels like what they fear are the issues suffered by franchise prequels which are far more often plot-driven than they are character-driven, having a tendency to result in the whole work being considered “buildup to things we already know happen” rather than retaining their own connected-yet-self-contained value. Enterprise having some “prequel plot” elements probably didn’t help or encourage their faith in these regards – but it wasn’t being run by the same people and all this.

            So I really think that what they (and those thinking exactly like them in these regards) are upset about regarding the timeframe is about various stake-related concerns that…are almost wholly irrelevant to the rest of us, who see a bigger picture than that – ironically derived from the more intimate moments/journeys which we expect to occur.

          • Eric Cheung

            That was spot on, Ace!

            Usually the nitpickiest folks are those that favor plot over characters. But plot is meaningless anyway if it develops out of poorly sketched characters.

            I’m more interested in the characters anyway. We should look at prequels the way we look at biographies. Sure we know about Lincoln, but wouldn’t it be great to read about his Team of Rivals to learn about his leadership style?

          • Xandercom

            You’re missing the point – The fandom is sick of prequels except a minority of TOS fanboys who can’t get enough of it. You only have to read this page to get some grasp on the reality of the situation.
            You can’t please all of the people all of the time, but to start out displeasing the majority is not a good start. To continue on regardless is commercial suicide.

          • Ace Stephens

            You’re missing the point – The fandom is sick of prequels except a minority of TOS fanboys who can’t get enough of it.

            I always see these people who think they can speak for the fandom on the basis of what the most vocal/complaining/etc. fans might be saying in a given area. I don’t understand that. There are many varied-yet-prevalent views among those individuals within the fandom – and some significant portions don’t frequent online sites, including this one. Here, we happen to have a concentration of somewhat (in my view) cynical interpretations that appear to wish to limit the show to a narrow framework all while claiming they hate how much the show is being limited to a narrow framework. …Even though it isn’t necessarily being limited in the ways they put forward.

            But I’ve seen fans like that on this site a lot more the past couple months…and I don’t get the impression that they’re really representative. Not that what they’re saying, in varying forms, doesn’t hold some significant weight – it just doesn’t necessarily hold as much weight as some who might generalize it as what “the fandom” at large thinks seem to believe.

          • Xandercom

            This is clearly aimed at TOS fanboys.
            Good luck with that.

          • TUP

            Aimed at TOS, you mean the most popular and successful era of the franchise? How crazy for Fuller and his team to want to do that. What are they thinking. They should make it after Nemesis and aim it at Nemesis fans…lol

          • Xandercom

            This is the problem.

          • Ace Stephens

            How would Voyager have worked if we all knew it got back home from the word go?

            …I would be fine with that regarding the ship. I watch the shows for the characters and the way the story is told, not the random circumstances or the like. So you could say, “Voyager eventually shows back up…” in some fashion and we might not know what that means. Is the entire crew dead by then? Someone new is captain because Janeway died? Was it taken over by others so none of the crew got back? Did they have to repair this or change that? By saying it “got back home,” do we mean intact at all or was it altered by some alien race and showed up in some differing form? Was everyone onboard dead? When it returned, were they infected and carrying a disease that then spread?

            There are so many variables that does not disclose.

            I find it odd that fans, often a part of a “spoiler culture” now, would seemingly seek out information on an upcoming work (often in order to deride it if it isn’t to their exact expectations – typically without ever experiencing any of it directly) and then also be the type to derisively say, “But how would it work if I knew what was going on in some general sense before it happened?”

            …If you have a concern about that, what are you doing here? Why not just wait, eyes closed and ears plugged, until the show debuts?

          • Xandercom

            I was very excited for it, but now I’m less enthusiastic, and certainly won’t be paying £8 a month to sit through an hour of advertisements per 4 shows and don’t even get to keep the damned thing!

          • Ace Stephens

            I understand that concern. I just didn’t/don’t understand the whole, “Well, what about this upcoming element that we already know about as a potential generality? Doesn’t that hurt it!” …Not necessarily. I think that strips the potential of the work down to some…odd framework.

          • Xandercom

            I think you have a very different mindset of what makes something Trek for you. That’s great, it’s always been a show where most people can find something in it to latch on to and thrive on, but for many of us it’s all about the unknown future, how technology might turn out, what humans will be like in 300-400-500 years time, what society will be like, how we might deal differently with issues of the day. What might a space ship look like far in to the future? Will we ever cure baldness…

            Fuller clearly is more aligned to what you take from the show, but in doing so he’s alienated the rest of us who want to see into a future we’ve yet to reach. By placing the show way, way before the things we’ve already seen he’s effectively deprived us of that, and so with each detail that comes out about this production it’s sounding worse and worse for us until there’s really not much left but a soap opera.

            Trek invented mobile communications, iPads, skype, non-lethal weapons, computers you can talk to and call up any information known to humanity, play any song, research any topic. What comes after that? What other amazing ideas of the future can we aim for next? Well, 50 years later and we’ve achieved most of these things so we want to see what comes next!

            Sorry, you’re 200 too years early for that, we’re going to show you how we came up with ipads and cell phones, how we got from no voice recognition to a 60’s-esque robotic computer voice Steven Hawking would consider a downgrade.

            This was the problem with Enterprise which happened to have some pretty good stories, but the setting, the time period, the “future” it depicted just wasn’t futuristic enough. It was too far in to the past of the established timeline to have any chance of inspiring a generation to grow up to be scientists. Just inspired a few to make fan films while the rest of us kept holding on to hope that the next leap would be Sam’s leap home..
            Slapping some blue LED’s and dell TFT monitors on wood board with glued on qwerty keys painted silver doesn’t fool anyone.

            Now one of those fanboys has been handed the keys to the Porsche, and every time he sends us a picture it’s got a new ding in it.

          • Ace Stephens

            Fuller clearly is more aligned to what you take from the show…

            Perhaps but TOS is pretty far from “my” Trek…yet I’m still not denouncing this due to its proximity to that.

            As for your other concerns, I understand thinking, “But this set design looks more advanced than those…” and all this (although tastes/designs/etc. change in ways we can’t always see in real life that sometimes feel a bit…nostalgic) but the future is still the future. They could come up with some great, awe-inspiring stuff for this show regarding tech or similar…and then have it be undone when the scientist is killed because somebody wanted to keep it from people for personal gain. Or when the research and “experimental device” is destroyed in an accident. Or when there’s a major mishap involving it after it’s used for a season or two and suddenly all available versions of it can’t be fixed and have the potential to do the same – so they’re all shut down and decommissioned. (And then, maybe later on, if they go past Nemesis for another series, we can have someone find one floating out there somewhere…)

            There are a lot of possibilities for a series like this which may be applicable or interesting or “futurist”-oriented. You don’t have to limit yourself (regarding your perceptions) as much as you have.

          • Shawn

            Nah, the only people alienated are small groups of hyperfans that probably live in a similar internet bubble to you. Most of us will wait until we know something about the show. Or even after watching the first episode.

            Why? Because my interesting in Star Trek is not that superficial. I could dislike a show set in any time period depending on how it is done.

            I honestly don’t know how many people agree with you. Or think this sounds awesome. Or like me, are in the middle.

          • Xandercom

            Buddy, you only have to read pages and forums of all the main sites, including this, to see the general feel of this. It’s not good, it’s getting worse, and the only people interested seem those born before the 80’s.

          • Shawn

            Like I said. Bubble. Also, look up the availability heuristic. And: the vocal minority. I’m not saying you are wrong. I’m saying we don’t know you are right. Because you live in a bubble. Like Mitt Romney supporters who were convinced he was going to win.

          • Xandercom

            Patronising tones not withstanding, live in ignorance my friend!

          • Shawn

            Xandercom, I’m not being ignorant of the reaction by a vocal minority of fans. At best you could say I’m ignoring it. But what I’m actually doing is saying we don’t know how these fans will act, and we don’t know to what extent the self-selected group you refer to maps onto the wider community who will watch the show.

            You are so incompetent, even your insults don’t make sense. It’s like that time on the weekend where you thought you would have to pay for CBS All Access. And when I pointed out you didn’t you said it’s silly to being paying for Netflix and still seeing ads. Even though I pointed out ads will not be running on Netflix.

            Oh internet. What wonders will you bring me next? Anyway, good day Xandercom. Hope to not come across you again! 🙂

          • Xandercom

            Patronising tones (again) notwithstanding, live in ignorance my friend!

          • Shawn

            Wow. You are from the UK? You know that the show will be on Netflix with no commercials at all, right? Like, within 24 hours of its release on CBS All Access. And that CBS All Access is not available in the UK. And you probably already have a Netflix account.

            I believe all your opinions are as uninformed as this one. I have been reading your comments with fascinated horror. I don’t think your posts are worth the pixels they are displayed upon.

          • Xandercom

            Stop responding to them then.
            I’m not paying £7.50 a month for netflix so I can sit through an hour of adverts every month. Come on, that’s not how we do things over here. BBC has no adverts whatsoever because we already have to pay a mandatory £145 fee just for owning a television set, or go to jail.

          • Eric Cheung

            I think only the CBS All Access service will have ads. I haven’t heard any reports that Netflix will have ads just for this one show. I don’t think they’d accept a deal like that. Do you have a link for where it says Netflix will air ads?

          • Xandercom

            CBS will hard code it like all the other crap we get over here, usually promoting their satellite TV channels “CBS HOME” and “CBS DRAMA” (judge judy all day long) CBS Action (TNG) and whatever box sets they are pushing at the time.
            Do you have a link suggesting otherwise?

          • Shawn

            Uh, I just saw this looking for another comment.

            Most box sets have ads. Including discs from the BBC. So it should be expected that discs have ads. Expecting a random box set to have no ads would be unreasonable.

            Netflix doesn’t have ads. Never has. It won’t by next year. To expect Netflix to have ads is unreasonable.

            Also, that’s not how regional rights work. CW makes ‘The 100.’ They sell the ads in the US. And they sell the program globally. Whoever buys the program globally can then run whatever ads they want next to it. In Canada Netflix bought the broadcast rights for first run episodes. They come out once a week. No commercials.

            CBS sold the Canadian broadcast rights to the television station Space. Space paid for them because they will sell their ads to make up the money. Space will not be airing US ads.

            Netflix bought Star Trek: Discovery rights in the UK not to sell ads, but to sell subscriptions. That’s their entire business model.

          • Xandercom

            Moot points.
            -DVD’s don’t require an ongoing subscription to keep watching them.
            -Netflix does have ads
            -Try viewing CBS on Sky in the UK.

            -I was appalled the first time I visited the states with the shear volume of advertising you endure on TV. Even our BBC Exports have ad breaks in the US, which is illigal for them to do in the UK, in any form, to the extent that they can’t even mention brand names! We pay £145 per year to the state just for owning a TV set, if we don’t and we own a TV set we get fined and sent to prison. Our hour-long shows on the beeb have 57 minutes of programming. Our 30 minute TV shows have 27 minutes of programming. The 3 minutes
            Our 1.5 hour shows have 1 hour 27 minutes of programming.

            Expecting this to perform well in international markets on your US style of programming, making people subscribe to a paywall, and then force us to watch adverts too is lunacy.

            As CBS have completely bypassed all the UK broadcasters (digital terestrial, cable, Sky) in favour of more lucrative deals with Netflix it effectivly takes it away from anyone but Netflix subscribers for at least 12 months until the other offline networks can even have a chance at bidding for it. Likely it will be Sky Atlantic who buys it in 2018, by which time it’s got the benefit of deciding if the online viewing figures and reviews make it a worthwhile buy at all.

            That’s a lot of finger crossing before even reaching the other 3/4 of the potential market of UK Television, and it would have to be a spectacular award winning show to even have a chance.

            Good luck, but it’s highly unlikely, particularly with so many people disgruntled people at this stage based on the steady trickle of face-palming fans who simply don’t want it, much less jump through paywalls and hoops to view it in the first place! There’s no first free episode anywhere outside of CBS in the states, how on earth do they expect to pull in viewers from the rest of the world when Netflix by their very nature set themselves apart from TV networks? Throw vast sums at desperately advertising it on TV stations? Where is that budget coming from?

            You’re so out of touch with the reality of this project that it’s clouding your judgement.

          • Shawn

            You are saying I’m out of touch with reality. But I think you only said that because you don’t understand my point. I am not saying it’s going to be widely successful because it’s on Netflix. I’m saying I don’t think there will be CBS hard coded ads within the product as viewed on Netflix.

            And you are missing the big picture. CBS doesn’t needs DSC to be a big hit. They need it to be one of multiple draws to get people into their system. You seem the like broadcast TV. But here in North America it’s dying. CBS is trying to disrupt their own industry and get ahead of the curve.

            In Canada and the US it’s not uncommon for people to pay $100 to $200 per month for TV. CBS sees the day that instead of spending that amount for channels, we will pay that amount for apps. Or maybe less. Hard to tell. Instead of paying $50/month for a few channels you want, you will pay $5/channel by buying the app.

            CBS is trying something new. I don’t know if they are right. I don’t know if it will work. But they are using Star Trek as bait. And they have several other exclusive shows they will have coming out next year to do the same thing.

            Here’s the thing. All your points? They are all moot. Because CBS is trying to survive the end of broadcast television. Even if that means lower viewership.

            Your concerns may not be wrong. But they are besides the point. If CBS All Access fails, CBS might go out of business. But CBS will go out of business if they do nothing, too.

            In the meantime, I get more Star Trek on my TV. Broadcast on Space in English speaking Canada.

          • Xandercom

            What you “think” is not aligned with the reality of the situation, on all fronts.

            Here in the UK The top sky package with all channels costs in excess of £120 per month. Similar prices with cable. Add to that Broadband (in the UK for broadband we also are forced to buy a phone line rental package too). We’re just about to Brexit on the back of the biggest recession our country has seen. Where is all this money coming from?
            The box office flop of Beyond is mainly due to the exorbitant cost of a movie ticket, as has happened to most summer blockbusters this year.

            Push people in to having to throw money at every angle just to follow a franchise is not the way forward, it’s the way to assure it’s failure.

            If something isn’t included in the top packages of the UK’s most expensive cable providers, people simply won’t watch it as it’s not where they expect it to be. They won’t go hunting for it elsewhere. The shear uproar by TopGear fans that they are not only funding the damned show through our licence fee, but now exploited by Amazon to force people in to their ecosystem for The Grand Tour is turning most people off.
            The people who want to watch these shows don’t want to arse about with dongles and extra remotes just to see one show, and the very people who grew up up trek are now forcing the next generation of young people to have no option to see it unless they can convince their parents to sign up to Netflix.

            It ain’t gonna happen.

          • Shawn

            I see you ignored my relevant questions. That’s a shame. I did want to know the answers to them. I’d not seen commercials on Netflix. I just really wanted to talk about the ad situation, but it seems you have moved on.

            As for what you did say, I’d just like to repeat the above. None of that matters. CBS is using Star Trek to grow All Access. Netflix is using Star Trek go grow Netflix accounts around the world. And it will work to some degree. How much? I don’t know.

            All the points you raise may be right. They are irrelevant. I don’t know why you think what I think is not aligned with the reality of the situation. I’m not disagreeing with anything you are saying. I’m pointing out that those factors are not important to CBS or Netflix. They are hoping people will subscribe.

            Your point seems to be that people won’t. But Netflix is a business based on subscriptions, so they will try anything. CBS is worried the will go out of business, so they will try anything. And people change. You may find in 10 years more people from the UK have Netflix subscriptions than Sky.

            I do wish you’d answer my questions above, however.

          • Xandercom

            As I’ve said two, maybe three times now, adverts on Netflix from most US networks are hard coded for us suckers in the UK for anything Netflix did not themselves produce/commission.

            Adverts on Netflix from most US networks are hard coded for us suckers in the UK for anything Netflix did not themselves produce/commission.

            Shall I paste the paragraph in a 3rd time?

          • Shawn

            I just said there are no advertisement on Netflix. There never have been. There are not. There will not be advertisements next year.

            Please, read what you are responding to. People will be less likely to write off your opinions as uninformed.

          • TUP

            You’re missing the obvious. You keep posting the same whining stuff over and over and pretend like its a majority opinion. Its not. Its mostly just you repeating yourself.

          • Xandercom

            I’m sorry you see things that way.

          • Fctiger

            Damn….I like you! You are saying exactly what I’m thinking. I’ll give it a chance as I gave Enterprise and the KT films but I can’t help this is another step back. Hopefully there will be more to it than just another ship hanging out in Kirk’s era but so far I’m not super excited about it.

  • JKO

    The choices being made in Start Trek as of late are turning me away. I will continue to enjoy Pre JJ but will not be getting into JJ or this Trek. I won’t go into detail on why but let’s just say it;s outlined in this article. I am only posting this as I have a right to voice my opinion as others do to voice theirs.

    • TUP

      So you hate the gays. If so, glad you will be jumping off the Trek train. No room for you here.

      • Steve Cramsie

        No kidding. People who are the exact opposite of what Star Trek is supposed to be about can huddle in their trailers and watch their dusty old safe DVDs and leave progress to everyone else.

        • Xandercom

          Progress in another prequel set in the past of the majority of the TV programming? again? The novelty wore off after broken bow, which is when fans started switching off too, and back then it wasn’t the fans paying a subscription to see it. Just look at the comments on this page. These are the people who who are meant to be subscribing to a paywall for it?! Wake up.

        • Ace Stephens

          I don’t know what the case is for the purposefully vague commenter above…

          However, I have a difficult time understanding how people like you suggest ever liked Star Trek. Yet they seem to be all over the place these days. How did they ever watch TOS with a black woman on the bridge?! How did they not view The Conscience of the King as some implicit endorsement of genocide by humanizing Karidian? Etc.? And the later series? …Could they even watch those or were the racial, gender, etc. explorations/representations just too much for them? Were the interesting philosophical questions always, to them, presenting seeming “moral issues” with the work itself rather than – perhaps – within it?

          …I just don’t understand what these “types” of people saw in the show to begin with if differing types of people, behavior, etc. (in general or “broadly,” regarding various groups, attitudes, behaviors and all that) not being condemned/omitted utterly (within the show) for no immediate reason is somehow an affront to their sensibilities.

  • Joseph

    I can’t believe I’m going to say this; but I wish they had set this in the Kelvin timeline than Prime because to me it wouldn’t be another prequel series to the TOS.

    10 Years before Kirk takes command of the Enterprise would put it AFTER the destruction of the Kelvin so they want us to watch this series with no ties to the movie universe but it’s Pre-TOS so any fancy modern looking technology would be considered out of place.

    All excitement I had for this show has vanished.

    • TUP

      Why do you feel a larger attachment to 7 years of JJ films than the previous 43 years of “Prime” timeline? They wanted you to watch a movie with tenuous ties to the prime timeline (and a silly premise and dubious motivations). I for one am glad.

      Aside from the legal issues, its a no brainer to make it a Prime show.

      • Xandercom

        You’ve completely missed his point.

        • TUP

          The Kelvin wasn’t destroyed in the prime timeline so it has no bearing on it at all. 7 years of lousy films doesn’t take precedence over 50 years of rich history. Period.

          • Xandercom

            You’ve still missed the point.
            Allow me to to explain in simple terms.

            Majority of fans are tired of TOS prime timeline, dislike the alternate universe almost as much, and for mostly the same reasons, but now having been forced into a corner, would rather a post-kelvin alternate universe to add some sense of future to a future otherwise already written either side of the slither of TOS timeline STD is taking up residency.

            Get it?

    • bytes

      Right. The fun of seeing what TOS era would look like, if produced today, has been satisfied. Why make a setting lay ontop of what Paramount is doing? This fun has already been done. ENT also looked very advanced in many ways compared to TOS. Late 24th century or early 25th century would have allowed so many aged characters, played by original and appropriatley aged actors, is now no longer a resource.

  • Tarkov2009

    One of the greatest things about TNG was that it was a dynamic leap FORWARD from what we had seen before. In many, many ways. Part of the enjoyment was in seeing the evolution of everything from the Kirk-era series and films — how had Starfleet and the Federation changed, what happened to all the Enterprises in between, what had changed with the Klingons, what was the Enterprise’s mission now… on top of the fun of seeing new phasers, communicators, tricorders, uniforms, graphics… it build upon and evolved the Trek asthetic at the same time that it created it’s own foundation by progressing the Trek universe into the 24th century.

    The Trek universe was expanded, not contracted.

    A big problem with trapping another series into a previous part of confined Trek history (as others have pointed out) is that at every turn, at least a dozen times an episode, we are going to be taken out of the story they are telling but bumping into pre-established cannon, story points, or visual contradictions (“well, they look like the old phasers, but they seemed re-imagined… but more modern… and powerful… oh wait, is that a Romulan logo… how could they know what a Romulan looked like at this point… weren’t the Constitution class ships the only big guns out there at this point…etc, etc”).

    There will be so much fan-service to the “look and feel” of Pike’s era, but it won’t really match up in a cohesive way, because the producers will need their creative freedom to do and try anything new — which they should! So there is always going to a be a push and a pull — only because the previous incarnations of Trek did such a remarkable job of maintaining a 40 year dramatic continuity. A continuity that should be built upon, not overstuffed.

    It was like Phlox on Enterprise… I could never get over “why have we never heard about his species before”. It just seemed off-kilter in so many fundamental ways.

    This was grand opportunity to do what Trek does best… go forward. Show us something new and let it feel fresh and unknown. And they may still do that in a unique and innovative way, who knows… we’ll have to see how it turns out. I just feel in my gut that a post TNG era timeline had the most potential for original, compelling Trek storytelling at this point.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      I was really hoping for this new series to be a largely re-imagined Star Trek, not beholden to previous canon. That would have been a more bold move for Fuller and company.

      • TUP

        TNG leaping forward from the 60’s era TOS was great. Partly because there was a great leap from the 60’s to the 80’s as far as SFX.

        Going 100 years past Nemesis would be almost unrecognizable. SFX are such, we can show anything. We had Holodecks and time travel in TNG era. Whats the 2500’s going to be? Mind ships controlled by people in a room on Earth? Whats the point?

        • Eric Cheung

          And I think there’s a boldness to digging into the canon. In some ways, it would be so much easier to go off in some completely different direction, but it can be much more challenging to try to tell unique stories while integrating into the known canon.

          Writers, including writers who grew up as fans like Ronald D. Moore, have said that they were intimidated to reenter Trek because of the hundreds of hours of canon they’d have to absorb to write more Trek.

          • TUP

            Eric, you and I are in complete agreement. There is so much richness to the franchise and so many wonderful ways to fill in the blanks.

            The Bad Robot guys lied to us when they said they needed their MWI premise to free themselves from canon. It was designed to create a spin off universe that they could control and reap royalties from. They invoke canon all the time.

            To imply canon is restrictive is so silly. Great writers should WANT to write original stories that enhance canon, not defy it. When they submit a script and the canon police look it over and provide notes of names, places, events etc that are in conflict, a great writer should LOVE that challenge.

        • Xandercom

          Romulans had mind control ships in Enterprise, then never ever seen ever again. That, like many Enterprise shows just left people wondering why the romulans had better tech in the past than they did in TNG. STD will suffer the same constant nagging issues and people will just switch off, again.

          • Ace Stephens

            I’ve never liked those approaches from fans, though. While I think it might be worth mentioning, to me it’s like the differing Klingon appearances – it’s evident but do we really need an explanation? It’s fine if they do manage one (and it’s actually fun – I remember back when fans used to embrace fun – to speculate) but a random difference here or there is no big deal. Life goes on, we don’t always know all the variables and sometimes they’re completely irrelevant to what’s happening right now anyway.

            …But I suppose I’m in the minority in that regard among remotely vocal fans, thinking it’s fine (and sometimes better) when things are ambiguous or elements that differ across a notable expanse of time are unclear in why exactly they differ. Some people cry about continuity but I think the continuity “lie” or issue would be if a hundred or two hundred years passed and everything in terms of random variables was 99.9999% the same and people were talking about something that was settled one-hundred-and-eighty years ago as though it was immediately relevant (without a direct reason to – which I don’t always think is appropriate to have) rather than…the accepted past.

          • TUP

            Enterprise didn’t fail because of Romulan ships. You’re not understanding reality.

          • Xandercom

            You’re not understanding English.
            The episode, as did the series, failed because the produces had trapped themselves in to depicting something in the future our or 2015 (or then 2004) present day by having no choice but to make every aspect appear even more advanced than the already established art department of a 1960’s TV show supposedly set in Enterprise’s future.

            Would you like a universal translator? Let me know which time period you’re from and I’ll find a way to shoehorn it in for you with no regard to it’s established history. Here’s one I made in the stone age out of rocks and insults to your intelligence.

          • Fctiger

            Exactly! And why I think this show will suffer a lot of the same issues. You’re trying to make a show in 2016 that talks about the future but the only problem with that is it has to look like the 60s version of the future and its no way anyone under 50 is going to want to see that version at all. So they have to make it updated just like the Kelvin films did and exactly why they said it was in another universe so they can make those changes. In the Prime universe people will just be pointing out how everything look much more updated while same time trying to shoehorn in things to make it ‘feel’ like TOS and make others scratch their heads. Why are people on the KT still using communicators when we have phones in 2016 that look and act much more advanced?

    • Eric Cheung

      The universe is so big, “It’s wondrous…with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it’s not for the timid.” It’s so big that empires wax and wane in terms of relative importance. We may not see much of the Denobulans because they’ve simply receded into the background. Certainly, there was an explanation for the Xindi not being prominent, as the Sphere Builders intervened in making them more important.

      I always thought what made TNG special was Michael Piller’s leadership in directing the show toward being character-based. It’s as Q told Picard in All Good Things…”For that one fraction of a second, you were open to options you had never considered. That is the exploration that awaits you. Not mapping stars and studying nebulae, but charting the unknowable possibilities of existence.”

      • Xandercom

        It’s clear you just don’t understand our concerns, you post the same drivel over and over. You’re not seeing what the rest of us are.

        • TUP

          “The rest of us”? You mean handful of negative nancies? You can’t see the reality and thats ok. Hopefully you will be willing to admit you’re wrong when the time comes.

          • Xandercom

            Again, this is the problem.

          • StuUK

            Several of your responses make me smile X… I think you know why!

        • TheRenegadeRebel .

          I’ve just read like five posts from YOU saying slight varriations of “you don’t understand our concerns”. YOU post “the same drivel over and over”. Try actually thinking before you post. Eric Cheung composes well thought out posts, cites examples to prove his points, and the thesis of his arguments are rooted in logic. Why not do the same instead of completely disregarding a well thought out argument with “you just don’t understand”. In my experience most people who respond this way do so because the have encountered an argument they either don’t understand and can’t respond to or simply can’ t defeat using proper argumentative tools. In short, think before you type.

          • Xandercom

            And yet, you’re still not taking an ounce of what I, and the majority have written on board. Why is that?

          • Xandercom

            If you’re not going to see the same warning signs that we all saw with Enterprise and threw the entire TV franchise in to the bin for the best part of 15 years that’s your problem.
            Suggest you look closer.

    • DaMac

      This seems to be a common complaint, so obviously you’re not weird for saying it. However I quite like the idea of exploring in between stories and the eras that are more perhaps cowboy and Western in nature. I also never thought the very minor continuity issues on Enterprise were a big deal. Like the Klingon makeup I just imagine that it all looks the same, just represented differently due to the time period it was made. That seems like an issue a tiny minority struggle with.

      Also I need to point out a ton of TOS races were never seen on TNG or minimized. Phlox’s race not showing up later is no weirder than there being no Andorrans or Tellarites on TNG.

  • James

    In some ways, it doesn’t matter when it’s set. But, Enterprise failed. One of the reasons is that you’re bound by continuity. It would have made more sense to set it in the Kelvin universe in the TNG timeframe. Today’s technology makes older Trek look dated, how is the new show going to address this?

    • TUP

      Nothing to do with continuity or canon hurt Enterprise. In fact, its best season was its last when it arguably finally embraced its premise and started filling in the rich history of Star Trek canon.

      A “prequel” should be like having a great novel that contains only the first and last 5 chapters and the prequel fills in the middle. If they embrace that and set out to lay down their own “new” history while enriching that which we know, it will be wonderful.

  • The hatred of Enterprise in these comments astonishes me. I loved it. According to IMDB, I’m not the only one with episodes usually being rated a 7 to 8 out of 10. To each his or her own.

    • Brian Thorn

      I think casual fans tend to like it more than die-hard fans. I consider the show a disappointment because it never came close to living up to its potential. Romulan War -> Birth of the Federation is what I wanted to see, not “Temporal Cold War” with Alien Nazis.

      • Eric Cheung

        The Alien Nazis were only in two episodes.

        I consider myself a pretty hard-core fan for twenty-five years. I tried the first half of the first season back in 2001 and gave up. Then I tried the first few episodes of the second season and gave up again. When I heard the show had been cancelled, I thought it was a relief, that Trek needed a rest. But then I revisited the show three years ago and found it good, but not the best of the series. It’s not quite up to DS9’s level, but it was reasonably ambitious, and was starting work toward exactly the stuff that you, and I, wanted to see. In retrospect, I wish they got to do their first season on Earth, like they wanted, then do one season in the style of seasons one and two, then season three and four as it was, then five and six with the Romulan War, spanning four years, then the founding of the Federation.

        • TUP

          Enterprise was the best premise for a series since TNG but never embraced the premise and was produced by the worn out and tired Berman team. It was little more than season 8 of Voyager and thats where it fell apart.

          Ive watched a few episodes on Netflix and while I don’t find it at all offensive, I generally find it boring and forgettable when Im not annoyed at the missed opportunities. And don’t get me started on the Xindi BS. That was an awful storyline for a full season. It was DS9-war lite. The 4th season was much better when they brought in new blood on the writing team.

        • Brian Thorn

          “The Alien Nazis were only in three episodes.”

          Three too many. If you had asked fans before those episodes aired, “if you were going to lampoon Star Trek, what is the silliest idea you can come up with?” Alien Nazis would have been near the top.

          I really have no idea what Berman and Co. were thinking when they approved that plotline. But I suspect large amounts of alcoholic beverages were involved.

          • Fctiger

            Agreed I have no idea what the hell they were thinking with the alien Nazi thing. I guess they wanted people talking and yeah it got them talking but in the worst way possible. After the Xindi war they should’ve went straight into the Romulan war arch in season 4. Again I will never get it, you make a prequel show but then ignore everything people want to see in the prequel?

      • Hmm. I was just at the 50th anniversary convention in Vegas and I must say that Enterprise was very warmly received whenever mentioned. I do believe they were heading toward eventually covering the war with the Romulans, they had put down some breadcrumbs for it. They felt a need to address 9/11 which basically moved back any other plans one season. I enjoyed what we got and feel that they didn’t want to jump into those known events until they felt they had “earned” it. See the quadrant for what it was then, establish relationships with the Andorians, flesh out the complicated relationship with the Vulcans, balance the need to create engaging self-contained episodes with the need to “check the boxes” of known events. In the end, I guess I just liked it more than others for what it was.

      • DaMac

        People who hate it focus on what it could have been instead of what it was. They also tended to give up halfway through the first season in my experience, not acknowledging that most Trek shows take a couple years to get going. ENT seasons 3 and 4 are making my favorite Trek.

  • Tone

    Sounds great, if you like ticking checkboxes… To say I’m disappointed is an understatement.

    • DaMac

      If you don’t like diversity as a goal then you’re watching the wrong franchise.

  • DemosCat

    Slotting ST:D into a known time period has interesting possibilities. For example, a visit on board USS Enterprise with Captain Pike and crew, with (Lieutenant?) Commander Spock on leave to avoid recasting.

    But otherwise, on the whole I’d have preferred to see a series set in the 25th century after Voyager and the movies.

    Imagine a USS Discovery preparing for the first trans-galactic journey to Andromeda, and running into the Kelvan Empire. You know, the guys who turned Kirk’s crew into little white doodads and prepped Enterprise for a 300 year return to Andromeda.

    Naturally, the Kelvans will want Transwarp/Slipstream/whatever drive technology from Discovery so they can invade neighboring galaxies, and they won’t take no for an answer.

  • Eduardo Cordeiro

    it seems that the minds behind this show are trying hard to be the most “inclusive´´ as possible with all these talk about “diversity´´. Why not create a character with three heads, each of a different ethnicity and sexual orientation. When goes wrong and the audience sink, start pointing the finger at the homophobic racist who did not buy your very particular vision of reality.

  • Gary Neumann

    If they play their cards right, they can always have an alternate future and use some of the new movies cast. An while doing the show they can ask Bruce Greenwood to show up as Pike. And we all loved his Pike! No contest there.

    • TUP

      Ive said the same thing many times now! Hard to believe Fuller could resist the urge to have Pike’s Enterprise make a cameo…and if so, get Greenwood!!!

  • M33

    Whatever we do, let’s not start acronyming this show as STD.
    STD is already a well-known acronym for something else…
    DSC (as suggested by TrekCore) is far more preferrable.
    Certainly better than DIS, which sounds like what it would imply.

    • Xandercom

      Had a chick over last night for nextflix & chill and we both caught STD.
      It sucked as hard as she did.

  • Matthew Kresal

    I have to say that the series continues to sound intriguing. I’ll very likely be watching the first (and only episode to) go out on CBS in January but I still can’t be convinced that this series alone would make getting CBS All-Access for $7.99 a month worthwhile.

  • Darren McAdams

    i am looking forward to the series either way i just have to find a way to pay for the fee im glad it might be on Netflix my brother can possibly rent it for me or i can use his password

    • Xandercom

      In 2017 the kids who watch star trek and grow up to be Astronauts and Scientists will need a credit card and a netflix subscription.
      Thanks Biran Failler.

      • Darren McAdams

        in the sixties some became mechanical engineers for nasa during the space missions

  • Herb

    Of course we have to black it up and have gays. I mean after all.. smh

  • DemosCat

    It would be interesting if Bryan Fuller takes inspiration from the Horatio Hornblower series (novels and made-for-TV movies), which follows Hornblower’s career from Midshipman to Admiral, rather than a particular ship.

    If the focus is on the Lieutenant Commander, then events may not always take place on board USS Discovery. If she receives a promotion and transfer, the story in later seasons might switch to another ship and crew as she adjusts to her new position. Eventually, she might receive her own command as Captain of yet another ship. Perhaps a Constitution class, and be on equal footing with Captain Kirk? 🙂

  • Michael

    What a disaster. The timeframe this show is set in is not very exciting at all. We have already had a female lead in Janeway and we all know how that went. Hopefully this one won’t be as annoying and not a complete diva on the set like Mulgrew was. As for the gay character, hopefully they are not just throwing the gay character just so they can say they are PC. Hopefully they will actually write intelligent stories for the gay character.

    Even just before Kirk’s time, no one should bat an eye about someone being gay. In that time everyone should be way beyond that. So for someone on the ship to make a point about it would foolish.

    I am in no way paying CBS a fee to watch this show – then endure commercials. Are they insane? I would have to pay more to get no commercials? They are acting like the mafia from “A piece of the action.” And no 4K resolution to boot? Serious? This show will be on in 2017, and no 4K? I have a 5K Sony sitting in my living room that has to down scan 4K content. Come on CBS. If you want us to pay, you need to give us the best.

    The ship looks terrible and not very starfleet. The only way at this point to make the horrible ship design passable is to make the ship a secret section 31 vessel, with a fake federation registry number and name.

    I think I will be watching this show in other ways or just reading about it online.

    • Justin Olson
      • Michael

        They do in Japan, which is where I imported mine from.

        • Justin Olson
          • Michael

            Unfortunately, it’s a prototype that I am testing for Sony as I review technology and often get previews. The upcoming model numbers are trade secrets. I am bound by the NDA that I sign for each testing.

          • Justin Olson

            What publication/site do you review for and when should we expect the review?

          • Michael

            The review will be ready when the model is ready for production. I not only review production electronics, but I help test the near production models.I am a freelancer with ties to several major manufacturers in Japan. The publication/site will be determined if and when they decide to hire me of course!

            I have spent seven years slowly building a good reputation in the industry and I have several signed NDA’s, so I can’t say much else. I will say that what Sony has coming is simply incredible.

          • Xandercom

            While NDA’s obviously can’t give us specifics, links to your online reviews and 7 years of reputation by way of your review site would clear this up in a heartbeat..

          • Michael

            Clear what up? I am not under any obligation to give out anything to random people online. I was simply being generous with my time. I see now it was wasted time.

          • Xandercom

            Thought as much.

          • Michael

            Sorry, but I am protectful of my career. You can think what you want, but you should question why it bothers you so much that someone you don’t even know has access to advanced technology and you don’t. Insecure much?

          • Xandercom

            What an extraordinary display.(no pun intended).

    • Eric Cheung

      Why would you say that having Mulgrew/Janeway as the lead in a Star Trek show makes you assume a woman lead would even be like them, good or bad? That’s like saying, “Oh, another sitcom with a white male lead? They already did that with ‘$#*! My Dad Says!’ It’ll never work!”

      And there’s no way the gay characters will be exclusively defined by their sexuality. I think that’s an unlikely assumption at this stage.

      • Michael

        I am simply hoping that the woman they hire is a black woman, and acts professionally like the Captain from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. I think she was the Captain of the U.S.S. Saratoga if memory serves.

        Mulgrew left a sour taste in my mouth when it was revealed she was a huge diva on the set that made everyone uncomfortable.

        The point about the gay character is that it should not even be mentioned at all, it should be common and fully accepted by the timeframe they are talking about.

        If STD really wanted to be progressive, they should include a character who has a fetish for aliens.

        • Eric Cheung

          We only saw that captain for a few minutes. The more we get to know a character, the more likely we are to see them at their best and their worst. We didn’t get that opportunity with the captain of the Saratoga. We did with Janeway, and we would with any future captain, male or female. The captain of the Saratoga can safely be placed on a pedestal because we know almost nothing about her. If Janeway was placed in the exact same situation, and played exactly as prominent a role, she likely would have been written the same way. As would most other captains. But to be suspicious of any future woman captain because you didn’t like Janeway isn’t really fair to such a future captain because no male captain would face such scrutiny. Janeway shouldn’t bear the burden of representing her entire gender to you.

          I never even finished VOY, because I stopped sometime in the late fifth season. But I can’t allow myself to hold that against all possible women captains in the future.

          And I don’t think it would be progressive for a character to have a fetish for any type, aliens or no. It’s not like gay people have a “fetish” for people of their same gender. It’s their sexual orientation. There’s a difference. And there’s already been plenty of interspecies relationships in Star Trek, right from the beginning. So it wouldn’t be new or different. If it were shown to be someone’s fetish, that would be unhealthy and insulting. That’s like saying it would be progressive for a character to have Yellow Fever. No, that would be racist, not based on simple sexual attraction or love, but based on condescension, domination, and an unhealthy fixation. It would be colonialist, imperialist attitude, not one based on love. There’s a difference between the relationship between Richard and Mildred Loving and say Thomas Jefferson and his slaves. As someone who’s the product of an interracial marriage, I can say my parents came together because of love, not some fetish.

          • Michael

            If you never finished Voyager, you really can’t make commentary regarding Janeway/Mulgrew.

            So you don’t think it’s progressive for them to display say, a master/slave fetish relationship between consenting adults?

          • Eric Cheung

            Then it’s a good thing I didn’t make any commentary on Janeway. My commentary was exclusively on the unfairness of using her portrayal as a reason not to want a female lead in a future Trek show. That has nothing to do with whether or not th character is any good and only has to do with the reaction to the character.

            And regarding the fetish thing, of course that would be fine. But you weren’t referring to BSDM, you were referring to aliens being the fetish. By making aliens the fetish, and not the activities consenting adults have the fetish, you’re objectifying them.

          • Michael

            Watch the last two seasons of Voyager to see why I am wary of another female captain. Hopefully who they choose will be mentally stable, as Mulgrew was obviously borderline psychotic backstage according to Garret Wang and Jeri Ryan.

            What’s wrong with having someone who has a fetish for bedding aliens? Sounds progressive to me. It would make for some great comedy and entertainment, like how Kirk warped around the galaxy bedding every female he came across.

          • Eric Cheung

            She could have been the worst captain in the history of any military and it still wouldn’t be a deterrent against having a female lead and/or captain in a future Trek show. It would just mean that specific show and character were not realized.

            And there’s nothing wrong with a character being open-minded about relationships with aliens. I think the problem is you conflate that with the term fetish. A fetish is an obsession with activities and objects, not people. When it becomes a compulsion, then it becomes the objectification of those aliens as merely objects and not the people they are.

            Again, there’s a difference between Thomas Jefferson and his slaves which could hardly be consensual, due to the power dynamic at play, and the relationship between the Lovings in the 1960s, a couple who loved each other and just wanted the legal rights they were due. For all I know they role-played master and slave, but that’s a far cry from that being a reality as with Jefferson.

            Here’s an article on what the effects of racial fetishism are, which is basically what someone having an alien fetish is:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_fetishism

          • Michael

            This is getting out of the scope of my original comments. I have no desire to talk about these things in depth as it is quite boring to me.

            I suggest you find the time to watch the last two seasons of Voyager, some good stuff and some bad stuff there.

        • Shawn

          What people want these days is not perfect characters, but flawed characters. Though I don’t think we will get a Starbuck. Presumably we will get a good Starfleet office, and a deep, rich character that includes personal flaws. Anything else is a cardboard cut up.

          Re: Mulgrew leaving a sour taste in your mouth. Do you feel similar about Shatner who likewise was off putting to his ‘lesser’ cast members?

          • Michael

            I think what Shatner did behind the scene was immature and shameful. I prefer professional actors who are self confident and let their work speak for them, like Patrick Stewart and Scott Bakula.

            Idiots like Shatner and Mulgrew who act unprofessional in my opinion should be humbled and set on the correct course.

            Watch the Q&A video with Garret Wang and Jeri Ryan. The crying is real from Wang.

      • TUP

        @Eric – I’m discovering (pun intended) that you’re one of the more insightful, logical and level-headed posters on this and other sites. Keep up the good work, my friend.

    • Shawn

      What a disaster. The timeframe this show is set in is not very exciting at all.

      I’m willing to check it out. But the fact that so many fan films are based in that era says you might be in the minority.

      We have already had a female lead in Janeway and we all know how that went. Hopefully this one won’t be as annoying and not a complete diva on the set like Mulgrew was.

      We have also had poor male leads. I’m sorry, are you saying women are inferior? You didn’t like one so no need to try that again? It’s very common for feminists to complain that when a man fails at something it’s a poor reflection on him, but when a women does it’s a reflection on all women. I see you are trying to prove that point.

      As for the gay character, hopefully they are not just throwing the gay character just so they can say they are PC. Hopefully they will actually write intelligent stories for the gay character.

      As you said, it should be a non-issue. Ideally the gay or lesbian character’s sexuality will come up as often as straight character’s sexuality. Unless there is some outside issue that raises it. (Like how women’s gender shouldn’t be an issue but is when contacting certain species.)

      Most TNG episodes went buy without making Riker’s sexuality clear. Riker’s sexuality could be changed with very little change in the scripts. Just changing the women he bedded to men. (Angel One being the first exception that springs to mind.)

    • TUP

      Are you implying that no TV show should ever have a female lead?

      • Michael

        No.

  • Michael

    Plot twist – the robot crew robot is the gay character, and is painted black.

  • Zarm

    So, I’m sure the technology, aesthetics, uniforms, bridge layout and styles will ABSOLUTELY jibe with the canonically-established glimpses from the Cage… :eyeroll:

    Good to see Star Trek’s learned nothing from the continuity disaster thay was ‘Enterprise’ and still considers a prequel to be a wise idea…

  • Michael

    The ship is crewed by section 31. It’s a warship, built in secret. The Federation condones this. It’s obvious – watch the sneak peek and think “section 31.” The ship is rumored to be heavily armed – even more than a constitution class, and carry section 31’s version of MACO’s. It also has a cloaking device “obtained” by section 31.

    Fuller is going for the ship doing the “dirty work” like American’s who hire “contractors” to fight their wars in the Middle East.

  • Xandercom

    How Bryan sees it
    https://youtu.be/Va0Z-P2VC4k

    • DemosCat

      Just promise me there won’t be any daggetts and I’m in!

  • Shawn

    I do think we agree. Neither of us were fans of TOS. From what I’ve read, it sounds like you might get something TUC like. I think we would both find that very interesting.

    I think that TOS tried to be more advanced than the network let them be. I just heard an interview on Mission Log with Richard Arnold (podcast episode #Supplimental 014). He said Gene was really held back. It might be best to look at it through the prism of the 60s.

    My friend said he hopes Klingons have ridges on their heads. He said that we shouldn’t be held back now because of 60s budgets. They just changed them in the movies with no explanation. The fans just accepted that this is how they were supposed to look. We should go back to that way of being fans. Of understanding that to production might be wrong. Rather than the DS9 excuse for the ridges. Which was funny.

    I heard an interview with the guy from Star Trek: Continues. Perhaps it was on the Star Trek: Engage podcast just recently. He said that when watching TOS closely, you could tell when they removed parts of the set to get the camera in position. When they did that you could see the 2x4s behind the control panels on the bridge. Should we replicate that because it’s ‘canon’? Is it canon? Or is it the limitation of the day we should ignore?

    As for personal stories, I find that interesting. If you don’t like TOS can I assume you are a TNG era or ENT era fan? TNG was struggling. When Michael Pillar came on board he said everything should focus on the characters! Every episode became a Worf episode, or Data episode. This is seen as the high point of TNG. Both by fan reaction and the ratings I’ve seen.

    I don’t want to go back to 60s sci-fi with poor characterization. I’ve read lot of 60s sci-fi. All plot with no characters. The best TNG episodes were about characters going through the plot.

    I don’t think we should give sci-fi a pass on characters because of the setting or plot. That’s what you expect from a genre in its infancy.

    A good story is a good story. And a plot is not a story. (Characters are also not a story. (reality TV.) Neither is setting. A story is the whole kit and caboodle.) The reason I didn’t like ENT is because it didn’t have strong characters, and relied too heavily on the planet of the week to be interesting.

    • Desert Runner

      I agree with you on the point that TOS was advanced show than the network let them be. I admire their attempt. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it nowadays.

      I don’t mind Klingon ridges, maximum warp speed, etc. It’s not my concern how things are going to look different.

      Voyager is my favorite show for some reasons. But which show I like most doesn’t matter. Not only Trek but also all the stories of the world are about characters. Even when not focused on the aspect of a certain character’s backstory, they still are by themselves. So I feel they don’t need it unless it serves them. Trek has five different shows by far and each show makes sense itself no matter how different characters are. They eventually convey certain stories through characters. (e.g. I like professor Moriarty. But was the episode “Elementary, Dear Data” about professor Moriarty? Really? Wasn’t it about being?)

      Besides, I like an ensemble show. TOS and ENT more focused on a few characters. And reboot films too much focused on Kirk. Although I like Kirk, I don’t want that kind of storytelling. I feel Beyond is better than ’09 and Into Darkness in this regard too.

      Fans have their own reasons to like Trek. What each expects from Trek is different. Other’s reactions or ratings are not mine. I can enjoy a character-centric episode from time to time. But I don’t want entire season to focus on a certain character.

      I begin to like characters when a story is strong. The same is not true in reverse; It is not that I begin to like story when character are strong. Strong characters don’t always guarantee a good story. (e.g. I feel characters in STID were strong but I don’t like STID’s story at all.)

      And I think it meaningless to persuade others to like what they don’ like, and vice versa.

      • Eric Cheung

        The reason I prefer characters to plotting is because when the story comes first, then the characters don’t often ring true. They’re there more as pawns to be moved by the writers. If the story comes out of the characters motivations than it feels more honest and organic. And sometimes that means that if the characters are engaging enough and the writers have the patience to listen to the characters instead of forcing them to do things that are unnatural, it means episodes with minimal plot, but compelling emotions.

        • Desert Runner

          If a writer forces characters to choose what a writer wants them to choose, a story loses credence. Very true. I’m not saying otherwise. As Shawn pointed put, a plot is not a story. I think, that characters should be given freedom to choose of their own accord and that characters should be focused on in a story are not the same. A story sometimes fails because of the failure of the former, not of the latter. We can also have a good story without the latter, which is what I’d like to see in Trek.

      • Shawn

        That all makes sense to me. And not liking TOS to me doesn’t imply one way or the other if DSC will be interesting or not. We will see when it comes out.

  • Michael

    “We’re going deep into something that was for me always very tantalizing, and [we’re telling] that story through a character who is on a journey that is going to teach her how to get along with others in the galaxy. For her to truly understand something that is alien, she has to first understand herself.” – Bryan Fuller

    TRANSLATION: Our Lt. Commander who is recruited into section 31 is in second command of the clandestine “off the official record” section 31 designed starship “U.S.S. Discovery, and through a serious of brutal and ethically questionable actions she must choose to make or not make to prove herself to section 31 and to protect the federation, she learns how to manipulate and control the different alien species to keep them in check to ensure the safety of the federation. ”

    “The Discovery was designed, constructed and crewed in secret, using the absolute latest technology either developed by questionable ethical methods, stolen from alien races, such as the latest model of the Romulan cloak the Discovey is equipped with. The discovery was not built to seek out new life and new civilizations – it was built to do the federations dirty work. As such, it features defensive and offensive weapons that outclass even the Constituon class. Add in the prototype warp drive that outclasses everything in the offices fleet, and you have a potent tool that can be called upon by starfleet to “shape” alpha and beta quadrant alien relations when typical diplomacy fails to work.”

    • Fctiger

      Dude I know this is all completely made up by you but I would love this lol. For me an entire series based around Section 31 is really bold and cool. But yes it would go against the ideals of Star Trek and no one would know that better than Fuller so while I suspect Section 31 will have a direct involvement I don’t think the show will be directly about them. But yes you’re right, Discovery is such a crazy looking ship and it clearly doesn’t belong in the time period now that we know when it takes place so it does make you wonder is it a ship secretly built JUST like the U.S.S. Vengeance also done by Section 31 in the KT or is it a ship from the future that is conducting a secret mission or maybe it is a ship built by non Starfleet that they commandeered? Yeah as much as I HATE that ship now I have to admit I’m more curious then ever how it all fits. Its clearly NOT just a normal constituted Starfleet ship in this time so its going to be interesting no matter what.

      And if it really is a Section 31 ship, oh man that’s going to get people talking for weeks.

      • Michael

        I have been one of Gene’s old “superfans” for a very long time. What I said above is not “completely” made up – I would say it’s about 60% accurate because I trust my source of the info.

        People need to think – do you really think they would just make another prequel, but this time set 10 years before Kirk, without some kind of hook to the show? 😉

        Please read the following and then watch the CGI preview. Forget the quality. “Feel” the section 31 vibe. There is nothing traditional starfleet about it at all. Secret asteroid construction base? Cloaking device sound at the end? Hmm… Did Discovery go to cloak offscreen, but we could hear it? Notice the registry number – 1031? Hmm… Why the number 31? Odd choice. 😉

        I have been told there are one of two main plot possibilities to the show. The first is that the ship is fully section 31 and works behind the backs of starfleet – in plain sight. This is the most unlikely course they are setting.

        The second and most probable I am told -is that the ship is federation, but the Lt. Commander was recruited by section 31 and the Captain of the ship has no clue, and is not the focus of the show. The Lt. Commander, lets call her Willams for ease of use – actively works to protect the federation. She is basically fighting herself because she came to Discovery innocent and fully starfleet, but is compelled to join section 31 when her family is harmed and killed, because the federation would not act due to the prime directive.

        During the course of the 1st season we see her ethics slowly erode away, as she tries to carefully balance her out in the open traditional starfleet prime directive elements, with her new role as an agent for 31. By the end of the first season we see that 31’s way of doing things is far more appealing to her, and that all the events that took place during the season was simply a test by 31 to gauge her loyalty and resolve.

        The term “Discovery” for the show means three things I was told – how she looks inward and discovers she is not the person she thought she was, the name of the ship “Discovery” that is shown a generation in the future for each new season, but still part of section 31. The entire show is basically a generational account of how section 31 has interfered and meddled behind the scenes for a very long time, and how the audience “Discovers” that many of the events we have all seen in the 5 series so far ( Enterprise, TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager ) came to be. The best example is the “tribute” episode of DS9 that showed them going back in time to protect Kirk and the timeline. Kirk had no idea that Sisko and Dax were in the grain storage looking for a bomb.. but they were there.

        Remember the “accident” on Praxis? Guess what – it was no accident. Section 31. Remember Voyager being “taken by the caretaker” to the Delta quadrant? Guess what? Who has been the caretaker of the federation? Section 31. Somehow it will be revealed that Voyager was “set up” to be “taken” into the Delta quadrant. Why? To assess the Borg threat.

        Why do you think they are hiring people as writers who have written books for the various shows? Because they have shown a proven talent to remember and work in obscure details that would be required for a show like this. The woman who writes the Voyager books is really good at this.

        Remember the Klingon civil war in TNG? Guess what, they will show in a future season how 31 provoked it to happen. How about the Dominion? Do you really think it was Sisko who saved the day, with the prophets? Or perhaps he had help behind the scenes he ( and us ) had no idea about….

        Finally, Fuller said this that I post again. Items inside the ( ) are added by myself:

        “We’re ( The insanely talented writers of the Star Trek books that are hardcore fans that know every detail of the show from memory ) going deep into something ( covert activity ) that was for me always very tantalizing, ( Section 31, tantalizing because they have never been fully fleshed out, yet they have been around since before the federation )and [we’re telling] that story ( of section 31 )through a character who is on a journey that is going to teach her how to ( become a 31 agent ) get along ( deceive and control ) with others ( all enemies of the federation ) in the galaxy. For her to truly understand something that is alien, ( Klingons, Romulans, etc ) she has to first understand herself.” ( how far will she break her own ethical code to protect the federation? Is she really who she thought she was coming out of the academy? )

        Read between the lines everyone! This show is going to be for hardcore fans… And since it does not have to abide by any standards of their online network.. They are going to show us some of 31’s more “creative” ways to get people to talk/do what 31 wants. Social commentary on modern day waterboarding, etc )

  • Dawn

    I feel this guy has got it right

  • Harry Kane

    THAT SHIP LOOKS CRAP, USE THAT SHIP AND THE SHOW WILL BE STOPPED DEAD IN ITS TRACKS

  • Checked to see if CBS had bought startrekdiscovery.com. Seems the domain had been registered for something else back to 14 April 2013 for a roleplaying game: http://web.archive.org/web/20160109191957/http://startrekdiscovery.com/. Looks like the domain only transferred to CBS on 08th August this year and since updated on 20th August. It now redirects to CBS.com.

  • HisEminence

    Putting the new series (again) in the TOS era is making the same mistake as putting DS9 and VOY in the TNG era. It’s too much of the same for too long. We’ve just had 3 movies of dabbling with the TOS era, and before that, a failed prequel series of TOS.

    One thing Trek producers always seem to do, except Gene Roddenberry himself, is play it safe. Hollywood mob mentality will once again fatigue the franchise.

  • Pedro Ferreira

    Are people really begging for another prequel series?

  • Dagoth Bob

    You forgot a few things. Discovery will make a title song that is sort of a merge of most/all of the themes instead of spending on a new one, leading to the true story of Discovery which is ‘we will simply take old plots from all the series’! First female command crew? Considering Janeway, 7 and B’lana basically ran Boyhater [sorry my pet name for Voyager] this is the SECOND female command crew. As After Trek pointed out, they ‘borrowed’ the Worf/Romulan storyline for Michael. It appears they are going to ‘borrow’ the Paris storyline as Michael is brought out of jail to be a special team member. Too many more to waste time on. But I hope they ditch the flashbacks stuff quickly, that is the death knell to every show EVER. Stay in the current story timeline at least 98% of the time or get cancelled. And where is the USS Discovery. [joke]