New breaking developments on the behind-the-scenes staffing at STAR TREK: DISCOVERY have been revealed today by Variety, which reports that executive producer and up-until-now showrunner Bryan Fuller will be taking on a reduced role in the upcoming Trek television revival.

Fuller, who is currently hard at work running the production of his adaption of American Gods, will stay on as executive producer and will “still be involved in breaking stories,” per Variety, but will no longer be showrunner on DISCOVERY, instead handing over that position to producers Gretchen Berg and Aaron Harberts in a dual role. Each have been long-associated with DISCOVERY, and with previous Fuller-helmed projects.

Per Variety, some of this leadership flux is connected to the recent rescheduling of the series debut – from January to May 2017 – announced in September, which was deemed necessary due to an additional need for post-production, as well as a need for more time to cast the show’s lead roles:

Fuller, who will remain an executive producer, will still be involved in breaking stories, and the show will continue to follow his vision for the universe that this latest “Trek” series will inhabit.

Sources said there had been some strain between “Star Trek” producer CBS Television Studios and Fuller over the progress of production on the show, as Fuller is also juggling the final weeks of shooting and post-production duties on Starz’s upcoming drama “American Gods” and prepping a reboot of “Amazing Stories” for NBC.

Fuller has penned the first two scripts for “Discovery” and has hammered out the broader story arc and mythology for the new “Trek” realm. But it became clear that he couldn’t devote the amount of time needed for “Discovery” to make its premiere date and with production scheduled to start in Toronto next month.

The new structure was worked out quickly over the weekend in an effort to allow Fuller to remain actively involved albeit not on the day-to-day production level as originally envisioned. There’s also some internal stress at the studio that the lead character, described by Fuller as a female lieutenant commander, has yet to be cast.

Sources emphasized that CBS execs have been happy with the material that Fuller has developed to date but became increasingly concerned that he had too much on his plate and there was no willingness to delay the premiere date once more.

Variety’s report also indicates that current estimates put each episode of DISCOVERY at about $6-7 Million in production costs, and that most roles – aside from the central character – have been cast at this point.

CBS Television Studios issued the following statement regarding this change in leadership on the upcoming series, emphasizing that Fuller’s creative input will continue:

We are extremely happy with the creative direction of STAR TREK: DISCOVERY and the strong foundation that Bryan Fuller has helped us create for the series. Due to Bryan’s other projects, he is no longer able to oversee the day-to-day of Star Trek, but he remains an executive producer, and will continue to map out the story arc for the entire season.

Alex Kurtzman, co-creator and executive producer, along with Fuller’s producing partners and longtime collaborators, Gretchen Berg & Aaron Harberts, will also continue to oversee the show with the existing writing and producing team.

Bryan is a brilliant creative talent and passionate Star Trek fan, who has helped us chart an exciting course for the series. We are all committed to seeing this vision through and look forward to premiering STAR TREK: DISCOVERY this coming May 2017.

With more than six months to go until STAR TREK: DISCOVERY arrives on CBS All Access, it seems like there’s still some need to divert more power to the structural integrity of the production team.

*   *   *

UPDATEThe original report of a $9 Million episodic budget was in Canadian dollars. We have updated this article to reflect a $6-7 Million USD value.

  • Katee Sackhoff for lead!

    • Brian Thorn

      Oh dear God, no. Someone who can act, please. Sackhoff’s range runs from A to B.

      • Binyamin Koretz

        only if A and B are, like, right next to each other

  • David Dennis

    Glad to hear it. If it’s not his first priority — it needs to be given to someone else.

    • Mrplatitude

      Yeah its a bummer but if he couldn’t fully commit than it is probably for the best. We wouldn’t want it delayed again.

      • Fctiger

        Agreed. I love Fuller and he’s still heavily involved but only in Hollywood do you have this crazy idea that you can somehow do all these projects and get it all done in time. He’s just one guy, running ONE show is already a lot. How many store managers out there run more than one store? Thats what a show runner is, the guy is there day to day cross checking everything, there for all the employees, answer all the questions, make sure everything is getting put on the floor, etc. Its tough enough at ONE store…now Fuller has three.

        A show runner for a show is essentially the director of a feature film you can’t just pop in and out when you feel like it you literally have to be there as much as possible and its probably why it got delayed in the first place.

        • Mrplatitude

          Yeah exactly.

      • Xandercom

        You’d think that given both options he’d have dumped the other job, not a career defining showrunner status on one of the biggest sci-fi franchises ever created, regardless of the relatively minor consequences of letting down Hollywood.

        Of course he made the decision himself… Don’t make me laugh.

        • Fctiger

          He was committed to American Gods first because he was the one who pushed to even get that show on the air. Its been his dream to turn it into a show so he can’t abandon that one. Star Trek was getting on the air if he was there or not and again you act like the guy is fired, he’s STILL there.

          • Xandercom

            I’m in the UK, have no idea what “American Gods” is.
            Now no one in the UK will have any idea what “Bryan Fuller” is.

          • Fctiger

            Hey I never heard of it either lol. It wasn’t until Fuller announced he was doing it I heard about it. But seriously I get it, we ALL get it lol you want the premise changed. Yeah I think a lot of us do but I don’t see any of that happening, thats all. I’m going to give it a chance and at the very least I hope they change that ugly ship. If they can at least do that I would be a happy camper.

          • Xandercom

            If by “me” you mean the majority of the intended audience, correct.

          • Fctiger

            Well thats subjective. There are just as many people who DON’T want a series post Voyager as people like me and you who don’t want a post-TOS show. I know because I argue with those people too lol.

            Reality is Trek fans overall doesn’t have a consensus of what we want. We act like we do but we don’t and why the franchise feels torn. Yes people like us who was probably fans of TNG on are more into a later series. But it doesn’t mean everyone of course. We’ll just have to hope and pray whatever they do its good because I dont think the KT movies are coming back but its just an opinion.

          • Xandercom

            It’s that deluded perception of the reality of the fanbase which fails to get through to you, and people like you.

            This 3rd prequel in a row has just has it’s showrunner removed after already having it’s production date pushed back 5 months.
            You of course are free to interpret that in any way you wish, including the official statements by the PR at CBS.

            For the rest of us who have been utterly bemused and somewhat offended by the quite frankly absurd direction displayed thus far, you’ll forgive us for hoping that the message has gotten through. I’m afraid there’s little you can do to change that perception.

          • Fctiger

            Its the internet you can dream big lol. As far as the production itself we’ll just have to see.

            Again you’re talking to someone who has been arguing with others on this board to NOT believe the press release that Star Trek 4 is ‘guaranteed’ since Beyond bombed.

            I’m not basing it on the PR alone, just the reality of TV production. If they already have a cast and shooting next month as Variety is reporting then yeah, don’t expect much changes. If they didn’t have a cast and delayed shooting to next March or something, OK, yeah I would have more faith. 😉

            But we’ll see.

          • Xandercom

            It’s a shame when the people who should be creaming this up are instead minded to hope the whole thing fails before it even gets in to production to avoid the worse damage of a failed complete season.

            Starting off on such a bad footing will not only drop that 5 star netflix rating to 4, but will likely actively engage others to vote it to a 3 as the last word in getting their point across.

            Then you’re left with just CBS financing the whole thing for season 2. Good luck with that..

          • Fctiger

            “It’s a shame when the people who should be creaming this up are instead minded to hope the whole thing fails before it even gets in to production to avoid the worse damage of a failed complete season.”

            You’re right ALTHOUGH you can say that about the people who already assumed it was going to fail based on the original premise, right? 😉

            I’m hoping WHATEVER they come up with will be good. Fingers crossed.

            “If you can’t read between the lines of the PR spin, you’re no better than the idiots who set the thing into motion to generate cash in the first place.”

            LOL the internet. Take a breath chief. Its a TV show, end of the day our life will go on. And I didn’t realize I was now a co-conspirator lol.

            Anyway hopefully it turns out OK and I’ll give a chance regardless. I miss Trek on TV badly. But we’re Trek fans thinking the worse of our franchise is what we do. 😉

          • Xandercom

            I’m unsure why you’ve begun endorsing my posts, however the point stands – CBS took Bryan away from being showrunner when the extension to production times was announced, not today, or close to today when this PR statement was made.

          • Fctiger

            Huh? Endorsing? All I said was there is no proof yet any ‘major’ changes has happened. And I also said yes I HOPE so but hoping is not the same. And whats funny is no one here or other Trek sites I’m reading is saying that either, right? You seem to be the only one. Hell some people think its just going to get cancelled now lol.

            I don’t think that will happen. CBS already said they have made a lot of money just selling it so something will get made.

            I think CBS is going to try and prove everything is running smoothly and announce the cast soon so people won’t think the show is not finished and probably why they will start shooting next month.

          • Xandercom

            You’re clearly unable or unwilling to read between the lines, so this conversation is clearly going nowhere fast.

          • Fctiger

            LOL tell me about it. Dude NO ONE is saying this BUT you! Right? Has ANYONE else here has suggested it? No, so get off my back lol. Even on Trekmovie most peopld just assume the show is getting cancelled. Hopefully it won’t.

            But yes I HOPE you’re right O-K, but as I said over and over and over again if they have already casted it and SHOOTING NEXT MONTH (4 days away to November) I wouldn’t hold my breath on it thats all.

          • jj

            “American Gods” is originally a novel written by Neil Gaiman, a British author…

          • Chris Benoit

            English author…

          • Bifash

            I’m from the UK, and I and many of my friends and colleagues know full well who Bryan Fuller is already.

  • Fctiger

    Wow I saw this reported not like 10 mins ago somewhere else out of pure luck and I was pretty shocked to see it. It would explain why its been delayed.

    BUT now that I got the whole picture it doesn’t sound like its out of malice it seems like Fuller is just trying to do too much and the production was slowing because of that and CBS wants this thing moving. We were all a bit surprised when we heard they were going to shoot the pilot at the end of October (literally around now) for a show that was suppose to premiere in January and still not a single actor casted at that. That was already signs things weren’t going as quickly as hoped.

    So I think while its disappointing its understandable. And I didn’t realize the guy was now developing ANOTHER show for NBC on top of this one and American Gods. Yeah something gotta give.

    • Brian Thorn

      “And I didn’t realize the guy was now developing ANOTHER show for NBC on
      top of this one and American Gods. Yeah something gotta give.”

      Yes, you have to wonder what Fuller and CBS thought was going to happen. Did they expect AMAZING STORIES to be abandoned? Both shows were already announced before Discovery was unveiled last November. So it seems there were some unrealistic (at best) schedules being planned last fall.

      The original Amazing Stories in 1985 began with a huge amount of promise and hype, but ended up being mediocre at best. I hope the revival fairs better.

  • Oh, dear. Bryan Fuller sounded like a really great choice for showrunner, and I’m sorry to hear that he’ll be less involved in the future. Still, when Gene Roddenberry brought Gene Coon on board to serve as producer, that was a positive development for TOS, so we’ll hope that Fuller’s picks for showrunners will work out.

    I think it’s strange and unwelcome news that the lead hasn’t yet been cast. Shouldn’t the other characters be cast partly because of the chemistry they have with the lead? But that can’t happen if the lead hasn’t been chosen…

    • Locutus

      I had the exact same cocern with regard to the uncast lead. It seems strange to cast the secondary characters without knowing the lead.

      Can’t they just hire Julianna Margulies or Rosario Dawson and be done with it!! Seriously though, it shouldn’t be that hard to find a talented actress interested in a Star Trek leading role.

      • Fctiger

        No thats normal. Plenty of shows and films casts supporting characters before the lead. Not always obviously but yes it happens much more so in TV in fact because most shows shoot pilots first and again unless its a star lead then they just fill the roles as they come to shoot the pilot. The lead makes the most news for obvious reasons but this is common. You just don’t hear about the others right away unless its a big name of course.

        My guess is they have someone specifically in mind for the lead though and trying their best to get that person.

        • Locutus

          I suppose there is also Voyager, where they had to recast the lead weeks into shooting! (Not that Voyager should be any sort of model on how to make good Star Trek.)

          • Fctiger

            Actually you can go back to TNG. Patrick Stwart wasn’t cast until most of the other roles were. IIRC Levar Burton was actually first cast for that show because he had the biggest name at the time.

      • M33

        Well, if you are like Kate Mulgrew, you don’t have to like Star Trek at all. For her, all it was was “a job that paid the bills”.

      • mswood666

        Almost every Trek series had some of the secondary cast picked before the lead was cast. The only Trek this might not have happened with is Enterprise. And even with Enterprise it’s quite possible that negotiations with Bakula could have run right up to the very near the start of production. Berman in several various interviews (plus some cast interviews over the decades) has mentioned that between the producers and the studio wanting to make sure they have the best actor for the lead role (that’s the role they think will either sink the entire production) and the actor’s agent trying to get the very best contract for their client, can really push right up to the start of filming (some even past the start of filming).

        Rosario Dawson very likely couldn’t do it has she is signed with Marvel for multiple shows on netflix. She isn’t the star of them so she probably could film guest roles or smaller parts in films,but she wouldn’t be able to sign s the primary star of a tv series, even a limited episode count show).

        Other’s might not want to work a tv show (as it limits the type of work you can do, or have to live out of the US for the filming period, or work on science fiction which still to this day isn’t considered as respectable as regular dramas.

      • SpaceCadet

        No, the lead actor is the most important role so it makes sense that that process will take longer than the others to find someone perfect for the role. And for the most part, that way of doing things has been a success with the prior Trek series.

    • Brian Thorn

      I still think they want a particular actress who isn’t available until early next year, hence the delay until May.

      • M33

        Let’s hope they pick a mostly unknown. Worked very well for four of the series, and not as well when they picked the well-known Bakula (although I do enjoy that series, except for the decon scenes).

        • Binyamin Koretz

          William Shatner was not a “mostly unknown” before TOS.

          • Canine Turd Burglar

            Neither was Patrick Strewart, at least not in Britain anyhow.

            In fact, given Spencer for Hire and Mrs. Columbo it’s hard to argue that Brooks and Mulgrew were either.

          • Fctiger

            True but neither were big stars either. I think they were known in the industry but they weren’t exactly household names. I remember Brooks in the few Spencer for Hire episodes I saw but I couldn’t tell you a single thing beyond that. As for Mulgrew again I remembered her in some things here and there, I remember her mostly being in a hospital show I liked but got cancelled in one season but yeah same deal with Brooks I couldn’t exactly point her out as a big star anywhere. I think whats mostly being talked about.

            Its one thing to cast an actor with at least a resume but its another if you cast a known lead like a Patrick Dempsey, Kerry Washington or Keifer Sutherland that everyone knows well the second their face flash across the screen.

          • Canine Turd Burglar

            Yes, but Shatner wasn’t a major household name in 1965 either. *shrug*

          • Fctiger

            LOL I know, that was the point being made right?

            As far as the American audience is concerned the only Captain anyway that was close to a household name was Scott Bakula and even then he was mostly famous in geek circles for stuff like Quantum Leap. Sure people knew him but he wasn’t huge but certainly a household name at least.

          • M33

            He was a lesser-known revolving actor who on occasion had leading parts. I think most folks would be hard pressed to think of what he was known for prior to Star Trek (and a couple Twilight Zones don’t really count, since that show was anthology based).
            My point was if anyone mentioned Scott Bakula, their minds would instantly think Quantum Leap. Most everyone would not instantly think of a leading role TV series for any of the other actors before their starring roles on Star Trek TV series’.
            That’s all.

        • GIBBS v2

          Bakula had a nice blue collar quality to his captain and I think was by design.

          • M33

            He was good, but it took a while to get past seeing the Quantum Leap character.
            In a way, he always reminded me of G. W. Bush. Kinda looked like him too.

      • Xandercom

        I think they don’t have a clue what they want, which is somewhat ironic but very telling when the fandom have been expressing to production that they don’t want what they are peddling for nearly 6 months months now.

        The whole outfit being up in the air is the only thing reviving interest in it right now, rather than possibly torrenting a car crash we refuse to be part of by financing it.

    • Xandercom

      Unfortunately it’s the fact that the show seems to have been aimed at TOS fans eager for a bit of nostalgia seems to have been the main cause of complaint amongst the fandom as a whole. I’m one of them, and hoping this will mean those complaints are to be addressed.

    • Mark

      Not really sure why everyone assumes that DSC will have a “lead actor”. It is likely they are going to mimic the Game of Thrones style of storytelling to update Trek’s format and use a completely ensemble cast. If there is anyone resembling a “lead” it will almost certainly just be the character who introduces us into the world of the story in the pilot and then recesses back to have equal importance with the rest of the cast after a few episodes. We already know that there has been no mention made about a Captain at all and that the series is going to be serialized in nature. This is going to be less episodic like we’re used to on Trek and more like “Westworld” where there are ongoing narratives that may or may not tie into each other.

  • Fctiger

    Also wow they are spending $9 million an episode on this thing. Thats quite a commitment. TO compare the average 1 hour TV drama cost around $4-5 million on TV. We know they have gotten pricier with shows like GOT and now Westworld (both on HBO) for $10 million but thats still far from the norm. For CBS to be spending so much is very encouraging! Everyone seem to have assumed it was going to be placed on line so they can make it as cheap as possible. This proves the complete opposite if true.

    • Locutus

      Yeah, the budget is very encouraging!

      • Fctiger

        Well you probably know by now but that $9 million figure was actually corrected as being Canadian dollars. Its still a bit higher than average though with around $6-7 million but not not GOT territory lol. But still that means they aren’t trying to cheap on it at least.

        • Locutus

          According to a posting on IMDB, the later seasons of Voyager and Deep Space Nine were about $3.5 million per episode. DS9’s pilot was $12 million and Voyager’s was $23 million. (Can that be right?) It also says Enterprise had a budget of $1.6 million per episode (a price cut). Given, inflation and the ten-plus years that have passed since those shows, maybe Discovery’s budget really is more on par with Voyager and DS9 in the end (although we got twice as many of those episodes). Still, at least it’s not a microbudget!

          • Fctiger

            Yeah you’re probably right but yes Star Trek has always had bigger budgets than most normal shows, mostly due to the special effects. Its always been a weird difference because Star Trek TV has been some of the most expensive shows but the movies (until recently) have been some of the cheapest films out there. Its always been strange that way and yest the Voyager pilot did cost $23 million.

            In fact whats never talked about is the Voyager pilot was the most expensive TV pilot in history believe it or not. And if you want to see how really crazy that is around that time the movie Generations only cost $26 million. Yes a TV pilot nearly cost the same of a motion picture. Its still one of the costliest 20 years later. But a reason why it cost so much is because it went over budget when the original actress who played Janeway (forgot her name) dropped after a few days of filming and they had to shut down production for awhile untill they hired Mulgrew and then reshot all those scenes again. Reshoots can add up big. So thats really a big reason although I’m guessing it was already pretty high.

    • M33

      And, unless I am mistaken, since I have heard repeatedly that it is “cheaper” to shoot in Canada, this could mean that the production values could be even better because the US dollar can go further in Canada than it would in the States.

      • Fctiger

        Yeah U.S, shows (and a few movies) have been shooting in Canada because of the tax breaks and better currency exchange. In fact CBS just moved Supergirl from its L.A. based location in first season to Canada this season to save money. So yes it probably is better in terms of production values.

    • Xandercom

      Spend based upon whatever the advertisers, netflix and so on were prepared to pay on the pitch they previously bought in to. Expect contracts to be challenged, if nothing more than to get a discount on what they pledged for no other reason than the previous pitch changing.

      • Fctiger

        Wait who said the previous pitch was changing??? All it said was Fuller isn’t running the day to day. He’s still executive producer, his script for the pilot is still being shot and the new show runners are the same executive producers who helped him produced this show from day one. I think people are reading too much into it. Yes some things might change but it doesnt sound like any major overhaul on the actual premise,.

        • Xandercom

          Most of the fandom have hoped it from day one, and only wanted it more so as new info came out.

          That’s who.

          • Fctiger

            Yeah that still means nothing lol. Did you READ the press release? It sounds like you havent. Everyone who was making the same show before is still there. It sounds like all thats changing is Fuller will have less responsibility but they didn’t fire the guy nor did he quit which tells me they are probably sticking to whatever he was doing. No one left over ‘creative differences’.

            And as I said if they make those kinds of changes now its no way they would be able to premiere it by May.

          • Xandercom

            Ha, “press release”.

            Do you mean the precisely timed end result of internal affairs made public?

            I find it hard to believe that you would accept that the “press release” was a spontaneous development. Did the new showrunners fall out of the sky on the very same day Bryan’s departure was given to the CBS PR folk?

            Silly person.

            It would do Bryan’s career no end of damage if a change of showrunner and extension to the production time were announced on the same day. Damage limitation to his career buddy.

            Add to that the complete absence of any other news, whatsoever, since then, and you’ll have your answer darling.

            For real world examples of Star Trek stories meant for one particular time, crew and ship, later adapted to a completely different point of all three, read.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Phase_II

          • Fctiger

            Dude get a grip. If there are changes GREAT but at the moment there doesn’t appear to be any based on what we know. The kind of changes you are suggesting usually would imply Fuller would just be fired or quit. None of that has happened. All it sounds like is what it is: Fuller was trying to run three shows at once and it was too much work. MY guess is he probably wanted another delay and CBS said no and this was probably the best outcome to have people who are responsible for that show only run as most show runners do.

            If something changes, OK, but lets not be fanboys and think it now means the show is going to now take place on the Enterprise H in the 25th century.

          • Xandercom

            “If something changes, OK,”

            It’s already changed, he’s been fired/quit/given up a career defining series.
            Good, his ideas were not in-touch with the reality of his audience expectations. If by chance he has avoided an apocalyptic end to his career as a showrunner by nothing other than his own chance decision to focus on other things, he just won the lottery.

          • Fctiger

            Dude where are you getting this? Read the press release:

            “We are extremely happy with the creative direction of Star Trek: Discovery and the strong foundation that Bryan Fuller has helped us create for the series. Due to Bryan’s other projects, he is no longer able to oversee the day-to-day of Star Trek, but he remains an executive producer, and will continue to map out the story arc for the entire season. Alex Kurtzman, co-creator and executive producer, along with Fuller’s producing partners and longtime collaborators, Gretchen Berg & Aaron Harberts, will also continue to oversee the show with the existing writing and producing team. Bryan is a brilliant creative talent and passionate Star Trek fan, who has helped us chart an exciting course for the series. We are all committed to seeing this vision through and look forward to premiering Star Trek: Discovery this coming May 2017.”

            Its the ‘Continue to map out the story arc for the entire season’ bit that tells you if Fuller was pulling back creatively he wouldn’t still be creating the story. Thats the difference, he’s not just executive producer in name only like JJ Abrams is with a lot of his shows he will still be hands on. And the people who produced his original vision is still there.

            What I’m saying is if there was WHOLESALE changes there would be a big change in the production staff, but no one has left. Fuller is taking a step back and the people he HIRED in the first place to run the show just got a promotion.

            Again more could happen but based on what we know and the fact no one has left I doubt it.

          • Xandercom

            I don’t think you’re in touch with the reality of this new series as defined by the audience who are continually branded as “haters” by hard core Kirk TOS fans.

            The whole outfit being up in the air is the only thing reviving interest in it right now. We’ve learned from our mistakes.
            Rather than risking puting any of our money in to the same rubbish that J-Brams has sucked casual viewers in to, all we’ll be doing is possibly torrenting a car crash we refuse to be part of by financing, or indeed investing any hope that it won’t turn out to be the aforementioned hard core Kirk TOS fan fap which Enterprise and Jbrams tried to sensationalise.

            If you’re 40 or over, defend STD to your dying breath. If you’re 39 or under, when does series 2 of Stranger Things come to Netflix?

          • Fctiger

            Its like I’m talking to a wall. Dude, the only ‘reality’ I’m talking about is what they said in the press release. Get a grip Jesus. You’re the only one here who has read into the fact the entire concept of the show has changed and mostly because this is what you want. Again I GET it but there is no proof of that YET, OK?

            Where did I defend anything??? I’m just telling you what the press release said lol. And I have voiced my opinion multiple time on both this board and Trekmovie I’m not in love with the idea either and have said making a third prequel series (I count the KT films as a prequel) is a mistake but no one from CBS called me to get my personal vision of the show.

            So IF they make changes great but it doesn’t sound like that is what is happening with this. EVERYONE who was hired to create the original show is still there. And no offense but this is Star Trek fans are hard to appease because you have already determined its bad. I dont know why anyone even bothers? Lets see what they do first and decide its worse than death, yeah?

          • Xandercom

            The only “reality” in dispute is the one you live in based on press releases.

          • Fctiger

            OMG its hopeless. You sound like a teenager. I’ll say it again IF they make changes, good. So far this is ALL we have for now. OK?

            But if they make another press release tomorrow saying they have decided the show will now take place in the 25th century with Captain Pierre Picard then we can say more on it. OK? Great, good, take care.

          • Xandercom

            I’m 34.
            I’ll say it again. IF the premise of the show continues to be Bryan’s Kirk fixation now that he has been expunged from the roll of showrunner it’s already dead. Say no more, OK? Great, good, take care.

          • Fctiger

            You’re 34 and you’re just now realizing you can’t get everything you want in life? Welcome to the real reality lol.

            I think this is what Fuller wants. Hell he talked about it in 2013 he wanted a show around the TOS timeline. I dont get it either but they seem to think TOS timeline is what fans want. And the fact he’s still there and guiding the show is why I don’t think anything has changed, especially If they already cast roles for it. If they completely changed it then my guess is he would’ve walked completely. He clearly doesn’t need the work lol. So we’ll see.

          • Xandercom

            And the TOS timeline is why this whole production has gone downhill from the word go.

            Do you accept that, or not?
            I think we’ll have an answer.

          • Fctiger

            LOL why do you keep treating me like we’re on different sides?? We’re not man, I get it. BUT I also know the reality of television production and this show has been in production for 9 months now. Yes they pushed it back to May but that was just common sense since they haven’t even casted anyone.

            Anyway I just read on another site that shooting is suppose to begin next month. If thats true then no the changes can’t be that big. But thats the other thing once they said they had cast nearly all the roles except leading that already tells you they are mostly going with what they got. So if they shoot next month then yeah.

          • Xandercom

            Ahh, the merry dance option.

          • Fctiger

            DO you have a mental disease? I AGREE with you! Jesus.

            But unfortunately I don’t think they are going to change it much for a myriad of reasons. I have stated them over and over again. This is why just trying to have a conversation over the internet is a waste of time. We don’t all get what we want in life. That’s life. 😉

          • Xandercom

            Yeah, as it happens I’ve been inflicted with Reality since birth.
            It can be frightfully trying at times.

          • MichaelMeir-Wright

            Bloody hell, I know some Star Trek can be a little extra, but this is taking it to a whole new level. Wow.

          • StuUK

            THIS is gold!
            X, you really do have the gift! Fctiger must be about ready to stab himself repeatedly in the face right about now. Flick his ears again and lets see what happens next…

          • Fctiger

            LOL! Yeah…

  • john chilton

    Time to bring in Ronald D. Moore! (Or Many Coto)

    • Fctiger

      That would be amazing but they already have the show runners, the same guys who was already producing it with Fuller and most of his productions. It sounded like they were basically the show runners with Fuller, just got a promotion to lead show runners. God it says a lot about how much we attach this stuff to the face of these shows because everyone knows Fuller but I don’t even know the other two names and apparently they worked on every Fuller show lol. So it will be fine end of the day.

    • M33

      Hey, you could always go for the wildcard — MacFarlane!
      He did say he wanted to be handed the keys to Star Trek.
      Not saying that it would be a good choice… but it would be different!

      • kadajawi

        Which one? Seth or Todd?

        • M33

          Seth.

    • pittrek

      No. Just no. Ron Moore can write good Star Trek scripts only if he’s working together with Brannon Braga. Plus his Battlestar Galactica sucked. Many Coto would be a much better choice, the man has a genuine love for Trek and knows what the fans want

      • Zarm

        Moore seems to think that Year of Hell would be good Trek to make a permanent series of, that the super-dank lighting of the Yesterday’s Enterprise bridge is how TNG should’ve looked all the time (though I think Generations handily disproved that idea!), that the Roddenberryan ideal can only exist as hypocrisy with shadowy organizations, secret intolerance, and bureaucratic ignorance for the suffering of others on the frontier (I.e. Section 31, the Maquis, etc.), and that good stories can’t be told with heroes that actually like each other and get along.

        Moore wrote some great episodes, under the tutelage of others… but the more I read on his viewpoints, the more I think he doesn’t actually get Trek. He can produce brilliant Trek within someone else’s parameters… but if he’s the one calling the shots, you’ll get something that is so far divorced from anything Star Trek (like BSG, for instance) that to stick that title on it would just be bizarre. Not that it may not have its place in the pantheon of sci-fi… but Trek, his ideals aren’t.

        • Muzer

          I think it’s a fair argument for the time, after so many years of Star Trek to point out the possible flaws in the vision that formed it. After all, every vision has them — we’d all be living in paradise now if we’d found a vision without — and it’s interesting to explore them in a new context. However, I kind of agree that that sort of thing is probably best left to a time when Trek is well-established in the public mind; perhaps now it’s best for Trek to stick to what it’s known for. But then again, it’s hard to do that without repetition, given we’ve had all of TOS, most of TNG, much of Voyager and pretty much all of Enterprise to do that already (some better than others, of course). I don’t know, it’s a hard call.

        • Fctiger

          I sort of get your point but you have remember Moore basically help made DS9 what it was which a lot of people do argue is different from traditional Trek BUT at the same time actually did something new and interesting with it for a change.

          Yes I think its obvious he likes the ‘darker’ side of Trek and yes if you watched BSG it was a much more grown up mature type of sci fi which I think he felt shackled when making Star Trek because while DS9 is a darker show its still a tame one end of the day like most Trek is.

          I think what Moore wanted was something a bit more grown up where people can cuss and have sex and have real conflict. I don’t think he was against Trek being about optimism and hope so much as he just thought its interesting to see people challenging that all the time.

          • Zarm

            It is true that he did introduce those elements to Star Trek, but he did so by bringing in alien cast members so that the established non-interpersonal-conflict nature of Starfleet wouldn’t be violated.

            This was also done through the creation of the Maquis, of course, but that really just makes the Federation look like idiots that can’t negotiate a decent treaty to save their lives. And I don’t particularly want to accomplish these darker explorations by making this supposed heroes of the show look like buffoons, the way the Maquis situation did to Starfleet Command. 🙂

            And I do agree that I think Ron Moore wanted those things, and felt constrained, but I think that’s also why he went on and did a separate show- because at the end of the day, Star Trek generally isn’t those things. And Star Trek has become the phenomenon it is within those ‘restrictions’; every retrospective talking about Star Trek’s enduring appeal, and the reason it’s become such a phenomenon, seems to suggest that it’s precisely because it operates within those restrictions- of showing a more optimistic future.

            A lot of writers seem to chafecunder the idea of writing for such a world; but it’s such a world that has made Star Trek the popular property that it is. I would hate to see the new show abandoned that.

            And while there may be a place for that sort of depiction of humanity in other science fiction- which is why Star Trek isn’t the only science fiction out there- to turn Star Trek into that is to make it just like everything else; to lose what makes it special, and to lose what makes it Star Trek. But changing Star Trek to be just like everything else loses the point of why Star Trek has endured for 50 years and few other properties have. It is precisely because it is not a dark exploration of conflict and fallibility, but a beacon of what could be. An optimistic inspiration, a call to aspire to better rather than an exploration of how much things suck now.

            To me, DS9 already got perilously close to losing that, but always manage to skirt the line and stay just on the right side of it. But to try and focus on that again, or to any greater depth- certainly to a BSG level, or anything I suspect that Ron Moore would bring to it- would be to definitely cross the line into something that fails to uphold Star Trek’s core. (And look, while I don’t ascribe to that ethos in my own personal life- I don’t think that humans are capable of changing their own basic nature as Star Trek does- I also recognize that Star Trek is what it is because of that ethos, and loses its value as an inspiration without it.)

            And I just said the same thing about 5 times over in slightly different ways, so I’ll stop typing. 🙂

          • Fctiger

            Ok fair enough!

            I definitely see your point but I do think its a matter of how different people look at it. I never saw the Maquis thing as a stray from the ideals from Star Trek because it was about diplomacy dealing with a hostile enemy (Cardassians) and losing your land. I get you may not like the uprising part of it but I never saw it as dark or anything just a part of reality that the galaxy is still not an easy place to live in. I mean we still have neutral zone in Star Trek from the very beginning, this is just another play on that idea.

            Now I’ll give you things like Section 31, who I personally love lol, but yes that does go straight to your point. And while I liked them on STID I kind of thought they took them a bit too far when they were willing to destroy a Starfleet ship to keep their secret. That probably went a tad too far in their portrayal but it is another universe.

            As for Moore specifically again you COULD be right but I think Moore was more about showing a reality to the universe and even for Star Trek it doesnt mean everything has a Disney ending all the time. I think he really explained it well on why he left Voyager after just a few months there because he was making the point the ship should be more desolate looking, you should see a crew on the frail, people should be dying more, other people should leave the ship, there would be a lot more babies being made because yeah maybe it might not take 70 years to get home but it still might take 30 and so on. And yeah you’re on ship lost in space sex should be happening a lot more, etc.

            I think what he was saying and making the point yes its still Star Trek but you should also have the reality of long term space travel too where the ship isn’t going to look nice and clean 5 years later when there isn’t a single star base to service it. People WOULD be on edge a lot more due to their situation, etc.

            I think Moore wanted those kinds of things inputted in Trek. Yes, its one big happy fleet but space is still a cold place and as Q once said its not safe out there.

            And thats why BSG was really a great show. I always said its a show if DS9 and Voyager had a dysfunctional baby lol. All the stuff I said about Voyager you can see it implemented in that show with a lot of run down people, things falling apart, etc. But yes it is a more cynical show and I will agree I don’t want Trek cynical but oddly both DS9 and Voyager are based on cynical premises and I think he just wanted a more realistic flair to those. Notice TNG ISN’T a cynical premise and he basically wrote accordingly to that but yes he wasn’t in charge there like DS9.

            Wow this was suppose to be a paragraph lol. So I’ll stop typing now too. 😉

          • kadajawi

            Mh. I think you’re not giving Star Trek enough credit. It was about showing a positive society, but that also happened in DS9. And in ST:ID. The main cast is good, for the most part. There were MANY flawed humans in TOS that were far from perfect, or outright evil (especially higher up the ranks in Starfleet). In the end, Star Trek tried to show us what was wrong with our society, and showed a better version. It tried to lecture us. DS9 did that with more subtlety.

            I admit that I like the dark side, and I generally prefer that in TV shows.

        • Kuato

          I agree that RDM wouldn’t be the best fit as showrunner for the reasons mentioned above. I also think RDM doesn’t have the attention to continuity that Trek demands. Watching TNG, RDM penned episodes are usually excellent story-wise but not the tightest continuity-wise. As for BSG’s continuity, the less said, the better.

          • kadajawi

            BSG had more overall continuity than VOY. A TON more. It also had more than TNG. And no, I’m not a fan of BSG. I think it’s ok at best.

        • kadajawi

          I fully agree with RDM, and that’s exactly what I want to see. BSG was fine, though not great.

          • Zarm

            But it’s not in any way, shape, or form- the ethos, worldview, aesthetics, themes, and messages are antithetical to Trek’s. How could that make for good Star Trek?

            And isn’t that exactly what everyone is complaining about the JJ films for? That they take the Star Trek name and stick it on to something that doesn’t follow any of the themes or values or ideals that make Star Trek what it is? How can doing the same thung be okay just because it because it comes from Ron Moore? I didn’t get it when people were saying that’s what Voyager should be like, and I don’t get it now. It just seems to be asking for Star Trek to be less like Star Trek- when that’s what all the shows that aren’t Star Trek are for. 🙂

          • kadajawi

            It may not be _your_ Star Trek, but as a fan of DS9 it is mine 🙂

            To me in the first place Star Trek was about our society… what was wrong with it, to show an improved image of humanity, and to hold a mirror in our face. The difference with the RDM/ISB version of Trek is IMHO that it is a bit more… matured? It isn’t all dewy eyed and unrealistic. Enterprise showed how we moved from a more or less intolerant society (sounds familiar?) to what we see in TOS and beyond. Section 31 shows the dangers in our society. It too, holds up a mirror to society, in particular the US.

            Anyway, there are different versions of Gene IMHO. He was completely different in TOS than he was in TNG season 1. And I wouldn’t use TNG season 1 as the prime example of what Star Trek should be. TOS has conflict, TOS has an imperfect Starfleet (look at how many bonkers admirals there are! Were there any good ones?!). And DS9 is IMHO absolutely in line with TOS, even if it is darker, more mature, and more balanced.

            As for Voyager… all I wanted is continuity and consequences. Not a captain that was all over the place, and basically a different character depending on the writer. Not a magic reset button, that reduced stakes. When they lose a shuttle, it should be gone. If the ship is damaged, it should be damaged. Remember that Enterprise episode, where the ship is badly damaged and they find a repair station? Or those episodes where the ship is damaged, and it limits them? In VOY the ship was almost always fine, no matter how bad it looked after the last episode. Ron Moore and Ira Steven Behr brought continuity to DS9, and that elevated the show.

            Janeway made a ton of bad decisions, a ton of morally problematic decisions. And she sometimes put the blame on others. She was absolutely a flawed character.

          • Zarm

            With all due respect to the many DS9 fans here, I think our primary difference of opinion is whether the core values of Star Trek are a cumulative product of all the spinoffs, or a pre-existing mission statement that each of the spinoffs must be measured against.

            From my perspective, DS9 barely skirts by actually aligning with Star Trek’s values (and Enterprise flunks completely at being Star Trek in every possible way); the definition of Star Trek’s values does not alter to include these as a foundation. I suspect that’s where are disagreement lies; to me, DS9 pushed to the very darkest boundaries of where Star Trek’s vision could go; it did not redefine those boundaries as a new benchmark, allowing something else to push them further and still remain Star Trek.

            For me, ‘dark,’ and ‘Star Trek’ are antonyms, not synonyms. DS9 toed that line… and frankly, that was enough of that for the entire franchise. We’ve had ‘the dark one.’ to go back to that well- or to accept that as the standard because the garbage fire that is modern television dwells generally there- is to miss the point of Trek. (And, incidentally, to demand that of Voyager in order to recognize Voyager’s quality is disingenuous, as that was never the series’ intent).

            I think we will have to agree to disagree, here, but for everything I understand Star Trek to be, Moore’s direction is the wrong direction, and DS9 carried it as far (perhaps, at times, much further) than it can go and remain true to Star Trek’s core.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I started watching Space Above and Beyond recently and can’t believe how much the remake BSG stole from it. Thing is while Space isn’t perfect it’s still a better written show than BSG.

    • GIBBS v2

      I would love Moore to bring his slightly darker (BSG) vision and his matured skill sets back to Trek.

      • john chilton

        …and his intelligence …and his sensibility ….and his wonderful story telling ability. God damn! We can dream!

  • Xandercom

    Good. It was just a fanboy getting the keys to the family car.
    Example of why a prequel of a 1960’s vision of the future was ultimately doomed to fail, and completely incomparable with today’s expectation of future tech:

    https://youtu.be/BzMLA8YIgG0?t=1m6s

    And this is 2016.
    Enough of prequels, reboots and stupid ship designs based on nothing more than Pythagoras theorem. Inspire the future, not rewrite the past.
    Glad he saw sense, hopefully without too much damage to the franchise.

    • Fctiger

      Well it doesn’t sound like the show itself will change that much, ie prequel series, but mostly someone else has taken over his vision. In the press release CBS said they are still following his vision and the pilot he helped write. But yes they will probably make some changes but its still oging to be a prequel series.

      • M33

        Yeah, that’s what I got out of it, too.
        I was hoping this meant more meaningful changes to the show, but it doesn’t appear that way.

        • Xandercom

          I’d be incredibly surprised and equally disappointed if we now don’t see a post TNG series with a focus on a crew as a whole, rather than BSG-style lower officers fighting the captain, and eachother at any given opportunity. And as for the 2 scripts, we all know where a bunch of the first season of TNG scripts were adapted and came from…

          • Fctiger

            From all accounts so far it doesnt sound like anything that major of a change. And guys remember its nearly November. UNLESS they have been making big changes for months now more than likely nothing that drastic is changing because they would have to throw out everything they did and start over and CBS already delayed to May. My guess is nothing dramatic at this point.

          • Xandercom

            How long ago was it that the production schedule was given 5 additional months?

          • Fctiger

            I just went and checked. Last month. So again unless they have been doing major changes I just don’t think there is a wholesale change happening especially now that they have started casting. I’m not saying its impossible but my guess is they will probably shoot the pilot in January, February the latest. And for the record I HATE the idea of a prequel series too, but it doesn’t sound like its going to be a big difference sadly.

          • Xandercom

            “So again unless they have been doing major changes..”

            We can only hope buddy.

    • algarciashead

      “Everyone drop what you’re doing. This fruitcake has figured out what to do!”

  • M33

    Oh, man!
    I couldn’t be happier!
    He was… trying to politicize the show and that was really starting to feel awkward.
    And his approach to attempt to “redefine” the look and feel of the original series era was… a strange approach to say the least.

  • Justin Olson

    “Writer-director Akiva Goldsman is also expected to join “Discovery” in a top creative role.”

    Oh, no…

    Why couldn’t they have just promoted Nick Meyer? He already co-wrote the pilot with Fuller.

    • Fctiger

      When was the last time Nick Mayer ran a production though? It sounds like he was basically in retirement when they asked him to write for the show.

      • Justin Olson

        He wasn’t in retirement, no. Just before this job he was a writer/consulting producer on the NBC show Crossing Lines.

        • Fctiger

          Oh OK gotcha!

      • fresh3456 .

        Nicholas Meyer is in his 70s…hes kinda old to be running a show lol

        • Fctiger

          Yeah that was my thinking as well. And I highly doubt the guy wants to do 12+ hour days basically 7 days a week when the show is in production.

          Lets just be honest, people liked TUC and TWOK which he both directed. They are literally the two films at the top of my list in Star Trek movies it doesn’t mean the guy should run a show when he hasn’t A. Really done a lot of TV in general or at least a while and B. Doesn’t have any real experience of being a show runner. You want people like Fuller and the new show runners who have been producing current TV. I think having Meyer as a writer and adviser is great but he’s probably out of his depth to run a full time show at this point.

  • DC Forever

    Like this American God’s crap compares to Star Trek? Give me a break, Fuller.

    This just turned into Berman 2.0 Star Trek. I am so disappointed.

    • Fctiger

      Uh how do you mean?

      • JP Cardin

        Read the book before saying such things, Neil Gaiman is an awesome writer and his creation deserves a good show just as much as Star Trek does. Fuller put two of his long time producers to replace him they both worked with him on his previous shows, it’s not like the studio put up a boardroom puppet to replace him

        • Fctiger

          Saying what things?? I only asked I didn’t understand what he meant.

        • Riker

          LOL How quaint.

          No freaking way. Get real.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Read the book — a simplistic ripoff of The Stand, with gimmicks that are supposedly saying something, but fall flat.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Read the book — it’s not all that great.

        • Fctiger

          I’m not talking about American Gods I’m saying how did this suddenly turn into ‘Berman 2.0’ just because he’s not running the show anymore? We know zip other than he’s not directly in charge. Its weird to be so disappointed over something we still know next to nothing about. Of course I get people dont want Fuller to leave but that doesnt make it the end of the world either. Suddenly its like its only ONE guy on the planet that can run a show or direct a film. Its the hyperbole I’m talking about.

    • PJ

      I concur. Fuller spends over a decade telling us all how much he loves Trek, and would love to be in charge of it so as to develop his dream show. Now here we are with the start of production imminent, and he bails on it. The worst part being it isn’t even for anything worthwhile, just some hackeyed crap that’ll probably be forgotten about within five minutes of finishing production.

      • Riker

        Agreed. Leaving Star Trek to do that series based on a frankly overrated novel that’s not even known much in the public at large.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        I concur as well. Choosing American Gods over Star Trek is like choosing Spam over Filet Mignon.

  • Fiery Little One

    I … have … reservations, but I’m willing to see what happens.

    • Fctiger

      Same here! 🙂

  • pittrek

    Yikes. Not sure if it’s a good thing or a bad thing.

  • JP Cardin

    This comment section is the reason why we can’t have nice things…

  • fresh3456 .

    Its good to see that the long tradition of Star Trek having troubled production is still going to continue lol

    Seriously though, someone give Ron Moore a call or maybe even McFarlane

    All of these bad signs has got me worried about the first season of Discovery though

    • Canine Turd Burglar

      Seth MacFarlane? You must be joking….

      • fresh3456 .

        I know hes famous for his comedy but if you have seen him on the TNG blu rays or just talk about Trek he’s really passionate and he does have a serious side to him (like his his music for example)

        Plus hes a big name, and is friends with people like Patrick Stewart and can convince him to come back as Picard if they need it

        • Canine Turd Burglar

          I’m passionate about Trek. Doesn’t mean I know how to make a weekly drama series.

          • fresh3456 .

            True. But despite what you feel about Seth McFarlane hes run one of the most successful animated series for the last 15 years. Hes also made a successful transition into movies where most people fail. The guy is talented and got more than enough experience. So I honestly believe, McFarlane would be great in Discovery

          • Canine Turd Burglar

            His movies are crude gross out comedies. His TV series is a cartoon. None of this indicated he has what it takes to run a weekly drama show….and he has ZERO experience in doing so.

            Give him another cameo, but keep him away from the writer’s room.

          • fresh3456 .

            I disagree. I think you cant ignore experience and success…but to each their own

          • Canine Turd Burglar

            He. Doesn’t. Have. Experience. In. This. Genre.

            What about this don’t you understand?

          • fresh3456 .

            I respect your opinion

          • danielcw

            > hes run one of the most successful animated series for the last 15 years

            He has not run the show for over 10 years

    • Have you listened to Ron Moore’s audio commentaries? He so often complains and ridicules the things that make Star Trek so beloved. And having watched the entire run of Battlestar Galactica I don’t think I’d care much for another dark show.

      I don’t want to belittle his contributions to TNG, and he definitely did some interesting stuff on DS9, but he just doesn’t seem to be much of an optimist.

  • Matthew

    Kill the show…restart with a post Nemesis story

    • DemosCat

      Careful what you wish for. We might get:

      Star Trek: Vulcan Love Slave*

      * Title borrowed from one of Quark’s holosuite programs on DS-9.

      • Zarm

        I thought we already got that- it was called ‘Enterprise, Season 3.’

        *rimshot*

        • DemosCat

          LOL! That’s so true!

          Quark also had, “Vulcan Love Slave Part II – The Revenge!”

    • Snap

      Thank-you, no. To be perfectly honest, I don’t really have any desire to see a post-Nemesis show. The only time period I would be remotely interested in is the gap between The Undiscovered Country and TNG.

  • Zarm

    So, what we’ve spent the last year or so thinking of as “Bryan Fuller’s Star Trek”… is without Bryan Fuller. Huh. Well, interesting. A little strange to wrap my head around.

  • Thomas W.

    Aah… now… yes. Aha. *yawn* They really know how to delight the audience…

  • October_1985
  • Pipe’sIDIC

    Ohwsss…

    Make it Discover Star Trek.

  • TrollingJedi

    This is gonna tank.

  • The Admirable

    I would suggest Manny Coto. He seemed to have a grasp on “Ent…er, “Star Trek Enterprise”
    Otherwise, the ST:D was obviously in trouble when it offered as teases, the McQuarrie ship render, the wooden captain chair, Andorian antennae, and red, blue and yellow turtleneck shirts to suggest the new uniforms! The biggest flag of all was changing the timeline from post TOS to pre TOS; and then start re-imagining it.

    CBS needs to know that a lot of us like referring to those manuals to keep up with Trek canon. They should have learned that with Enterprise, a show that started with 13M viewers and ended with 2M: a show that, as Scott Bakula stated, that you didn’t need manuals to follow.
    The Admirable

    • Snap

      I don’t know. The Coto season was a good season, but it was a bit too… fanwank-y, trying to shoehorn in future references in a very “bonk bonk, on the head” kind of way. Kind of like Arik Soong ruminating about artificial intelligence and how it wouldn’t be realized in his lifetime. The only thing missing was Brent Spiner turning his head to the camera and winking. Even though the stories were good, the season seemed to forget that the series was “Enterprise” and not some historical anthology series which just happened to be re-enacted by the Enterprise crew.

      So, yeah, I could totally see Manny Coto running Discovery provided it was allowed to BE Discovery and not “let’s slather Star Trek references into these stories because this show takes place before the clever references we want to make!”

      • kadajawi

        If you do a prequel, that’s what you’ve got to do. Want to avoid it, do a sequel.

        • Snap

          To some extent, yes. If you really think about it, Enterprise was inconsistent with it. They had to go explain the difference in the look of the Klingons, but they did nothing when it came to the Romulans, showing them as they appeared in the TNG era not the Vulcan dead ringers they were in TOS or trying to explain why they looked almost exactly like Vulcans in TOS (and, hell, even The Undiscovered Country) only to have prominent ridges less than a century later.

          There is absolutely nothing wrong with having the prequel series “plant the seed” for what we know is coming later in the timeline, but that should not be the overriding factor of the series.

          I mean, was it really necessary to have Enterprise venture into the Briar Patch from Insurrection, while dealing with the Augments based on the Eugenics wars and all but saying “Hey, you know who Data is, right? Right? Huh? Data? The guy who looks almost exactly like the guest star? TNG, right? *wink wink*” Sure, even heavy handed references like that have their place, but the majority of the final season was basically heavy handed references which just happened to feature the Enterprise crew.

          It would be like the movie First Contact having the away team telling Cochrane that he’ll move to an iron-nickel planetoid in the Gamma Canaris region and be rejuvenated by a gaseous cloud he would call the Companion, which would come to love him. It really wouldn’t serve the story but, hey, it’s essentially a prequel so is that really what they have to do?

          Such references are best kept subtle, much like the Horizon and the reference to “A Piece of the Action.” They should be Easter eggs which fans really familiar with the history would enjoy but not “in your face” absolutely essential to the plot at all times.

          In my opinion, I think Enterprise season four would have been an even better product if it had have focused on Enterprise itself rater than trying to shoehorn in so many future references.

  • GIBBS v2

    Nice to see the show has a healthy budget.

  • DS9 is King Bitch

    I am really excited Nicholas Myer is on Board as a Producer and a Writer, I will never forget what Nicholas Myer said to that Big Dumb Fan at the convention who asked ”Will the Show be everything we want it to be AKA Peaceful preachy Diplomatic Horseshit AKA TNG” and Nicholas Myer looked down on this Big Dumb Nerd and sighed as he said ”Lower your Standards Big Dumb Nerd you might be disappointed” he went on to say ”My Job is not to give you what you want my Job is to give you what I want” indicating he won’t listen to the Fans and Finally he said ”if you don’t like the show you don’t have to watch it you are not Obligated to watch it,” Nicholas Myer stands up to the Fans and he does not cater to them that’s what makes him awesome a wise man once said Respect the Material Ignore the Fans.

    • Fctiger

      I hope Meyer episodes are good because sorry if they suck the guy will now be considered the biggest hack alive. This is the problem to me, people build these people up to a crazy level, they fail them once and now they are evil. See George Lucas and those guys who made the Matrix trilogy.

  • Robert Anthony

    Sadly, not the kind of news I wanted to hear. Fuller loves Trek. This is quite disappointing but I’m glad he’s still contributing.

  • Vger64

    I think I am going to watch me some STTMP directors cut tonight.

  • Pedro Ferreira

    Doesn’t really change the show that we’re going to get. It’s still going to be a serialised, dark Star Trek show probably with feminist values shoehorned in. Is it impossible to have a Star Trek series that isn’t dark and edgy? They also really need to sort out the look of the ship. It looks awful at the moment.

  • Fctiger

    Well there are reports they are going to have a Klingon Captain as a part of the main cast. That will be interesting to see how that plays out since we know in this time period The Federation and Klingons are enemies. I never been one of those guys that needed the Klingons around but if they do ANYTHING with them like they did on DS9 when the Klingons left the Federation and was enemies again I will be happy about it. I think that period, the Klingon civil war in TNG and TUC is when I really loved watching them the most.

  • I guess Angela Bassett might be a bit busy now that she’s going to be in Marvel’s Black Panther.

  • Adam

    We are supposed to believe that the man who produced DS9, the strongest Trek series, and who’s an avowed Trek fan, has left ST:DIS a few weeks before it starts to work on some crappy thing which nobody will remember two years from now? And in the extraordinary case that this is the truth: good job, Bryan.