As STAR TREK: DISCOVERY begins rehearsals this week in anticipation of next week’s launch of filming, CBS has confirmed today that the series — rescheduled from January to May 2017 back in September — is now warping off the springtime CBS All Access Schedule.

In a statement released to multiple media outlets today (including Variety), CBS made the following comments regarding this second delay:

Production on ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ begins next week. We love the cast, the scripts and are excited about the world the producers have created. This is an ambitious project; we will be flexible on a launch date if it’s best for the show.

We’ve said from the beginning it’s more important to do this right than to do it fast. There is also added flexibility presenting on CBS All Access, which isn’t beholden to seasonal premieres or launch windows.

While this additional push-out of the DISCOVERY debut will likely be a disappointment to fans, EW’s James Hibberd offered the following commentary which may factor into the reason for a new shift:

This switch has a few reasons behind it, a key one is that recently cast star Sonequa Martin-Green is on AMC’s mega-hit The Walking Dead, which is airing its current season through April. There’s a concern about marketplace confusion if CBS were to ramp up promoting her as the star of a new sci-fi show while her horror hit is currently on the air.

The other reason is there’s still a lot of careful deliberation continuing to go into making Discovery special, from the choice of directors, to set design, to the special effects. While May would have been a strong premiere month for the project since Discovery will launch on the CBS broadcast network before moving to the streaming service (May is a ratings surge month), given that Discovery will normally live on All-Access, there’s no pressure to fill a specific time slot.

That being said, we now do not know when CBS plans to release the series – but with filming just days away, we’re likely to hear another debut projection from CBS before too long.

In addition to the calendar changes, CBS also announced this morning that English actor James Frain has been cast as Sarek (son of Skon, son of Solkar) in the new series, making him the fourth actor to portray the Vulcan Ambassador – and father of Spock – in the Trek franchise.

More notably, however, this casting brings the first previously-known Trek character into the DISCOVERY fold, connecting back to Bryan Fuller’s comments back in August that Amanda Grayson “maybe” will factor into the show (though while there’s been no word on that character’s official appearance, having Sarek around will open that door quite easily).

Frain has been most recently spotted on GothamTrue Detective, and the genre favorite Orphan Black (video above).

Meanwhile, we’re still waiting official CBS confirmation of Sonequa Martin-Green’s casting in the lead role, widely reported by multiple outlets in December.

  • Gene’s Vision

    Michael any new info?

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Lol – he’s busy making stuff up right now… i’m sure we’ll have an update from him later today. :-))

      • Fctiger

        Gotta agree, feels odd for a guy who was posting just a day ago had no clue it was getting delayed. This was clearly in the works for awhile now.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Yep!

        • Michael

          This came from the top and quite suddenly. Not many knew, not even my source.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Maybe because your source was over at Bad Robot that day getting new plot details on Star Trek 4?

        • Michael

          My source is not God, my source does not know everything. I am fed only what the source chooses to give me anyway.

      • Michael

        I don’t “make stuff up.” I share what my source tells me.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          You say you have this supposed source, but the supposed info you provide are things that any intelligent fan might “guesstimate” based on what info is already out there.

          I have a simple, easy request for you to readily prove you have this inside source. Given that we should now expect major public news on this series to be released regularly on the new series, I would certainly expect that at least a few times in the coming months you will be able to “break news” to us a week or two ahead of time. Like, “my source tells me that XXX YYY will be made public next week.

          Then, when such info is publicly released, we will have some minor proof that you are not just “making shit up” based on reasonable guesses, supported by unprovable claims, excuses, etc…which is my suspicion of what you are doing here.

          Give us some intel that we can measure as true or false on something that the studio will release a week or two in advance. This is a perfectly easy way for you to prove whether your posts are or real here to all of us.

    • Cabo 5150

      Are you joking here?

      • Tone

        Well, he certainly didn’t seem to see this delay coming… 😉

        • Michael

          No one saw the delay coming, not even my source. And my source is close to the show. All I know is that this came right from the top, and quickly. Someone was pissed.

    • Michael

      September is the new release date. That is directly from my source as of two hours ago. My source was blindsided by this as apparently it came right from the top and was decided after the latest progress report was NOT well received by TPTB

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Ah, so your source read this Trekcore article finally.

        This just in – your source just told me that we have a new president,

  • prometheus59650

    Good for them, but I’m beginning to no longer care.

  • I’m still carrying a grudge against Sarek for the way he treated Spock in “Journey to Babel.”

    It will be interesting to see how Discovery treats this character, since some fans seem to revere Sarek, whereas personally, I think he’s a complicated character and one who’s not entirely good. But that’s good for the show, because complicated is more interesting, and when a character has both strengths and weaknesses, it broadens the dramatic possibilities.

    • Bifash

      Spock and Sarek’s relationship has always been very complex. Yes, it will be good to have a really nuanced take on Sarek ( I personally think it always been nuanced, and complicated in a very good way ).

      • Yes, their relationship has always been complicated and nuanced in a good way in the show and in the movies. But a lot of fans have had a far less nuanced view; that’s why I said that “some FANS” seem to revere Sarek. But I’m all for character complexity; his complexity is one of the many things I love about Sarek’s son. 🙂

  • Bifash

    Great bit of casting! Always thought he had something very alien about him. Makes me eager for DISCOVERY even more!

  • The Science Fiction Oracle

    My take on this is that the largely negative fan reaction that we saw in the teaser and the 360 release has something to do with this. They need to bring in more qualified management, staff from the ground up a completely new VFX team, and have CBS’s marketing Execs take charge of the promotional build up to the series release in September.

    Basically I sense that they’re bringing in the “adult supervision” that I have been calling for here. This is great news, and I expect things to get back on track now. My pessimism just turned to optimism.

    Watch the news in the coming weeks and I bet that my comments here will be largely validated.

    • Tone

      Personally, I think there are bad things happening behind the scenes, and they are scrambling to salvage the project.

    • Cabo 5150

      Yes, I’m conjecturing a late September debut was this news also.

    • Definitely some shuffling of duties going on bts, but we knew that already. Casting has taken longer than expected. Sets and fx more complicated and time consuming than other shows. Plenty of reasons for delays. I’m sure we’ll find out more some day, but probably not in the next few months.

    • M33

      This is a classic scenario of the top-down. Fuller birthed this and tried to manage it, but if you read any of his previous comments on Star Trek or when he was working on it before, he really doesn’t come off all that mature. This may have filtered to every part of the production, hence, perhaps another reason he needed to be no longer involved. This is classic poor management, and now CBS is having to play catch up constantly and put out fires.
      Too bad really.
      TNG was a behind the scenes disaster for a while, too, but it eventually became something really good.

      • Michael

        Fuller was carrying the show on his back. It was his baby. After he broke under the pressure of trying to micromanage and doing everyone’s job, no one knew what to do. Now you see the results.

        • Morgan Smith

          Wow, you seem to have a lot of inside information about Fuller’s state of mind, how he ran his show, and what those who are still working on it are thinking now. Care to share any actual details?

          • Michael

            That depends on what kind of details you want. I don’t have everything, but I can ask my source. Source is NOT a fan of Fuller right now because of what he did lol

          • Morgan Smith

            Hmm, the recent delay makes me hope, probably with zero chance of it happening, that Fuller could come back…

      • Fctiger

        Yeah I think TNG was a good example. It sounded like an absolute mess and now is considered one of the best if THE best Star Trek show around, hell best shows period. And anyone who hasn’t seen the documentary Chaos on the Bridge about the beginning of TNG should just be ready to strap in lol. I found it completely by accident on Netflix one day. Its actually William Shatner who produced and host it but listening to all the eye witness accounts is just hilarious and proof why Roddenberry kept getting kicked off his own Star Trek projects. He came off like an ego-maniac with some serious god complex issues.

        Now Discovery may be in trouble, true, but I don’t think ANYTHING like what happened on TNG. Its amazing that show even got to a second season seeing how bad it was and all the firings and rotations of the staff.

        As for Fuller I think the guy is brilliant but yes I also know hes known to micro manage everything which is OK if you are only doing it on one show. If you’re trying to do it for three shows at the same time like he was then yeah something was going to have to give. And it sounds like every inch of that show even now all came from him since literally every announcement made so far all lined up with what he told us months ago so they are clearly trying to make his vision work but probably having trouble how to figure it all out without him.

        • SpaceCadet

          That was a good documentary and I enjoyed it. To think TNG nearly got cancelled after season one! Oh how things would have turned out differently if that were the case. TNG would be merely some cult show if the first season is all we got.

          • Fctiger

            You know thinking about it I actually went and watched it again and its still as crazy and hilarious as it was the first time. Stuff like Gene Roddenberry’s lawyer sound like something out of sitcom its so bizarre. And Maurice Hurley the show runner in the first two seasons I forgot about that guy, he even admitted he was an ass lol. But yeah through it all they ended up with a great show. And why I can never understand why people give Rick Berman so much heartache, he and Piller made that show what it was in the end and expanded Star Trek. Roddenberry did a great thing really seeing the potential that Star Trek the idea is bigger than one cast, ship or time period and why the later shows became popular.

            But you’re right if TNG got cancelled first season I think Star Trek would’ve died right there since The Final Frontier movie flopped in 89 that would’ve been it for awhile. I’m sure someone might have tried to redo another TOS show in the 90s which probably would’ve failed without Roddenbery’s name on it but we wouldn’t have the Star Trek we do now. It wouldve been TOS and the movies and that one bizarre rip off Star Trek show that lasted one season kind of like the 80s Mission Impossible sequel show or the Love Boat: The New Wave no one ever dares talks about or compare. 😉

          • SpaceCadet

            I rewatched the documentary again too! Haha. I knew of the lawyer guy before this program basically because of the story David Gerrold would tell of how he tried to get his script for Blood and Fire made into an episode of TNG for the first season. It was an AIDS allegory and apparently included homosexual crew members. Well, apparently Gene’s lawyer who we know would make his own notes on the scripts was homophobic and made it clear to David that that script would never make it to air. So I never particularly liked that guy! Lol. BTW, Gerrold had his story retooled and published as a non-Star Trek sci-fi story and it was also produced as a Star Trek fan made episode.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_and_Fire_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

            http://www.startrek.com/article/trek-writer-david-gerrold-looks-back-part-2

            In regards to if there had only been one season of TNG and then Star Trek V flopping, I think we would have still gotten Star Trek VI. The original crew would have still receoved their swan song and the films for the most part had proven successful. Probably the only things that wouldn’t exist are the Michael Dorn/Colonel Worf cameo and the use of the TNG sets. But thankfully TNG continued on and the rest is history!

          • Fctiger

            Yeah the only thing that was missing in that documentary was mentioning a fist fight lol. And yes I did know somewhat about David Gerrold story before reading about that in an article somewhere but didn’t remember the lawyer at all. And heard Roddenberry came off homophobic to him as well which is why I don’t get this constant praise for Roddenberry. Yes he made two great shows but he clearly didn’t practice what he preached in his own life and just came off as an absolute ass. Documentaries like this made that clear, especially when you lose 30 staff people in a single season. And yet the guy is still treated as some kind of great visionary and a beacon of humanity by some fans. Yeah the guy who let his lawyer sneak into writer’s rooms and rewrite scripts.

            Anyway as for your second point yeah you’re right there probably wouldve been a Star Trek VI to at least celebrate the anniversary. I was thinking of the one two punch of the show being cancelled and then The Final Frontier failing the year after that but yeah I think the Trek films was successful overall they could withstand a failure. And The Final Frontier actually did make money it was just a big disappointment in the eyes of the studio being a more costly film than The Voyage Home but only made half of what that one made. And just being awful lol. But yeah they would’ve had one film I agree. AFTER that though who knows? Its crazy to think just 13 months after TUC we got DS9. And a two years after that Voyager. Star Trek was just on a roll and it couldve all crashed if TNG failed early on.

          • SpaceCadet

            I think Roddenberry like most artistic visionaries/genuiuses was a deeply flawed man: the drug abuse, the affairs, the not giving due credit to the creative people working for him that also made Star Trek what it is. But no one can deny that his overall vision of what Star Trek should be led to him capturing lightning in a bottle twice. According to that documentary, Roddenberry did genuinely want to include LGBT characters on TNG and wanted to show same sex couples in the background on Risa for the episode Captain’s Holiday. Maybe it was all just lip service or he was overruled. I think Berman (and I think he was very integral to the overall success of modern day Trek (1987-2005)) that he actively did not want a LGBT character(s) or even subtle references on the shows. He had opportunities to do so on TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT and yet nothing. Yeah, there was a same-sex kiss on Rejoined but that was in the context of aliens rekindling an old relationship. Berman was either homophobic himself and/or thought audiences couldn’t handle it. The issue is finally being rectified with DSC but to think it could have been dealt with already all these years ago on previous series.

  • RDB

    great. another do-over. can we *please* get past the TOS-retread model? boring.

    • Cabo 5150

      Loving that DSC is a direct prequel to TOS personally.

      I’m truly thankful we’re not getting a “post Nemesis” scenario – which would truly be beyond “boring” for me.

      • RDB

        well, that would be a shame. i can tell from your fake uhura avatar that you’re a real connoisseur.

        • Cabo 5150

          I was just offering my opinion on what Is open discussion forum, RDB, which I did with civility and in the spirit of friendly debate.

          I’m sorry if my viewpoint doesn’t align with yours, but there’s really no need for sarcasm like that – it was entirely uncalled for, and does nothing to progress the discussion.

          Presumably, you are a “connoisseur” – yes? However, you are being irrational and assumptive in the extreme when you base your evaluation of my tastes in Star Trek on a subjective evaluation of my avatar.

          I recommend you try to be a little more open minded – you know, IDIC and all, and just accept there are those who don’t share your opinion. Nobody’s right or wrong.

          Cheers.

          • Xandercom

            TOS and boring prequels are of no real interest to the average viewer.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Got news for you — “the average viewer” watches NFL, sitcoms, reality tv shows and crappy cable channels.

            Not somebody I generally am interested in having a conversation with.

          • Xandercom

            Or indeed interested in wasting their time watching it = poor Netflix view metrics and no season 2.

            Thanks for your enthusiasm in killing it off for another 10 years just to satisfy your greed in more TOS fixation. Isn’t 98 episodes of cancelled Enterpris, TOS itself, 6 movies and three huge movies good enough for you?

            FLOP

          • Michael

            Xandercom, you are incredibly negative. Are you secretly the guy who created Babylon 5 and you are still bitter?

          • Cabo 5150

            Well, ENT is a prequel in nothing but its timeframe and a few cursory references IMHO. In reality, it’s quite clearly another iteration of so called “Berman era” Trek in style and execution.

            Speaking of which, isn’t 620 odd episodes and 4 movies enough for you?

          • Xandercom

            Ent nosedived, it only got season 4 because the limited fan base set up the “save enterprise” campaign. Same group of people who want this tripe no doubt.

            Same folks who moaned in the 60’s and ultimately got the motion picture.

            Since our Voyager tv timeline ended you’ve had a cancelled prequel series which simply didn’t retain viewers, 3 reboot movies, one voted the worst ever by trek fans, the other a box office flop. And now you want another outing.

            Isn’t it time you admitted that your trek belongs in the past, rather than dredging it up from the bottom of the lake? It’s just not interesting, no matter how it’s tarted up, it belongs to a different generation who can’t move on.
            No one wants your cheesy nostalgia as it’s become a parody of itself, no matter how it’s presented or which slither of continuity you choose to shoehorn it in to.

            This is going to split the fandom and ultimately be cancelled. When that day comes, remember these posts. You’ll no doubt try to blame it on everything else, writing, director, cinematography, music, subscription model, etc, etc.

            Wake up.

          • Cabo 5150

            You seem to be intent on characterising me and other fans into “rival” camps – “your” Trek, and “our” Trek etc, which says quite a lot about your mindset IMHO. Why must there be this ridiculous (false) dichotomy?

            I actually like all Star Trek to varying degrees, and remain open minded and excited for the new show irregardless of its setting/era. My only requirement is that the show be entertaining.

            Correct me if I’m wrong, but your posts come over as a little immature, and you seem to be somewhat judgemental, ageist, and angry towards other fans who don’t share your opinion.

          • Xandercom

            No, it’s just a generational split. Anyone born from about 1980 onwards grew up with a different Star Trek, and have no desire to watch a product of the 60’s rebooted again, at the expense of moving forward with something entirely new and different.
            Some producers and CBS execs have very short memories, especially when dollar signs and career advancement is at stake.

          • Cabo 5150

            Can you provide me with some evidence to support your sweeping claims reference the viewing desires/requirements of those born after 1980?

            Frankly, you seem to extrapolating your subjective opinion and erroneously projecting it onto entire “generations” of fans.

            How do you know the new show won’t be “entirely new and different”? Everything I’ve read from producers indicate that’s exactly what we’re going to get, again, irrespective of the timeframe.

            Respectfully, you seem to have made your mind up on DSC in advance based on nothing more than your own prejudices and the fact it’s set in/connected to an era/iteration of Star Trek you personally have no interest in.

          • Xandercom

            It’s quite simple really, you just extend your internet viewing habits and social circles to ensure you’re not confining yourself in a bubble of joy, and instead take in a much wider view of what’s going on. In this case, the ratings on YouTube with associated videos are getting exactly the same level of slack as trailers for things like Ghostbusters, BatmanVSuperman, into darkness, etc.

            You’ll find very little interest in TOS for anyone who wasn’t actually born during that time, or has parents who insist upon having it on all of the time. It’s much like laughing at your dad’s record collection, He can play it as much as he likes, tells you how great it is, and can’t wait for a comeback tour. In reality they’re living purely off nostalgia.

            I love TNG and after, hell, it’s what got me in to the VFX industry, but ask me to work on that god awful roulette wheel of a star ship and I’d pass, I simply wouldn’t want to be associated with it as it’s going to nosedive, fully cheesy pop-culture references for the oldies among us, while the rest of us desperately just want to move forward in to something new, not yet another rehash of something which is pretty dull and boring in the first place.

          • Cabo 5150

            I’m not sure, but are you suggesting I’m “confined to a bubble of joy”? Whereas, you, can extrapolate past, current, and future trends based on such sophisticated criteria as YouTube viewing figures.

            Uh huh.

            Your love of thirty year old 80’s TNG, is, of course, not nostalgic though. There’s absolutely no blatant hypocrisy in your opinions at all. TNG is still cutting edge TV – hip and trendy. I bet your average 18 year old is “well down with it”.

            I’m done with this conversation as you’re doing nothing more than spouting inflammatory, narrow minded, and distastefully ageist nonsense here. Neither of us has any idea what DSC will be like, or whether it will be a “rehash”, “dull”, “cheesy” or “sub par”.

            Frankly, I find your somewhat extreme judgemental close-mindedness absolutely staggering.

            And please don’t tell me what “I dare” or dare not say about DSC in the future. I’ll give my opinion as I please when I’ve, you know, actually seen it. Positive or negative.

            The difference between here us here is simply I’m prepared to give it an honest chance without prejudice – and you are not.

            I’ll leave the last word to you – I know, I know, I’m an “oldie”, unable to grasp the nuanced and refined arguments of a modern, youthful sophisticate like you.

          • Xandercom

            It’s like talking to a brick wall.

            Don’t be surprised.

          • Cabo 5150

            I just have to break my previous statement reference not responding to you here, as the magnificent, sheer, unadulterated hypocrisy and beautiful irony of your last comment simply must be highlighted.

            If nothing else, your extremely singular and myopic “perspective” is at least entertaining.

            More please, over to you…

          • Xandercom

            Brick wall.

          • Cabo 5150

            Right back at ya…

          • Fctiger

            Yeah no offense but you’re the one that is like talking to a brick wall a lot of the time. I actually agree with many of your points but the difference is I’m at least willing to give it a chance regardless. You already made up your mind its all crap and will be a worthless show. No offense dude but how is that that exactly someone you can even have a conversation with when you decided the show is doomed simply because you hate the time period?

            I’m not happy at all with the time period either. I was kind of hoping that Enterprise and the KT films prove why you SHOULDN’T keep trying to appease TOS fan boys or think prequels are the way to to go as they seem to hate both of them (not all obviously…but enough) but same time every project is different from the other so now that its going this direction we should at least see if they will do it differently or better.

            There are things about Discover I really like, some according to rumors: The Section 31 angle, being about multiple ships, not just one (although Discovery is clearly the main ship), having the Klingons again (was never a BIG fan but always liked them) and being serializd. Others like the main star not being the Captain, boring TOS fan service like Spocks parents showing up (I’m sure we’ll get Kirk’s brother by episode 7) and yes another prequel in general. But there is probably more I’m excited about than isn’t so far so that gives me hope.

            What I’m saying is you can certainly not like what you heard but you are kind of whining about it and you’re whining about things based solely on what you heard, not what you seen. The two aren’t the same so at the very least TRY and give it a chance man. If you hate the first episode fine but moaning how its all doomed gets old as well.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Yea, but he’s got a movie out (released last night) so I’ll give him that

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Your movie is not getting very good reviews.

          • Michael

            At least it’s not that crap “The Return.” What terrible entertainment with cheap looking VFX.

          • Morgan Smith

            Actually I thought it was widely understood that Enterprise got a fourth season so that it would have enough (around 100) episodes for syndication sales. The showrunners were even planning for a fifth, but it didn’t make it.

          • Fctiger

            It is ironic that they chose to do another prequel when the only other Trek show besides TOS to get an early cancellation was a prequel. Like you I don’t think prequels sell as well as non prequels. You have to be a big fa of the source material and while you don’t have to know about the source material going in usually its obviously better that you do. YOu can’t really enjoy the Star Wars prequels unless you saw the OT. Now to be fair to Discovery its not a DIRECT prequel to TOS no more than Enterprise was but the fact that it will probably set up a lot of the stuff in that time frame just bores me. I don’t really care. I’m fine to hear about it or get an episode about it but I don’t need a spin off origin story either.

            But I won’t say it belongs in the past so much as we already have a film series based directly on TOS. I mean its not like TOS isn’t represented today, it is, and yet you ask the casual TOS viewer what they think of those movies well you know what they think which is why I wish instead of just trying to play it safe because you think it will appease old fanboys and because your marketing says a certain segment of your audience might watch it because of certain elements its nothing wrong to be DARING and do something out of the box. DS9 at the time was out of the box. I will even say Voyager was out of the box in the sense it didn’t rely on a Federation to tell its stories. Yes the execution couldve been better though.

            Anyway as I told you before I’m not shocked in the least they are going this direction but it is funny how most people don’t really seem excited about it. Most people like me will give it a chance because its Star Trek but its just sad they couldn’t come up with a truly different/innovative concept to take Trek when its a franchise that can be as different and innovative as you want it to be. I still hope it will be good regardless. I guess we now have an even longer wait to know that.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Lol, what a bitter attitude.

          • Xandercom

            Prequels have been done to death. The ONLY people who want to see them are fans of the original show, obviously. That applies to any and all prequels.
            Next, of those fans you have to produce something they actually want to see, which again is further narrowing of the potential market.
            Then, with this being a CBS/Netflix thing you’ve got to convince that narrow market that it’s worth paying a monthly subscription to watch.

            That’s a pretty damned long list of requirements just to get people in to watch a few of them and make a decision on bothering to watch the rest.

            Prequels just make the characters look like idiots when the viewers know more than them, yet the writers insist upon dropping those easter eggs everywhere. Prequels simply don’t work for anything but the most hardcore of a particular franchise, and even then they have to be willing to suspend their disbelief during it’s entire run.

            I’m sorry, but that’s the reality of the situation. Go ask someone impartial, ie not a trek fan, or not a fan of TOS if they would pay to watch it and you’ll get all the clarification you need!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Jesus, get on Prozac. What a misrebale outlook.

          • Cabo 5150

            IMHO, some form of continuation of 24th century Trek in style or content – TNG 2.0 essentily, would truly be of zero interest to the “average viewer” and doom the show instant failure.

            TOS and it’s characters remain the most iconic flag bearers of franchise IMO – appreciably more than TNG, and exponentially more so than the Trek other iterations.

            The proof will be in proverbial pudding.

          • Xandercom

            Clearly you’re 50+ years of age.

          • Cabo 5150

            [SIGH]

            No, I’m not as it happens – not that my, or anybody else’s age has any relevance to this discussion.

            Yes – you can be under 50 and still love TOS, and, it’s possible to be fan of the whole franchise to varying degrees.

          • DS9 is King

            I agree TNG would truly be of zero interest to the “average viewer” and doom the show to instant failure, the new Audiences today would not care for a TNG show TNG was all talk and very little to no action. I tried telling that to people on the net and I got a couple of friends who are Rabid lunatic imbecilic TNG Fan boys who always Defend TNG like crazy saying TNG was the highest Ratted Star Trek show and still is and they are doing reruns on the BBC because the show is popular, and TNG is the most Popular Sci Fi show in trek History on and on it’s annoying but the point is new Fans don’t care about TNG they want action adventure.

          • Fctiger

            Well it was the highest rated show at the time. And its still very popular. Now it doesn’t mean they should do another show like it but yeah its still very popular today so I don’t know how the average viewer would ‘doom’ it if they are watching reruns of it 20 years after it went off the air?

          • Fctiger

            No offense but I find all of this a misnomer. TNG is my second favorite show after DS9 but I don’t want another TNG show no more than I want another TOS show. I want Star Trek to find new ways and directions to go in. TNG was a new direction when it came out. DS9 was another (and why I loved it so much). Now just because Discovery is around the same time frame as TOS doesn’t mean it will be a TOS type show but yeah for ME it feels like nothing but fan service for TOS fans when you do stuff like bring on Spocks dad. I just don’t need that crap. And TOS is not as popular as people think or Beyond wouldn’t have bombed.

            I would’ve preferred going farther out like the 25th century but OK I get why others dont. But then a post TUC period wouldve been great because it would at least pass the TOS era and be decades before TNG anyway. But this constant TOS vs TNG arguments I see here gets tiring to hear from some of us. Believe it or not a lot of us wants neither even if we are a fan of both (I grew up watching both of them) but I don’t need constant fan service and call backs which I’m not afraid Discovery would be doing. I wouldn’t be any happier if they made a show where they figured out a way to shoehorn someone from TNG.

          • Cabo 5150

            Misnomer is inaccurate use of a name/term/designation. How can my legitimate opinion expressed in that post be a “misnomer”?

            As has been discussed many times before, there are numerous reasons Beyond didn’t do as well as the previous two. I strongly dispute it “bombed” – much more a breaking even, or modest profit situation IMO. But, I’m fairly certain you’re going to come back to me with all sorts “proving” it “bombed”, when in actuality, neither of us can be sure whether it’s in the black or the red at this point.

            I therefore wholly reject your argument “Beyond “bombed”, therefore TOS is “not as popular as an people think”” as a obvious logical fallacy with faulty, self-contained, circular reasoning that fails utterly to support your point.

            What if I argue “Nemesis is a severe, bona fide, critical and box office FLOP, therefore TNG is not a popular as everyone thinks”. Solid reasoning?

            As I’ve already mentioned several times, this all subjective opinion we are all entitled to – you’re not happy with the direction of DSC, and I am. It’s “fan service crap” to you, but not to me. Etc, etc.

            I sincerely hope you’re not including me as proponent of the “constant TOS vs TNG arguments”, as again, I’ve stated over and over in this, and many other threads, I actually love the whole Star Trek universe in all its iterations – from TOS through TNG and right up to the Kelvin Timeline.

          • Fctiger

            LOL oh boy.

            I meant a misnomer as in the argument in general that people who don’t like Discovery because it reminds us too much of one thing are unhappy because it doesn’t remind us enough of too much of another thing. No I think most people just want to see Trek do something different, really push the envelope. Discovery in some ways sounds like its doing that but same time feels like its just another sad Hollywood attempt to throw more fan service to the base like all the Disney Star Wars films (which I like). The second they said Spocks dad was showing up it just created all my fears this could be another TOS redux just in a different package the same way they tried to do it with Rogue One and A New Hope.

            But OK, if you’re not doing that my apologies. I haven’t read all your posts here. I only saw this on and another one.

            But no I don’t think TOS is as popular as the people who been trying to push it on us the last 15 years do and why I don’t think Discovery is going to be a success by that alone. I just don’t get this silly need to keep trying to appease TOS fan boys when Star Trek has proven long ago as long as you do something GOOD you will get an audience and yet here we are again. Its just sad to me they have to keep going this direction because they can’t think outside the box.

            As for Nemesis vs Beyond, Nemesis SUCKED. It was a bad film. It is literally my worst Trek film lol. Yeah it should have bombed because it sucked. Thats how its suppose to work. Beyond is actually considered a GOOD film. Hell my favorite out of the KT films (but still only 5th overall all the Trek films). It also came during the 50th anniversary and YET it still flopped. Thats the crazy thing this movie should’ve been the Skyfall of the series and yet the fans didn’t care. And I don’t count myself in that. I not only liked it I paid to see it on IMAX twice but the other 50 people in my theater on the second weekend told me everything.

            I guess what I’m saying is that they can’t rely on TOS to sell Star Trek than any other product. I certainly get why they tried especially when you’re making $200 million films but the TOS fan base seems to be rejecting these films now. And I GET it people just don’t like the interpretation of those characters in JJ universe and a lot hated STID so I get why the backlash could happen with Beyond my point is why bother trying to appease fanboys? Look where its gotten them?

            Hopefully Discovery will be its OWN thing and so far it sounds like it is, but I am afraid it might just be a thinly disguised show to trout out TOS characters and story lines and I don’t think most of the audience today cares. TOS was fine for its day but Star Trek has been, no pun intended, beyond that for awhile now. I do hope if Discovery is a success it will get people to think out of the box again like how we got DS9 after TNG got so big.

          • Cabo 5150

            OK, as I think we both acknowledge, it’s all just opinion! And quite healthy it is too.

            Respectfully though, your use of the word “misnomer” is incorrect here, again, a misnomer is not an argument – general or otherwise. But, you’ve clarified what you meant and that’s fine.

            And I’m not saying I’m some kind of perfect English professor either, far from it – I’m absolutely certain I’ve made more than my fair share of humdinger errors!

            I think I’ve said before we are at least united in our hope DSC will be an exciting and fresh new entry into the Star Trek pantheon! (A lot more) time will tell I guess! Roll on September ’17 by all accounts.

          • Fctiger

            Ok fair enough! I was only making the point people who don’t like Discovery because they are necessarily anti-TOS so much as against just more fan service stuff instead of trying to do something different and new. But I got your point clearly.

          • Binyamin Koretz

            That could be. However, I’m an above-average viewer.

        • Fctiger

          I think the timeline sucks too but c’mon man everyone has the right to like what they like. And that IS the real Uhura in the KT films. Nichel Nichols just played the part first but she didn’t invent it. It would be like suggesting only Adam West can play Batman and the others are ‘fake’. The actors aren’t the characters, the characters are the characters.

      • Xandercom

        Couldn’t be less interested in a 3rd TOS prequel.
        Won’t be getting a dime.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          We know what you will be in line for this Friday night though…the Return!

        • Cabo 5150

          Your decision of course – good for you.

          • Xandercom

            Of course. You’ll find it’s increasingly common.

          • Cabo 5150

            I don’t believe so.

            Let’s have this conversation again when we have falsifiable metrics to base our opinions on – “viewing” figures, continuation/cancellation etc.

    • Maybe it’s boring for you, but not for all of us. Personally, I love that era, when a lot of things hadn’t yet been discovered, and there was something new and interesting around every corner.

      • Tone

        Yes, but they can’t be too interesting, or important, as we would have heard of it from every other Star Trek series before!

        This is a big reason for not doing a prequel show.

        • Not if the writers are any good! A good writer can come up with loads of stuff. And really, how many events from 1917 are you aware of? Events can be quite important without being topics of conversation a hundred years later.

          • Fctiger

            Yeah Enterprise proved end of the day if they want to have a big event without it being heard of they can still do it ala Xindi. But it still harder to do things in a set universe vs one where everything is wide open. I mean on DS9 you could do the Dominion war. You really can’t do anything like that on that scale for stuff like Enterprise and Discovery. But it doesn’t mean they can’t do a lot of new things obviously.

          • Morgan Smith

            I don’t understand the argument that “you can’t do X because we haven’t heard about it from later Trek” – especially if “X” is a major event like a war. That makes no sense. TOS and 24th century Trek don’t contain a list of everything that happened in the 23rd century. There are innumerable alien races, conflicts, events, discoveries that haven’t been covered.

            As an example, when the time period for Discovery was announced, we all guessed at what the “inciting incident”, referenced in Trek but never shown, would be. There are something like 5 options: Anaxar/Captain Garth, Kirk and the creature from “Obsession”, war with the Sheliac, and like 1 or two other things. So in the 15 years leading up to TOS, only these 5 important things happened in the entire Federation and nearby parts of the Alpha and Beta quadrants? That makes no sense.

            Anything can happen in Discovery’s time frame except: destroying planets we see later, killing character’s we see later, etc. New alien races, powerful enemies, major new treaties, momentous discoveries and events are all possible. You can even have a major war – TNG referenced the end of a war with Cardassia, but other than that it ended, Captain Maxwell and Chief O’Brien were strongly affected, and the peace treaty created the neutral zone, we didn’t see major fallout from it affecting TNG. Just because something is big and important doesn’t mean it omnipresent.

          • Fctiger

            Obviously you can make up your own things like what Enterprise did with the Xindi but you can’t have a Klingon war because according to canon (and who someone pointed out) there never was a war between the Klingons and the Federation but you could do that on DS9 because you can create whatever you want when the universe is open.

            But don’t get me wrong they can do things but I remember on the Enterprise about stuff like showing the Ferengi or the episode with the Borg (actually one my favorites) people moaned about them because they stepped out of canon to them (well the Borg actually didnt but that was the feeling at the time). Yeah they are free to certainly do things but simply not AS free and why I don’t get why would you want to limit yourself like that which prequels there are limits period.

          • Ace Stephens

            There are also notable limits in continuations with all that backstory and world-building having to suit things. So placing another half-dozen hurdles in front of an already large amount doesn’t seem so outrageous to me. If you can jump all those other ones, you can probably jump these too.

          • Fctiger

            Yes but its almost very little compared to prequels.The point in on DS9 you can create an entire war between the Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians and Dominion on a whim because there was no show from 30 years ago that said that never happened. The reality is prequels are hard to do for a reason because in order to get it right you have to know every inch of the world to even know where you can go. Any sequel shows have some limits but its very few when you can set them at any time or throw in an explanation that so and so happened between the last show and other show.

            Why in TNG Klingons could just be part of the Federation now and no one blinks. With Discovery people are arguing should Klingons have ridges or smooth foreheads because the low budget TV show had smooth foreheads. Sigh

          • Ace Stephens

            The issue I see with what you’re saying is that, in some form, it seems you’re ignoring the genre. Time travel, clones, alternate dimensions, etc. play a role (in Trek/scifi). For all we know, there will be a huge war between this group and that group that never had a conflict before (in the “future continuity”) and the issue will be it spilled over from another dimension and so the alliances aren’t clear-cut. “Oh, we hate the _______s.” But they don’t – they hate the alternate dimension’s ones. And, with an ambassador there to sort through what’s really going on, who knows what that might allow? Heck, Sarek could be killed and replaced with a clone, “alternate” Sarek, whatever else. Or the one on the show could be revealed to be a fraud (clone/alternate dimensioner in disguise) after two seasons.

            Or there could be a whole suggestion that, yes, a conflict was breaking out (or had damaging effects) but it was ultimately covered-up in some form (and maybe a throwaway line in a later series actually could be viewed as referencing this or something like that). Heck, I was saying months back that we could have a returning character (from later series – that is, played by the same actor) on the show who was somehow sent back in time and we (previous fans of the franchise) know who they are but they can’t come to terms with telling the others and maybe we even see them learning to adjust with the in-show rationale (until the “revelation” to someone else in the crew) being “culture shock” or similar. Things like that are perfectly viable as options that could meaningfully explore things further, differ from what we think we know, etc. (And, in that case, could even justify “setting it so far back” in a sense. That is, that we are well-served to know where they came from because they have some vital part to play in past events, hiding their identity while taking part in some major event. We don’t know.

            Yes, these may sound like cheap work-arounds in some form or to some fans (certainly if concentrated all-together) but I’m not suggesting they pile them on and on and on. I’m saying that, if they have the proper storytelling rationale and wish to use a few storytelling devices available within Trek and/or science fiction, they truly are available and may be capable of playing into meaningful story points. In fact, they could recontextualize elements of the series otherwise to those of us currently unaware of what those twists (presumably to both the current show and the canon) might be. Hopefully in ways that most would view as positive although I know some fans are very cynically protective of canon to the degree that even new information (not necessarily contradictory) that doesn’t fit their previous interpretation is considered some grand offense and an “insult to true fans” or something.

            But there are so many possibilities – many of which could (presumably) work perfectly for both the show itself and for the hardcore fans if handled well. And, in some cases, because of the prequel element. For instance, that whole, “It’s about a thing in Trek history we haven’t seen…”-thing. That could be a great device! And, for diehard fans, a great revelation/twist/whatever (when whatever is revealed – or when we find out not only what it is but how it is…or on and on). And any number of other storytelling devices (typically reserved for genre works) could be used and, if used discerningly, not collapse the show on top of itself in gimmickry.

            I think that type of element has great potential and maybe even opens up a few doors that simply continuing on might not have. And, again, I wish to stress that the complications of entering an existing continuity are difficult but prequel elements aren’t so much more so that they can’t be adjusted to as simply a bit more of that. Particularly in a continuity that has time travel so importantly built-in.

            Certainly I’m not sitting here, well-aware of what amazing twists and turns they might incorporate but just because I can’t think of or convey some immediately amazing element that incorporates some sort of prequel/sidestepping/twisting notion doesn’t mean that those behind the show (most likely Fuller, I’d guess) couldn’t.

            Regarding the Klingons, they could presumably include both (if we’re looking at what Enterprise indicated), dependent upon a variety of factors.

          • Fctiger

            Look all of that is fine, if they come up with something like that then yeah I’m more on board. Right now I’m only talking about the premise we do know about and that its set 10 years before TOS. But if we learn there is some kind of time travel/alt universe twist, great.

            And hey we have two Star Trek prequels now, the KT films and Enterprise. Oddly both had twists that didn’t make either feel like straight prequels. KT films had Spock coming from the 24th century and Enterprise actually had a temporal cold war based on future species fighting. And yet fans still bitched about both series. Berman is a hack, Abrams is a hack, Braga is a hack, Orci is a hack annnnnnd so on. I’m not saying that mind you I’m talking about fans in general and how they perceived both of these and why Enterprise got cancelled early and Beyound bombed. They stopped caring for both.

            But maybe Discovery might be the third charm. and actually be a prequel series that will satsify fans and avoid all the mistakes these did. We’ll see but if not again don’t know why they keep bothering?

          • Ace Stephens

            I think, in this case, it was probably about Fuller and keeping the idea “simple” (ha…yeah, right) for new audiences. “Oh, is Spock in it?” – “No, but it takes place when Spock’s around.” and all that.

            I think there is a portion of die-hard fans who will complain a great deal almost no matter what, as though the show’s awful. And they seem likely to significantly outnumber the amount who will love it no matter what. So they wind up, like with “going post-Nemesis” in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” realm. So might as well go for the best story (Fuller presumably wanting this one) that has a relatively simple hook – “A decade before Trek.” That sort of thing.

            I think, studio-wise, there is likely some weird fear of “People want to know if they have to watch all the other Star Trek’s first” or something too. Which, of course, is a pretty weird concern in some ways but does align with how some “top brass”-types (and members of the general audience) tend to think.

            Plus, with all the talk of Section 31, I wouldn’t be surprised to find some twist in there…some thing that allows various continuity concerns to be sidestepped because “We’re working in secret” or whatever.

            There are just a lot of possibilities either way but I think generalities about audiences have influenced the Kelvin timeline and all this. Yet Discovery, even considering that, is likely to be a more fan-oriented thing.

          • Fctiger

            I hope you’re right. I really don’t love the idea of another prequel but I’m wiling to give it a chance as a fan and because I love what Fuller has done in his other projects in general. And so far I like more than I don’t like which is a positive, mostly the new lead, bringing the Klingons back, being serialized and HOPEFULLY that Section 31 is involved. Thats still rumored but yes that is actually one of more exciting parts to me since I love when that group pops up. So it would be cool to have a show with a story line based around them.

            But I can honestly hear the moaning now the second something is out of ‘canon’, when the ship looks WAY too advanced in this period because yeah its 2017 and not 1966 so what do you expect? The complaining such and such species shouldn’t be there because they weren’t referenced on TNG and so on. Hopefully I’m wrong but based on the complains on Enterprise and the KT films I see it coming several light years away unless the writers are on the ball. And don’t get me wrong there are things I think are legitimate but if you’re going to nit pick every little thing because its a prequel I just don’t get why they keep trying? But hopefully this will be different but not holding my breath although Beyond didn’t get a lot of complaints in terms of canon at least.

          • Morgan Smith

            Yeah, I really liked Regeneration. It’s probably my second favorite Enterprise episode. Other than the Borg not stating that they are the Borg, I don’t have issues with the continuity. (The retcon of the Borg sending a transmission to the Delta quadrant, replacing the whatever Voyager decided was the original first contact with the Borg, which replaced the true and powerful first contact from Q-Who – was completely unnecessary but a minor irritant.)

            Now the Ferengi episode? Not only is it dumb that their name or description never makes it to Starfleet (see The Last Outpost), it is also a poorly written episode that brings cliches, nothing new to the Ferengi, nothing new to our Ent characters, and seems to throw out all development the Ferengi got in DS9 (in terms of filling out their culture, not social progress ala Grand Negas Rom).

          • Fctiger

            Agreed the Ferengi episode was just dumb. I don’t like prequels because how strigent they have to be to canon but at the same time I’m always OK about them ignoring canon (to a degree) just as long as the story its telling is good and worth doing. In that case it was NOT! Yeah easily one of the worst episodes of the series and that was the kind of thing that help put people off to that show early.

            Regeneration was great. I always tell myself I’m going to one day do a Borg only marathon and while not include all the Borg episodes the most notable ones which off the top of my head Best of Both Worlds, First Contact, Q Who, Scorpion and Dark Frontier. Maybe a few others but Regeneration would certainly be on that list too. Will play them all in chronological order in my imaginary viewing party lol.

          • Xandercom

            Prequels have been done to death. The ONLY people who want to see them are fans of the original show, obviously. That applies to any and all prequels.
            Next, of those fans you have to produce something they actually want to see, which again is further narrowing of the potential market.
            Then, with this being a CBS/Netflix thing you’ve got to convince that narrow market that it’s worth paying a monthly subscription to watch.

            That’s a pretty damned long list of requirements just to get people in to watch a few of them and make a decision on bothering to watch the rest.

            Prequels just make the characters look like idiots when the viewers know more than them, yet the writers insist upon dropping those easter eggs everywhere. Prequels simply don’t work for anything but the most hardcore of a particular franchise, and even then they have to be willing to suspend their disbelief during it’s entire run.

            I’m sorry, but that’s the reality of the situation. Go ask someone impartial, ie not a trek fan, or not a fan of TOS if they would pay to watch it and you’ll get all the clarification you need.

          • Ace Stephens

            I disagree about prequels only being for original fans. I spend a decent amount of time around some who are only vaguely interested in genre works who have enjoyed prequels more than the original in some cases. Without even necessarily knowing an original exists sometimes.

            So some prequels, when handled well, aren’t just pointless catching up and in-references but, while working as themselves, can also provide depth, scope and indeed revelation regarding backstory. To fans of the original, playing like intricate flashbacks examining the specifics.

            But, in my opinion, the best prequels don’t play like prequels. Except, of course, to fans of the original who insist on filtering everything through that area of fandom.

          • Xandercom

            Such as?

          • Ace Stephens

            Opinions will always differ so I won’t provide examples here. If you are unaware of any, consider the possibility and hopefully you’ll see that it exists (but perhaps you won’t). Maybe others here are more comfortable asserting their opinions as though they exemplify such things but I’m not in this context.

            I can tell you that noting who’s screwed prequels up is, as a generality, much easier as those are much more plentiful, at least in my view. But, again, naming specifics regarding such an intricate and potentially delicate (in terms of the subjective interpretation of them) subject is not something I think supports the point here. In fact, I think it distracts.

            It would just give people ammunition to start debating personal opinions (only, in this case, of examples rather than the format/concept) more readily which goes against why I interjected. I’m not interested in some sort of “But I loved this one thing!” – “That thing sucked!”-discussion.

          • Xandercom

            Then I can’t take you seriously.

          • Ace Stephens

            If you can’t take someone who discusses ideas seriously then I accept your limitation even if I have trouble respecting it. I didn’t see you providing an exhaustive list of prequels that had narrative issues but just making what appeared to be preferential assertions. So I thought it was worthwhile to note that, theoretically (as has been the case in my experience – perhaps the issue there being that the observation may appear anecdotal), it isn’t that they are prequels which is the problem but, for those lacking, how they were handled as prequels. I guess, in terms of thinking that was worthwhile to note, I must have been wrong as you seem unreceptive to debate of the applicability of the construct and more declarative in terms of asserting opinions that may or may not have any larger value.

          • Xandercom

            If you can’t provide any examples as a foundation to your argument, it’s fiction.

          • Ace Stephens

            Or examples are not the point of the argument. Logic does not conform to examples.

      • James

        I’m concerned with the style and technology that we will see. Big chunky tricorders, large communicators etc… It risks either looking dated, or ruining canonical events. Much better to have the show in an alt universe to explain away inconsistency. The risk of messing up is so great, I’m guessing Sarek will be trying to negotiate peace with the Klingons. We automatically know he’s doomed to failure or at least limited success.

        • They only have to have a dated style if fans insist on nit-picking about TOS canon. I adore TOS canon, but I also know that it was a projection of the future from fifty years ago, and our current projection of the future will be different. I don’t think we have to have chunky tricorders in order to stay within canon, as long as we fans can be flexible. The soul of Star Trek is not the size of the tricorders, it’s a group of mostly good people trying their hardest to explore the galaxy and do good while they’re out there.

          As for Sarek’s ambassadorial duties, I’m sure he did a TON of stuff we never heard about, since he was mostly off-screen during TOS. The writers can make up lots of stories for him without retracing old ground OR contravening canon. At least, they can if they’re any good, and we know that Nick Meyer IS. 🙂

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Exactly. Canon is story history only. It’s not production values and VFX technology of a given time period in Hollywood — that’s silly!

          • Xandercom

            You can’t pick and choose what to keep and what to abandon, and expect everyone to be fine with it. Communicators inspired flip phones, PADD’s inspired ipads, computer libraries inspired mp3 players. It’s still inspiring today, with home voice assistants like Amazon Echo / Google Home.

            What is this going to inspire? It can’t possibly inspire anything new, it’s set 100 years before TNG, so at best we can have a rehash of what’s been done before, at worse they’ll have to pretend that handheld computers don’t exist.

            Has anyone ever seen any successful prequels that lasted? I mean, tv, films, anything?

            They were a novelty to begin with after the turn of the millennium, everyone jumped on the band wagon, but people became sick of them quite quickly because you have to not only be a fan of the original, but also want to see the prequel. That’s a pretty good way of isolating your viewership down to a minority.

            And yet, here we are again, no lessons learned, a minority of hard core fans who are delighted for this project, everyone else either not bothered enough to want to subscribe and watch it, or totally against it.

          • That’s a great way of putting it!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Thanks

          • Fctiger

            I feel the same way. I really hate the idea of a prequel because I think the outdated cheap 60s look will put off anyone under 50 frankly because it won’t look like the ‘future’ it will just look like some nostalgia piece trying to emulate a show from the 60s and thats just a BAD idea. There not nearly as many hardcore TOS fans around like everyone seems to think.

            And why no matter how you feel about the KT films they were super smart to actually show designs from a 2010ish perspective not from a 1960s perspective because you aren’t going to get younger people are people new to Trek in general trying to please the hardcore. So I’m 100% fine they toss out the look of the old show or at least keep some of the basic look like the Constitution class ships but have it all updated inside just the same.

        • Salvador Nogueira

          Please remember that Spock says in STVI (Fuller’s favorite) that he has opened negotiations with the Klingons “on behalf of the Vulcan ambassador”, AKA Sarek. Maybe there is a story left to be told about Sarek and the klingons, afterall. 😉

          • Xandercom

            Who cares

          • Michael

            Real fans care. Not bitter Englishmen.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          You are taking canon way too literally if you expect them to backtrack to cheap boxy tricorders and plywood sets. If that’s what you expect, you’d best stick to fan productions and ignore this new series, because I can guarantee you that the sets and props are going to look a lot different than TOS.

          And this is a good thing.

        • Michael

          Discovery itself is an advanced prototype equipped with a stolen cloaking device that the Klingons want back quite badly. The ship is highly advanced, and uses experimental technology along with traditional Starfleet technology. The ship was built in secret by section 31 and is used “off the record” by Starfleet to shall we say… “smooth over diplomacy”

          This is how they get around with not having to perfectly emulate TOS 60’s style.

          • Fctiger

            True or not I have to admit that would really make sense in order to avoid the cheap 60s look but at the same time keep it in canon. And again the entire look of that ship already told us this would be something very different so just by looking at the outside I imagine the inside is nothing we ever seen before.

            Especially when you add the Section 31 factor to it like how it was done with the Vengeance in STID and how different that look. Let’s just pray this ship wasn’t built by the other Khan who was born 300 years ago and yet somehow can make more advanced ships than expert engineers after waking up a year in the 23rd century. 😉

          • Morgan Smith

            This doesn’t work at all (outside of fan fiction). The Klingons didn’t have cloaking devices then (10 years pre-TOS); the Romulans had a prototype in “Balance of Terror” and a refined one in “The Enterprise Incident”.

          • Michael

            They did have them, the show will establish this. 31 steals their only prototype and this is why there is a Klingon captain featured in the show always hunting down Discovery to try to get it back.

      • Fctiger

        “I love that era, when a lot of things hadn’t yet been discovered, and there was something new and interesting around every corner.”

        Wasn’t that called Enterprise though? Not enough people seem to care enough of the new and interesting things around that corner.

        • Enterprise SHOULD have been like that, but it included the gee-whiz aspects of space only rarely; most of the time, the writers showed us that humans were new to space exploration by making Archer an idiot. Bad writing undermined what Enterprise could have — and should have — been.

          I can only conclude that Archer comes from an alternate universe where science fiction doesn’t exist, since I’ve clearly thought more about space exploration than he has. I know the writers wanted to convey the fact that he and his crew were new to the whole enterprise of exploring space, but they could have done that without making Archer a freaking idiot. Really bad writing there!

          • Tone

            Your right about Enterprise. I’m in the minority and actually love it, but it does have the flaws you point out. I just wish it had been renewed for a 5th season, they had such plans, even a new Enterprise, which would have seen the series grow up, and be less about newbies in space, and more like seasoned explorers.

          • Michael

            You have no idea of the plans they had, they were incredible. Manny Coto had ideas planned out to season 6. There was going to be a three part arc involving the Tholians, and we would have seen their homeworld. We also would have seen Denobula.
            There was to be a follow up episode to “Dead Stop.” The big arc would be the Romulan War. ALOT more section 31 was planned, with 31 planting crude nukes on Romulan planets to appease canon when McCoy said the war was fought with nukes. That is what he was referencing. Enterprise itself was to be overhauled – I am sure you have seen the pictures.

            Shran was going to join the crew as a special security “Advisor” from Andor. A crude form of the holodeck was to be shown, as well as the new ship getting crude shielding. The Xindi were to be featured again in a story where they come asking for help from Earth.

          • Fctiger

            Yeah it sound like 5th season would sound amazing. I heard some of this before, mainly Shran joining the crew and the Romulan war arc (which should’ve been part of the series earlier in season 2 or 3 at least) and that Section 31 would have a bigger role but didn’t know what that would be. Never heard of the Tholian bit.

            And yes I stumbled upon a Youtube video a few months ago that showed the Enterprise was going to get a hull and had a closer look to the Enterprises we all know and love. It looked pretty cool. These were all amazing ideas.

            Its just sad Enterprise could’ve really been that fan favorite show to finally give all the TOS fanboys the stuff they wanted but waited a bit too late for it.

          • Morgan Smith

            I felt that season 4 was when the show finally got good and lived up to it premise of a prequel. They figured out the half of the prequel concept where they could develop stories/races leading into TOS and tweaking our understanding of our “friends” the Vulcan’s history. The other half of the concept – of having realistic, older tech and thus a feeling of a rougher, more dangerous universe to explore – was tossed out the window in the first episode.

            Hearing these new details on the potential for season 5+, I now kinda wish I had never heard them, because they sound awesome. I also kinda wish I had never heard that the original premise for ENT season 1 would have them still on Earth, building the ship and working to determine what is a Starfleet crew, what is their mission, and how do they go about it. That would have been an amazing intro for the start of Starfleet/the Federation.

          • M33

            Enterprise should have been like its season 4 and jumped into the Romulan War stuff fairly quickly.
            I still really like it though, except for the cringe inducing decon chamber rubdowns (except when they themselves parodied it with Phlox and the beagle).

          • Michael

            Do you have something against decon chamber protocols? Would you rather the crew get infected?

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Rick Berman…nuff said.

      • Xandercom

        “All of us” do you mean the little bubble you and your 50 year old hard core TOS friends who dress up and go to conventions to relive their childhood? Ha.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Congrats on your big movie coming out this Friday!

        • That’s funny, Star Trek taught me to give respect and consideration to all lifeforms. You must have seen a different show than I did…

          • Xandercom

            I would tend to agree.

    • Fctiger

      Yeah still not happy over the time period but still excited for the show! 🙂

      I wish they did go post-Voyager though. I honestly don’t need to see Spock’s parents again. Hopefully it will all be good.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Bring back that bald dude and the boring stories.

      • Xandercom

        No, don’t “bring back” anyone. It just doesn’t seem to compute with you people. You’ll be getting Ghostbusters. The world is sick of prequels.

        • Michael

          The latest Ghostbusters failed because it was forced liberal feminism pushed on fans expecting something vastly different.

          • Morgan Smith

            No, it failed because 1) it wasn’t that good, and 2) it was trying to follow/emulate/copy one of the best comedies of all time (which even Ghostbusters 2 couldn’t manage to succeed at).

        • Fctiger

          Agree with this. Enough with silly fan service.

      • RDB

        “boring” = neckbeard for “literary.”

  • Locutus

    A nice bit of casting news. As for the delay, I’ve already waited over ten years for a new series. What’s a few more months? Repeated delays like this are more common these days. If it means a better end product, which I am sure it will, then I am all for it.

  • iMike

    As long as they get it right I don’t mind them pushing it out a little more if they need to. I would rather have a quality production over something rushed just to get it out there. As for the casting news, James Frain will be a fantastic Sarek.

  • Darkthunder

    “we will be flexible on a launch date if it’s best for the show”

    So, what was the reason for getting rid of Bryan Fuller then? He had a busy schedule, and couldn’t fit Discovery into CBS “timeline”… and yet, now they claim to be flexible with the launch date?

    My guess is it will air in September, along with the rest of the CBS shows (on regular broadcast network), gets poor ratings, and ends up in the can…

    • prometheus59650

      They’ll never air it on regular broadcast because all sci-fi does there is die.

      • Darkthunder

        And yet, Star Trek aired on regular broadcast for almost 40 years successfully…

        I have no doubt that CBS will run the show on their “All Access” service, and while streaming services aren’t tied to the same outdated ratings-system, they still have methods of tracking the number of viewers who “tune in”. Given that there’s greater competition in the Autumn/Spring due to the shows on Broadcast networks, a better plan would’ve been to run it during the Summer hiatus (May/June/July).

        • prometheus59650

          Aired on regular broadcast…that it wouldn’t have survived a single season on had it not been for a million plus letter writing campaign two years in a row.

          And 40 years in syndication is not “regular broadcast.”

          Sci-fi gets nowhere on broadcast.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            The Six Million Dollar Man just called me, and he said to say Hi to you!

            Lost, Quantum Leap, The X-Files, Lost in Space, Fringe and The Twilight Zone also say Hi!

          • prometheus59650

            Considering, for me, nothing on that list but LiS science fiction…(shrug)

          • Morgan Smith

            Argue with some of the others if you want, but Quantum Leap (time travel), Fringe (parallel dimensions, crazy science, and men from the future), and Twilight Zone (the quintessential sci fi show) are for sure. X-Files definitely has major sci-fi elements (aliens, advanced technology), but I guess you could categorize it as horror or something else as its TV show genre.

          • Xandercom

            For Americans…
            Remind me who’s paying for this production again?

          • prometheus59650

            I’m not arguing with anyone. I don’t think they qualify. You haven’t changed my opinion and aren’t going to, and I’m not going to change your mind so that’s pretty much the end of the discussion.

            Unless you want to try to pick a fight for some reason I can’t fathom.

            It’s over and done.

          • Morgan Smith

            Wow, that’s kind of harsh. I think this is probably the first time I have ever posted/responded to something you have posted here and was not looking to start a fight. I was just pointing out that I feel that all those qualify as sci-fi. Taking the immediate position that your mind won’t be changed (after just a single post by me) is pretty rigid for a discussion board/section.

            For Xandercom and others who might be interested…
            I think science fiction just needs to contain the following premise: given some different set of circumstances, consider what the human condition would be or how it would be different; the circumstances will generally include different technology, different social conditions, etc. and should be somewhat possible. My definition doesn’t require the science be 100% sound cause that would mean no Star Trek, it can include different historical conditions (to allow for steampunk or other alternative history), and it would exclude magic or other fantastical elements (vampires, hobbits, etc. except if there is some good science fictioning that allows them to exist – like someone genetically engineers bloodlust, light sensitivity, etc. – but it’s not enough just to say “they exist”).

            Under these conditions, I think Quantum Leap fits: what if we invented time travel where you can jump into other peoples bodies and change history, how can you make lives better? Yeah the science is very hand-wavy and practically non-existent, but it’s not like the story says “a wizard jumps Sam from place to place” – Sam, a brilliant polymath, invents time travel and tests it a little recklessly when he is threatened with the project’s cancellation.

            One final bit, I don’t see what Quantum Leap’s cancellation has to do with anything. The vast majority of shows are cancelled and most long before 5 seasons. Additionally, the finale’s closing card was not meant to be a last ditch ploy for potential future revival, it was a last second addition to provide some wrap up for the show when the cancellation announcement was very late and Bellisario needed something to provide some sort of closure. Additionally, it isn’t open ended in a way that is helpful for a revival, it is actually harmful to a revival. Half of the point of the show was “hoping each time that his next leap will be the leap home”. When you know in advance that he won’t, that kinda kills the hope for the show.

          • Xandercom

            In order to be science fiction there needs to be some basis in science, rather than simply a plot device, as per quantum leap. The most science fiction you got to see in any given episode was Al with a flashing tetris block in his hand and the occasional, really badly animated blue electrical noise as Sam leaps. Don’t make me laugh. That’s fantasy, not science fiction.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “Oh. by the way, quantum leap was cancelled.” After five years? For such a crap show it lasted quite a while. I’m interested to know what you consider good sci-fi shows.

          • Michael

            Probably watches flight of the navigator 5 times in a row in his underwear eating greasy popcorn

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Flight of the Navigator is a great movie but to say Quantum Leap was a failure is nonsense.

          • Xandercom

            All utter shite at the time, and shite since.

          • Darkthunder

            Calling X-Files, Lost and Quantum Leap “utter shite” just proves your ignorance.

          • Xandercom

            Quantum leap was crap until it was taken in a new direction in the latter series, jazzed up the theme tune and added more sci-fi drama to it with other leapers, better VFX.
            Prior to that it was nearly taken off the air. I’m afraid t’s just another american soap opera with morality plays on things like civil rights which have zero appeal here in the UK because we didn’t build our nation on slavery or bigotry.
            X-files isn’t really something us in the UK had as any kind of premium show, it was on a secondary channel during the main evening news reports, midweek, alas it was only really followed by kids in their bedrooms. Has the new one been cancelled yet? Managed three episodes before realising the season opener was clearly not the actual direction they were heading in with it’s revival.

            Still, could be worse. At least no one’s throwing millions of dollars in to an x-files prequel no one has any interest in other than the hard core x-files fans! They got their movie too, did you have any interest in it? Would you care?

          • Michael

            The British used to be respectful. Every since the terrorist muslim invasion force started coming in you guys have become increasingly nasty the more and more you lose your country to them.

          • Fctiger

            No offense Xandercom but I’m glad you just bitch about TV and not write for it. You sound like you don’t have a clue, just think you do. 😉

          • Justin Olson

            “Civil rights have zero appeal here in the UK because we didn’t build our nation on slavery or bigotry.”

            According to the 1086 census (twenty years after the Norman invasion), over 10% of England’s population were slaves. Contemporary writers noted that the Scottish and Welsh took captives as slaves during raids. William the Conqueror eventually introduced a law preventing the sale of slaves overseas during his reign. By about 1200, slavery in the British Isles was non-existent, replaced by feudalism and serfdom.

            Great Britain (1707-1801) participated in the Atlantic slave trade throughout most of the 18th and early 19th centuries. Slavery flourished in most of Britain’s colonies (including America). Approximately 2 million slaves were transported from Africa to the West Indies on British ships until the practice was banned in 1807, six years after the United Kingdom was formed. Slavery wasn’t fully abolished in the UK until 1833, approximately three decades before the U.S.

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

          • Fctiger

            Its amazing how people want to down other countries and yet ignore (or ignorant) of their own history. Great Britain, the country that colonized dozens of countries for centuries and threw their imperialism around including slavery itself was always some beacon of equality and non-interference.

            Hell I always thought the reason why they came up with the Prime Directive idea in Star Trek was learning from the history of European countries like GB did at the height of their empire…and how to avoid those mistakes when meeting other cultures.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “‘m afraid t’s just another american soap opera with morality plays on things like civil rights which have zero appeal here in the UK because we didn’t build our nation on slavery or bigotry.” Oh that’s why the show did terrific on BBC2 and gets repeated to this day ad nauseum. Interesting revisionist history you got going on there.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            He’s just trying to divert the discussion given how I so conclusively refuted his initial claim. Lol

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Lol, nice try trying to change the discussion topic given I conclusively refuted your claim here.

        • Xandercom

          I wouldn’t call TOS and Ent cancellations “successful”.

    • Cabo 5150

      Don’t agree with this at all.

      I’m pretty certain it will remain on CBS AA as envisaged and specifically created for from the off.

    • Fctiger

      No it will air on AA. Especially since you seem to assume if they air on TV it would get quickly cancelled. You sort of argued why they wouldn’t air it on TV. 😉

      But yes they could wait until September to air it.

    • MattR

      I don’t know why people think CAA is an instant failure. They already have 1 million paying subscribers without having original content.

    • Tone

      Just serves as proof that the reasons they gave him for leaving were bullshit.

  • Martin

    At least the wait will be worth it, thinking positive they could be writing season two before it even starts its premiere in September.
    If the first 13 episodes started now we would of watched them all by may, then we will be wondering about when season two will start, probably about 8 months now that’s painful.

    • Fctiger

      Actually we wouldn’t. CBS has said long ago the show will be shown in weekly format. It was never going to be made available all at once and in fact its shooting schedule is January through September.

      • Martin

        I Know if it started originally showing weekly now this January, we would have seen them all come this may. Its a good thing it got moved to September all the 13 episodes will show, up to next Christmas. Then the wait will be less for a second season.

        • Fctiger

          Oh I see. Did they say it would be in September though? It doesn’t sound like they have another date yet but it could’ve been updated.

  • Brian Thorn

    Oh my God! They hired someone I’ve actually heard of!

  • Cabo 5150

    Another terrific addition to the DSC cast. Based on what I’ve already seen of him, I’m sensing he can bring a distinctly Sarek like “vibe” to the role.

    My confidence and excitement for the show continues to grow.

  • Bifash

    This is GOOD NEWS:
    “The other reason is there’s still a lot of careful deliberation continuing to go into making Discovery special, from the choice of directors, to set design, to the special effects.”

    I’d rather they get it to us right, then get it to us fast.

  • M33

    Sarek #3.
    (or is it #4 if you count ST5?)

    • Brian Thorn

      Jonathan Simpson played Sarek in Star Trek V.

  • M33

    Anyone else realize that this show will take place in nearly the exact SAME decade as the Kelvin movies, but in the Prime timeline?

    Interesting, right?

    • SpaceCadet

      Why is that so interesting? This show takes places only 10 years before the TOS which is in the SAME timeline. I find that more significant.

    • Michael

      Means nothing, but interesting observation.

    • Fctiger

      Which is why its going to be VERY curious in terms of the production design on Discovery. I mean 10 years is really nothing and even though they take place in different universes we know there are still people that have no clue about that and assume all Star Trek is in the same universe. So I am curious are they going to be as sleek and cool looking at the KT films which didn’t even TRY to emulate the low budget TOS look or will they try to make it look somewhat like the old show just a bit more updated?

      I really hope they go the KT route because its going to look and feel silly if they are going to imitate the 60s look when you have the cool looking updated look in the KT films that are suppose to be in the same decade. This is going to be interested….maybe we’ll see it before Trumps first term is over. 😉

      • Michael

        It will be out in September, that’s rock solid. They could have made May, but it would be very tight with little wiggle room. September will ensure success and a very polished look.

        Kristen is coming up with some fantastic material I am told. If you are not familiar with her work, go buy or borrow from the library her “Voyager relaunch” novels.

        Great stuff for those who want post Nemesis material.

  • Fiery Little One

    Yeah, do it right, or don’t do it at all.

    As for Fran… OB is where I know him from primarily, so his take on Sarek should be interesting even if he’s just doing his best Mark Leonard impression.

    • Snap

      I am most familiar with James Frain as Theo Galavan from Gotham.

  • DS9 is King

    I am so happy Netflix is paying a Big Portion of this series because they can Turn around and say we want the 4 year War between the Klingons and the Federation and CBS will have to say yes otherwise Netflix will leave, This will be Controversial to many Fans AKA Trekkie purists cause they will kick and Scream ”THAT’S NOT STAR TREK” I say Boldly ignore those imbeciles. Look at the Most Successful shows Today Walking Dead Game of Thrones Falling Skies all Dark Gritty Shows very Violent and Bleak that is what sells Today, so they have to change it up and make Star Trek something todays audiences will like to watch let the trekkie Purists be Dammed.

    • Fctiger

      LOL it doesnt work that way. Netflix can’t demand anything other than the number of episodes promised them. And they can’t ‘leave’ because they already paid for their part. YOu think they can just ask for a refund? And why do you think Netflix wants to have a war story line??? What has given you that notion.

      You are clearly obsessed with the whole war thing. I think most of us just want a good show first and foremost so lets hope for that more than anything else. Star Trek doesn’t need war story lines to be good but I’m certainly not against it either as DS9 was also my favorite show for a lot of those reasons.

    • Lora

      In canon there was only a cold war between klingons and federation. Real war would break canon.

    • Xandercom

      Netflix don’t have any input on story, they just buy the tripe, and when it fails to bring in an audience or any form of viewer engagement they will cut any support for a second series, and that’s that.

  • GIBBS v2

    But who will they cast as sassy teen Spock??!!

    Jokes aside I can wait for a quality product over a rushed one. This show needs to be nothing less than excellent.

    • The Spock of this era is already a Starfleet officer, serving on Christopher’s Pike’s Enterprise (as we learned from the events of “The Menagerie.”) Since he and Sarek were estranged during this era, Sarek won’t be contacting Spock and is unlikely even to mention him in conversation, since Sarek is busy pretending that he doesn’t even HAVE a son during this time period.

      • GIBBS v2

        Thanks, it was a little unclear to me how far in the past was taking place.

        • Yes, Discovery will be ten years before TOS. And in “Journey to Babel,” we learned that Spock and Sarek hadn’t spoken as father and son for 18 years. Whether that means they did speak in some way, just not as father and son, is open to interpretation. But certainly Sarek isn’t going to be proudly talking about his son, the science officer on Captain Pike’s Enterprise. 🙂

    • Alex Huffman

      I’d be willing to bet that Zachary Quinto makes a small cameo in the premier.

      • Tone

        He can’t, actually none of the actors from the Kelvin timeline can appear in Discovery, unless it involves some kind of mirror universe.

        • Alex Huffman

          Is that because of a CBS/Paramount legal reason?

          • SpaceCadet

            CBS and Paramount have a legal agreement that their respective properties, TV for the former and movies for the latter, will in no way interfere with each other. This is why Discovery couldn’t air for at least a minimum of 6 months after the premiere of Beyond. And I believe it’s for this reason, and no less the fact they exist in two different timelines, that you won’t get any actor crossovers. Both companies would probably believe it would confuse the casual audience.

          • Fctiger

            It really is so sad what has happened with Trek because of this. Its ironic because in the 90s Star Trek was really one big shared universe before anyone really cared. Now EVERYONE is doing shared universes to the point of ridiculousness (anyone read the idea Paramount has about combining the GI films with Transformers?) and now we a show and a film in the same franchise who act like each has cooties. Sad.

  • Chris Tyler

    Yet another delay. CBS c’mon!!!!!!

  • Vger64

    The cast is looking FANTASTIC. Take your time folks and do a good show. We have waited this long since Enterprise a few more months should be no big deal.

  • fresh3456 .

    Discovery has been a huge trainwreck so far…it looks like season 1 of this show is going to be pretty bad

    • Morgan Smith

      Other than a handful of actors and the name/time period of the show, you know nothing. So no basis for concluding anything.

      • fresh3456 .

        Go back and read about all the production problems Discovery has had, from losing a showrunner to getting pushed back twice and repost your comment.

        If you think Discovery has been smooth sailing you truly live in ignorance

        • SpaceCadet

          Having a couple of premiere delays and a showrunner who moved on because he had too much on his place does not equate train wreck. If more time is needed to make sure everything falls into place then so be it. Plenty of other productions had delays and went over budget and became huge successes (James Cameron’s Titanic anyone?). Moreover, you can’t say something will be pretty bad until you’ve seen the finished product. It hasn’t even begun filming yet for god’s sake!!!

          • fresh3456 .

            You’re literally takinga burnt cake and putting frosting on it in hopes of pretending like nothing is wrong. Think about that.

          • SpaceCadet

            To use your own metaphor, nothing’s burnt because the cake hasn’t even been baked yet. As everyone knows, filming has yet to even start and there is no deadline to try to meet. The production has all the time it needs to make sure the end product is to their quality standards. All of your negativity won’t change those facts.

          • fresh3456 .

            THE SHOW WAS SUPPOSED TO ORIGINALLY PREMEIRE IN JANUARY AND HAS BEEN PUSHED BACK TWICE…they lost their primary creative guy and has been replaced by 2 people no one has heard of

            Im done with this conversation…if people arent capable of critical thinking, i have no time for them. Love.

          • Snap

            INDEED IT WAS, BUT THE DELAYS WERE MADE TO ENSURE A HIGH QUALITY, NOT RUSHED, PRODUCT.

            The biggest problem is the series was announced and a general premiere timeframe set before the show had even entered production. That is not the fault of the show itself, nor is it indicative of the quality of the show. Losing Fuller was certainly not promising, though I don’t think being unfamiliar with his replacements bears any relevance to how the final product may turn out.

            50 years ago, a relatively unknown producer came up with something called “Star Trek” which he hoped he could get on the air. Had Gene Roddenberry not been given the opportunity because he wasn’t a well known name at the time, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

            Honestly, after reading through this conversation, if there is anyone who either isn’t capable of or willing to use critical thinking, it is you. All you have done is throw out criticisms of the show without providing much of anything of substance to back up your claims.

            Basically, what you were saying here is: “I’m done with this conversation… if people won’t agree with everything I’ve said, I have no time for them.”

            I’m sure you have some valid points, but your comments are just coming off as rants for the sake of trashing the show. Have you considered, or are you WILLING to consider, that the end result of the delays may lead to a quality product? I will admit that there is potential for the show to fail, but I would rather keep a positive mindset until I am given reason to think otherwise.

            As someone I think we all admire has said: “There are always possibilities.”

          • Morgan Smith

            I agree with Snap and SpaceCadet. I am fully aware of the pre-production difficulties, but to me they amount to little. The 2 unknowns running the show are Fuller’s hand-picked co-workers from previous shows, so I don’t have a problem with them (though I wish Fuller was still involved).

            For some context, compare Discovery to Enterprise:

            Enterprise was required to launch just after Voyager (despite Braga wanting a delay); the network pushed to get the show into space immediately (instead of having a season on Earth prepping the ship, crew, and mission); the network attempted to have popular bands featured each week to cross promote the network’s musical properties, etc., etc. Endless network interference and a rush to just get a show on the tv.

            Though Discovery was announced in November 2015 with a January 2017 launch date, they didn’t hire Fuller until after the announcement and, according to Fuller, the network didn’t even have an idea for the show yet. Fuller brought the idea and developed it, and because the show is streaming, there was no real need to rush to get it to the screen. They are giving it as much room as needed. Additionally, CBS is reportedly hands off in terms of show content especially since it is on-line and doesn’t have to conform to normal broadcast standards and CBS viewership demographics.

            To me (other than losing Fuller) all these things are positives in terms of allowing the creatives the time and space they need to create the best show possible. I see no real problems here.

  • Jason F. Perry

    Well, it looks more and more like I’m going to be bowing out. I certainly won’t give CBS any money for this. I have no interest at all in seeing any of the original series characters recast. In fact, doing this is a major reason for me to not watch this at all. I can handle (although grunt and grimace about it) them updating “tech” even though TOS established what tech was in that era. The straw that basically breaks the camel’s back for me is recasting established characters. No. I know Sarek was a secondary character and not a primary character but he was a very important element of the later films. This rules me out of purchasing All Access, folks. I may still watch it later onward unless I hear they are recasting any major primary characters in which case this is just completely dead to me.

    • Salvador Nogueira

      This is utterly nonsense. Sarek was recast multiple times, including “Star Trek V: The Final Frontier,” which, I suppose, you accept as Trek (even if it is not a particularly good Trek). You have to understand those classic characters are going to live forever, but the actors who play them won’t. As long as they don’t reinvent the characters, and just recast them, I’m okay with that.

      • Lora

        In Star trek V, other actor played much younger version of character in short flashback scene ( birth of Spock). Soo it is not the same thing. For me recasting any of the important characters is big NO NO. I will not watch this series if they recast any of important characters. How characters look is also a canon. I can not pretend that important characters change faces. They are not shape changing aliens. Recasting is one of the reasons why I hate reboot Star trek movies. I did not even watch last two. And I see last movie was a flop.

        • Salvador Nogueira

          You know, I’m not a recasting enthusiast, but I see it as unavoidable, after 50 years of Trek. And they got an actor that looks like Lenard. You know, it’s not like Robin Curtis taking the role from Christie Alley and we having to pretend Saavik got a face transplant and a brainwash at the same time… 😛

          • Xandercom

            Unavoidable only because it’s a TOS prequel, again.
            The entire show is going to be peppered with crap, and we’re all just supposed to suspend our disbelief through it all. Prequels suck.

          • Snap

            Nope. Recasting isn’t exclusive to Star Trek, nor prequels. There are shows which are currently on the air which has recast major characters when either the actor chose to leave the show or the producers opted to recast the role.

            There were also 3 actors portraying Alexander in TNG (4, when you include DS9. That picture Worf brought with him also looked like a different actor, so maybe 5) and at least 2 for Ziyal in DS9.

        • Fctiger

          I don’t see why this is suddenly a ‘no no’ since every major franchise has done it or will do it. And yeah we already know more will be coming since Fuller pointed out Spocks mom would make an appearance as well so it sounds like it will be a couple thing they just haven’t introduced the actress yet for the character. And I can easily see Spock now showing up as well obviously. But I’m not bothered by it but same time kind of why I’m not overly fond of prequels: too much fan service.

      • pittrek

        Plus in STV he was dubbed by Mark Lenard.

    • Fctiger

      You do realize they sort of recasted the original characters in these big movies for the last 8 years now right? I mean I get your point sort of but that boat has now sailed. To be complaining about it now is kind of weird. That said I actually agree in a way I don’t really need to see anymore of Sarek. I always liked the character and Mark Leonard played him well. I liked they gave him and Spock this expansive arc that started on TOS and ended in TNG. I also liked the version in the 2009 film movie. But I don’t need to see the guy pop up everywhere like he’s now Fury.

      But still its strange to be complaining just over the idea about it. The show itself could still be good and this is Hollywood. What HASN’T been recasted at this point?

    • Xandercom

      Well said

    • Gary Smith

      You really didn’t expect them to recast characters?
      With a prequel that is inevitable.

  • DS9 is King

    The title of the show, Star Trek Discovery, could play into a secretive mission. What if some region of space has been discovered that could threaten the stability of all space-faring governments? Borrowing a page from the wormhole to the Gamma Quadrant from Deep Space Nine, what if there’s a tunnel to other parallel realities that the USS Discovery can go into? We could see versions of the Federation where things are different than the so-called Prime universe…and maybe even venture into the timeline established by 2009’s reboot of the Star Trek IP.

    Think about the possibilties of that. A crew that could be comprised of Starfleet members from different parallel realities…some from the Prime universe, some from ’09, some from other realities. That certainly plays into the show’s tagline: “New Crews. New Villains. New Heroes. New Worlds.”

    • Fctiger

      Now this I can get behind! 🙂

    • Michael

      It’s about Section 31

  • Salvador Nogueira

    I hope we can see Sybok as well in the show.

    (Tongue firmly in cheek.)

    • Cabo 5150

      Share your pain, Salvador!

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Plus a young V’ger too.

  • pittrek

    Wow, so 2 bad news? I mean why couldn’t they even try to cast the actor who played Sarek in the JJ movie? If they wanted to have Sarek so badly…

    And I suspected that they have serious production problems, this further delay just proves it. There is something rotten in the state of Discovery. Fuller probably had a good reason to jump ship

  • Xandercom

    Just shelve it.
    Having Spock”s father is just more TOS fanboy lipservice junk to add in to another doomed prequel attempt.
    They won’t learn.

  • Michael

    I am hearing it will be September before it’s ready to go fully. The casting is not fully complete in reality and special effects are taking longer than expected due to the very high quality of them.

    This was Fullers show; him leaving caused absolute chaos.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Yea, you heard it right here on Trekcore.

  • Michael

    Don’t worry everyone, the show is going to be great. Really great. All the people here bashing the show and saying the won’t watch will look back on what they said here in shame.

  • Eric Cheung

    His resemblance to Mark Lenard is incredibly uncanny, much more so than Ben Cross. I hope he also has the gravitas Lenard has, that Cross didn’t seem to have as much. Maybe Winona Ryder can still play Amanda.

    It’s too bad the show got delayed again, but I guess it means I’ll be signing up for All Access later.

  • Binyamin Koretz

    Prequels are the dumbest shows on television. Like “The Americans” which takes place more than 30 years before the events of most of the other TV shows. All we have is a bunch of boxy tube television sets and large Buicks, and we certainly know how the Soviet Union ends. They’re don’t even consistently have big hair because they made it in the 2010s. And TURN: Washington’s Spies, which is like more than 200 years before the events of most of the other TV shows, with silly period costumes and of course we know how the Revolutionary War ends.

  • Just a guest

    The fourth Sarek? I know Mark Lenard, & Ben Cross, but who is the other one?

    • Binar

      Jonathan Simpson in Star Trek V.

      • Just a guest

        Oh right, when Syboc tried to “share” Spock’s pain. I always forget that one.

  • SpaceCadet

    Very cool casting. I’m most familiar with James Frain from True Blood and from even further back in Where The Heart Is with Natalie Portman and I really enjoyed him in both. I never even realized he was British so he’s got the American accent down pat!

    And I’m for a slight delay if it means getting the show just right. Delays don’t always mean the production is troubled and even if it is troubled, all the more reason to give it the time it needs to sort itself out. I remember all of the naysaying about Jim Cameron’s Titanic’s production delays and how that would flop and we all know now how that turned out!

  • Newdivide1701

    I hope during that time they will redesign the ship into something that isn’t a joke.

    Normally I wouldn’t dislike a ship right off the bat and no way for me to come out of it, but the USS Discovery is the second ship where I had. The first one being the Enterprise-F from Star Trek Online. The JJ Enterprise and the Vengeance grew on me right away, and even the Excelsior with it’s goiter neck isn’t bugging me. I do like many of the kitbashes they had over the years.

    But to be honest there are SO many things that are turning me off.

    I’m fine with the lead being a black woman and a Lt. Commander, having a gay crew member, and that it takes place about a decade before TOS, and so forth. But we need CBS access while everyone outside of North America can view it on Netflix, the way they went after Axanar, and of course the ship itself.

    I’ve attached an image where I did a cheap ass cut and paste with the USS Kelvin and the unnamed Delta class ship from Star Trek: Enterprise, and already I prefer that ship over that shit. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d8d8ab53975687f2841f823559302d78c47d6431638ff1f127050fb3f5614cdb.jpg

    • Fctiger

      Wow thats actually a nice combo dude. A very ‘muscle’ type of ship like a war ship but still retain basic Starfleet design. And yeah I think that original ship was a turn off for a lot of people. I still had no idea WTF they were thinking that they managed to get that far and thought people were going to like it? People want the classic Starfleet look. You can change it up a little but not to the point it looks like it belongs in another universe. Just horrible. Hopefully it will be nicer. Odd how they still haven’t shown us another version yet.

      Would be cool if they went this direction.

  • Csere Mihaly

    What I would be curious about what is the role of Captain Georgiou and the USS Shenzho. Michael any info on that topic?

    • Michael

      I will inquire

  • Michael

    Terrible reviews for “The Return.” It’s a terrible movie as well, worse than I expected. Whoever put this trash out has no idea what quality is.

  • néni77

    I feel sick.
    3, THREE different Sareks so far.

    • Csere Mihaly

      four 😉

      • néni77

        explain.

        • Csere Mihaly

          well, Mark Lenard, Jonathan Simpson (Star Trek V flashbacks), Ben Cross (ST 2009) and now James Frain. That’s 4 🙂

    • Fctiger

      Why? How many Batmans have there been on screen? James Bond? Spider-Man and so on?

      This happens in any popular franchise, especially rebooted ones. And we are talking iconic characters. Sarek is a third rate character only hardcore Trekkies have a clue who he is and has been in about 6 episodes in TOS and TNG and small cameos in 3 films. Hell Ben Cross had a bigger role as Sarek in the 09 film than Leonard had in the TOS films.

      Sooner or later characters get new actors. Its shocking it took this long for another TOS reboot with the new films but it was going to happen at some point. And sarek is not moses, its just another character role.

      • néni77

        uuuummm… I’m trekker. I’m interested in trek. only.

        anyway, I disagree. during 700 episodes this “problem” was solved. why do they want to make stories with old caracters? actors are died!! let”s create NEW caracters.

        again: more than 700 episodes. it is not difficult.

        • Fctiger

          Seriously you ONLY watch Star Trek? Ok thats the problem lol. I love Trek too but there is a bigger world out there and yeah characters gets recast all the time. This isn’t an issue with majority of the world for this reason.

          And look you’re preaching to the choir about not wanting to do a prequel. I agree with you and yes I would prefer NOT to have old characters in them either. But its not a new thing in any story device. Characters are revisited in every form of story telling from novels to plays. Do I love the idea, clearly not. Am I surprised by it, not in the least. It was only a matter of time. Hell as said its ALREADY been done long ago. Its just another version.

          And trust me Chris Pine won”t be the last person playing Kirk either. Whatever happens to those movies they will reboot TOS at some point again one day regardless. And I honestly have a feeling we are going to get either Kirk or Spock as an appearance on this show this season is over with new actors. Hope I’m wrong but I feel I won’t be.

          • néni77

            “problem” – NO, this is NOT a problem.

          • Fctiger

            It is if you think recasting roles is some new thing. 😉

  • Fctiger

    Funny I just started watching Orphan Black. AMAZING show. Been hearing about it for years and wanted to give it a view. Luckily I recently got Amazon and the show was on there (which I didn’t know) and was thrilled I could watch it. I actually started watching it the day after this news broke and I finally got to season 3 where he appeared for the first time yesterday. I have never seen this guy in anything else until now and honestly knowing what I know I automatically saw him as Sarek. He definitely looks like he can play the part and I’m more excited now to see him.

    I can honestly do without the prequel and fan service stuff but I can say I’m a bit more interested of how Sarek will be included now.