CBS has made yet two more casting announcements today for 2017’s Star Trek: Discoveryand perhaps the biggest name yet attached to the upcoming project.

  • British actor Jason Isaacs, best known to genre fans as the evil Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter films, is “Captain Lorca” – commanding officer of the starship Discovery.
  • In addition, relative newcomer Mary Wiseman joins the series as “Tilly,” a Starfleet Academy cadet in her final year of schooling, assigned for field studies aboard the Discovery.
Image via CBS.

As previously reported, series lead Sonequa Martin-Green – not yet officially announced by CBS – will not be a starship captain, making Discovery the first Trek series where a starship captain’s role won’t be the primary focus for storytelling.

That being said, putting an actor of Isaac’s ability in the center seat aboard the USS Discovery – and fellow formidable performer Michelle Yeoh in command of the USS Shenzhou – will certainly bring a great deal of gravitas to the series.

Stay tuned to TrekCore for more Star Trek: Discovery news!

  • Jason Isaacs is a great actor. Loved him in The OA more recently. I get the feeling there will be a bit of mystery about this Captain.

  • Still wondering whether Michelle Yeoh has done any filming yet. Her instagram seems to show that she’s mostly travelling the world, so my thinking is that they haven’t done the Shenzhou filming yet.

  • October_1985

    Great casting, I had this feeling that we neede some big name for Captain of the Discovery, I’m pretty happy with Isaacs, great and charismatic actor.

  • Chadwick Adams

    Funny, just last night I was thinking..isn’t it time for another drop of Star Trek Discovery news. Great choice for a Star Trek captain, he is an actor with presence.

  • GristleMcNerd

    Well then, hello to him 😀

  • TUP

    Im wondering if the Shenzhou isnt long for this series. Werent the other cast announcements all characters on Discovery? Shenzhou could be the big blow up in the premeire

    • Eric Cheung

      Shenzhou crew: Georgiou, Nambue, Connor.

      Discovery crew: Lorca, Rainsford, Stamets (has it been confirmed which ship he’s on?), Saru, Tilly

      Starfleet Command: Admiral Anderson

      UFP personnel: Sarek

      Klingons: Kol, T’Kumva, L’Rell

  • Thomas W.

    Great choice. A british actor again. He is as old as Patrick Stewart was in the finale season of TNG. The oldest captain we had so far. He was fantastic in “The Patriot”.

    • Eric Cheung

      He’s actually one year younger than Michelle Yeoh. It remains to be seen how prominent the two captains will be compared with one another, especially since the focus will be on Rainsford. I could see a situation where she considers Georgiou more of a mentor than Lorca and has subspace chats with her to talk about adjusting to the ship and crew of Discovery.

      • Roger Birks

        Maybe we get a coming of age story.

  • FnAcK

    Great casting choice, great actor! I just hope the show can live up to it’s name…

  • Leopold Nienhaus

    Another actor working for both Star Wars and Star Trek. Haha. He used to play the Inquisitor on Star Wars Rebels. Great actor. Loved to hate him as Lucius Malfoy. Gave the role quite a bit of weight.

  • Archer

    Hello to Jason Isaacs! Seriously though, a great actor who steals every scene he’s in effortlessly (even though I know he’s not the main star).

    • mick

      Tinkety tonk old fruit

      • Archer

        Ukulele!

      • Stuart Quinn

        and down with the nazis.

  • GIBBS v2

    I hope is around for more than an episode or two.

    It feels like an actor of his caliber and rising fame might be a temporary thing. This might also explain how the first officer can be the main character because she is going to inherit the CHAIR!

    • This is the type of casting you can do when the actor doesn’t have to commit to a 26 episode season. Great casting news.

      • Roger Birks

        26 episode seasons are no longer a thing. This series will probably go at 12 to 14 episodes or thereabouts.

        Patrick Stewart agreed on the 26 episode seasons, or was duped into signing onto a flop anyway!

        • Fctiger

          No its still a thing just mostly on network TV but yes it is becoming less common these days. And like most streaming networks it will have 13 episodes.

          Patrick Stewart wasn’t a full time TV or movie actor at the time. He didn’t have a full schedule like Issacs did and he said at the time he wasn’t particularly interested in doing American TV his agent said it would be a good thing for him to get other roles. He has a good agent.

    • Fctiger

      Issacs has done tons of TV, his recent the OA. He has starred in several shows over the years. The problem is they just keep getting cancelled. Believe me those shows were successful he would be on TV full time. Although I know the OA got a second season and he’ll definitely be on that too. I don’t think he cares one way of the other he justs want to work lol. He voiced a character in Star Wars Rebels.

    • October_1985

      Exactly my thoughts. I’d love him to be a regular, but I don’t think it’s going to be possible.

  • Fiery Little One

    Jason Isaacs? This should be interesting. With a name like ‘Lorca’ I have to wonder if he’s going to be human or not. (Could go either way.)

    • Eric Cheung

      It’s a Spanish surname, so quite possibly.

      • Fiery Little One

        Yeah I was thinking of the times when we’ve gotten an alien who has a slightly more obviously human sounding name then there are those times when we’ve gotten humans with names that slightly alien sounding names.

      • October_1985

        I guess they took it from Federico García Lorca, the famous spanish poet and dramatist. I’d love to have a spanish captain, it’s around time.

        • Eric Cheung

          Though it would have been nice if a Spanish captain was played by a Spanish-descended person. If it had to be someone named Isaac, it could have been Poe Dameron.

          • October_1985

            Yeah, I think Antonio Banderas is pretty bored these days XD

    • Havenbull

      I don’t think Starfleet was ready in this time period for an alien Captain

      • Fiery Little One

        That’s very possible.

      • TheRenegadeRebel .

        T’Pol was given command in Enterprise in the alternate future where the Xindi destroyed earth. We also see alien captains and even an alien Federation president in the TOS movies set near decades later. I really don’t think it would be an issue.

      • M33

        What about the all-Vulcan USS Intrepid from “The Immunity Syndrome”?

  • Havenbull

    NOT DIVERSE ENOUGH !!!

    I’m kidding. Great choice

    • pittrek

      I’m actually afraid that there will be some genuine complaints that “a cis white male” will be the captain 🙁

      • Ace Stephens

        There’s already some of it. Although the scattering I’ve seen seem to be from people who aren’t really Trek fans anyway and/or don’t know who the new series is focusing on character-wise. But there are some sorts who won’t miss an opportunity to distort this and miss the point of Trek…

        • pittrek

          Some people just love searching for anything they could complain about.

          • Eric Cheung

            Underrepresentation is a bit more important than whether or not the ships have distinctive crew patches, or whether or not the Klingons have ridges. Roddenberry pretty much flat out said as much.

            But I remain fairly cautiously optimistic.

          • Ace Stephens

            “Underrepresentation” in what regard? Among Trek captains? Among those captains that are the “lead” on a Trek series (which this one apparently isn’t)? In comparison to what framework? Genuinely, in what regard?

            I would assume you mean it in some form socially (presumably regarding mostly “the West” and/or America…and, if so, limited to that for some reason I don’t see expressly defined here). But, socially, Trek is meant to be pushing beyond these concerns (for instance, the series itself during the 1960s not acting like Uhura constantly had to be singled out due to her race or the like…and that being a source of inspiration to many) so I don’t understand the focus upon this. Because I generally think those who enjoy the show enjoy a sense of its…”optimism” (surrounding subjects in these realms) and how it’s an example in a world full of…what I might “charitably” call “poor examples.” To me, this element being a focal concern defies the basis of the series. Just like when they basically announce, “We’re having a gay character…” and, rather than, “I hope they don’t derail their storytelling or anything, ignoring the humanity of the characters for a ‘message.'”-type things, people are showing up to say, “Oh no! Gay agenda!”

            That’s nonsense. That’s crap. Get out of here with that. Oh no! What if Isaacs’ character is straight?! Underrepresentation! But what if he’s gay – Isaacs isn’t, is he? So that’s wrong, too, right?

            Who cares? Put all the gay actors, characters, whatever on the show. Put all the white, black, Asian, Aboriginal, whatever on the show. I just don’t care and I don’t understand those who do because…it’s not a “Trek”-view, in my perception, to do so. And that’s the framework I apply to Trek (and, in many regards, life). I’ve said it before here but I wouldn’t mind a Trek series where most of the main cast was Chinese and they spoke Chinese and I had to read subtitles (Oh no!). I just don’t care.

            I recall a couple decades ago when everybody was all, “A woman captain!” And I was all “I don’t care. I like the character and don’t see why that’s how people define it beyond the most passing glimpse.” And yet still people are constantly going on and on about the race, sex, etc. of the captains. In my view, some still haven’t gotten “the point.”

            I’m sure you seemingly disagree with what that “point” is or how it reflects society or influences society or…things like this. I recognize that what seems to be your view exists in a notable number of fans but I just don’t understand what appears to be that type of thinking at all and I’m not sure I ever will. Although I’m completely willing to try. I just don’t see how “Judge people on this basis…” works as a means of combating judging people on that basis. No matter how many hoops or further qualifications or “They started it!”s or “They’ve gone too far combating it even if they may think we started it!”s or whatever else wind up being applied.

            To me, roughly “the conversation” on many of these subjects is broken. And, because of the “baggage” and varying frameworks applied that may or may not genuinely be applicable, I don’t know how that can be overcome except to roughly exclude these factors from focus. Because emphasizing them (race/sex/sexuality/etc. as having inherent “value” within presumably a “better world” we might wish to see achieved) has…been the cause of the problem all along, in my view. And seems like what Trek’s premise opposed. To me. I’m sure many others see it differently.

            I just can’t wrap my head around it. And I dread all of the potential further examples of, “Roddenberry’s vision is steeped in white privilege!”-sort of sentiments as those in the pieces I’ve already seen. To me, that style of framing outside of generalities within social sciences…is disastrous regarding the subject it often claims to be about supporting (inclusion, equality, etc.). I fail to see the logic in it.

          • TUP

            The thing is, its not important if the cast is mostly white and straight and because us straight white guys are represented everywhere. It’s the “norm” in casting.

            So to make a point of saying no, we’re not going to instinctively cast a mostly white, straight cast is a good thing. Making the point that if we need a female character that we can make her black or if we need a white guy lets make him gay…thats not being PC. Its not diversity for diversity sake or else it doesnt mean anything.

            Its important just like in the 50’s or 60’s having a female lead or a black lead would elicit pushback. You did it because you had to FORCE people to accept reality. Its important.

            If a gay character is news thats all the reason there needs to be to have a gay character. Guess what, lots of people are gay. To have no gay characters in Star Trek is a form of “whitewashing” (or a commentary on genetic manipulation in regards to gender identity and sexual orientation, but thats a different topic).

          • Ace Stephens

            So to make a point of saying no, we’re not going to instinctively cast a mostly white, straight cast is a good thing.

            “Good” enters a moral realm I’m uncomfortable with distinguishing on this subject. “Good” things regarding race/sex/etc.? No, they just are. The “values” don’t exist in terms of any relevance. “This person’s good because they’re white…” or “This person’s good because they’re non-white…” or any of these things are just disturbing to me in terms of their implications. Even if only within the framework of “what it means to society” or something regarding a predominantly whatever, culture. Although, yes, white people understandably featured more prominently on a show made in a nation where white actors were far more prevalent due to population.

            So as for that concern of indicating they’re not just casting mostly white/straight people, they (those behind this show) – and Trek in general – already made that point. So why is it still being focused on by some in this sense? I don’t understand the concern here regarding the framework applied. We already know this version is being rather inclusive in some regards. Why does it matter here regarding the captain or not? What is the concern there?

            Most of the time with these things, what people wind up sounding like they mean is, “I want entertainment to be propaganda.” I don’t believe in that. Sure, you can love Trek for a positive message about the future that you wish to reach for but I don’t think this other thing, this sense of a fictional work’s relevance, typically holds up in those (social – as in “a comprehensive manner to nearly all parties”) regards across what might be construed as “American culture” at large.

            Many of the same people who tend to push these things – those I might consider “moralists” in some forms – are often the people who think that fans of horror films would actually wish to see physical harm come to people in real life. They don’t seem to grasp the disconnect that is inherent to many fictional portrayals, including even the potentially “aspirational” ones. And so there’s this weird “projection” that seems to be going on where they have taken on a specific perspective, then inverted or shifted it in some fashion, then put it back out there as indicative of something on another’s part even in cases where it may have little-to-no connection. There’s often a misframing involved as well. “Murder’s bad…and this work ‘killed off’ this character…therefore the writer is bad!” or “Murder is bad…and people enjoy this fictional work…so they must have bad morals!” These odd value judgments creep in that have no meaning or merit in relation to the context/form/viewer/narrative/etc. in the given instance…but are treated like they must because the interpreting party in the given case doesn’t appropriately contextualize it.

            Instead, the interpreting party may frame it within this alternative framework that – in some cases, such as this one currently appears to me – is expressly erroneous.

            Making the point that if we need a female character that we can make her
            black or if we need a white guy lets make him gay…thats not being PC.

            I don’t even understand what you’re saying here. “PC” is not my concern in the least.

            Its important just like in the 50’s or 60’s having a female lead or a
            black lead would elicit pushback. You did it because you had to FORCE
            people to accept reality. Its important.

            In what regard? I enjoy Night of the Living Dead and Romero says he just cast the best actor but, because it was a black guy during the 60s, people have placed all this meaning on the portrayal regarding race. Isn’t it possible and even preferable that…he cast the best actor? And what others read into it is their own business?

            If someone suggests Romero was “forcing” something there, they were likely not open to the inclusion anyway.

            If a gay character is news thats all the reason there needs to be to have a gay character.

            While it may apply here, I find this is an odd framework if unspecific (as some may construe it) as people could assert similar things about roughly any “type.” I think there are a lot of value judgments in what you’re putting forward that may extend beyond the necessities for the storytelling scope. Including even genuine concerns for societal inclusion within that.

            I’d understand the concern presented if the conceit here was as it is for Trek (a “perfect” version of humanity’s future regarding tolerance/acceptance/etc.) and the notion was that there were going to be very few or no minorities represented – as then what’s onscreen would very likely defy its very nature. But we all know that’s not the case (for Trek and this Trek focally). So saying, “But people are underrepresented…” within the context of a conversation surrounding a show that, since its start, has eschewed much of that ridiculousness applied in prominence within the American entertainment culture and, in this specific case, has said it’s not focusing on the captain in that regard and all this…

            Where does that come from? What is the framework applied when speaking of “underrepresented”? It would seem to be some broader framework that’s inapplicable here because it’s Trek (so it always avoided falling into that false framework) or the framework of the captain of the main ship being more focal to the story which is inapplicable here since it’s already clarified as not being the case for Discovery…or the framework of the captain being capable of being non-white which is already established in Trek so still isn’t applicable here…

            So I’m just not following it at all. What’s the concern regarding “underrepresented”?

          • TUP

            Oh please. “Good” enters a moral realm you’re un comfortable with? Guess what, you’re not as smart as you’re trying to sound. You either had the point go right over your head or you’re picking an argument to flex a muscle you dont have.

            Thanks!

          • Ace Stephens

            Oh please. “Good” enters a moral realm you’re un comfortable with?

            Not the use of the term itself but in the context it was presented that I replied to, yes. If you’re comfortable saying that certain “racial” (or gender-associated or on and on) qualities are good or bad by being present, I suppose you’re entitled to do so. I’m uncomfortable with doing so, which would include saying, “Hey, why are there [this race of] people here?!” for no reason other than…I didn’t necessarily want that race of people there (which I find an odd stance to take regardless). Acting like it’s “good” to impose some condition in these realms surrounding race or similar is not something I think reflects the values I find in Star Trek.

            Guess what, you’re not as smart as you’re trying to sound. You either had the point go right over your head or you’re picking an argument to flex a muscle you dont have.

            I don’t know why you assume I’m trying to sound smart unless something went over your head. I wasn’t saying anything very complicated. You suggested that value judgments should be associated with the immutable conditions of one’s birth or being and I pointed out that this makes me uncomfortable. I’ve dealt with racists and sexists and similar (not a great deal but I have) enough to know that those who associate value judgments with the presence of someone of this race, gender identity, etc. in some larger scale tend not to be putting forward views I can find myself supporting.

          • Liam Deeken

            So sick of self-hating whites if you are white if not what difference does it make in the context of a good story things have to flow, and haven’t straight white men taken enough of a beating for the last 8 years I think so, as far as diversity goes it’s well been shoved down our throats enough!

          • Ace Stephens

            I’m not sure what you’re referring to exactly or why you’re replying to me as I wasn’t pushing for more or less inclusion of white people. Were you intending just to add this as some commentary on racial concerns? As for the last eight years in particular, I don’t know what the relevance of that is.

        • Eric Cheung

          It’s possible to be generally pleased with much of the direction of the show, while still being a little disappointed that an opportunity was missed by making a fourth of six captains of a show’s hero ship another white male.

          I like the uniforms, I think the design of the Discovery fits in pretty well with the TOS aesthetic, I’m so glad Fuller set in motion a style of storytelling that’s significantly different from past shows, I love the casting choices of many of the characters, and am stunned at the resemblance of James Frain to Mark Lenard. But, yeah, it would have been nice for the captain to be someone that wasn’t a white male.

          • Ace Stephens

            I don’t care about the race of the captain. Make every captain for the next four series a gay black Austrian and I won’t mind as long as the show is good. I might go, “Wait, what? Again?” after it happens for the third time in a row with different actors/characters (as it would start to kick statistical probability in the face – unlike a show largely “originating” in – the predominantly white – America for decades often casting white people in a majority of roles) but it would basically never go beyond that (and that notable confusion would particularly diminish if, for some reason, Austria became the go-to place for producing/casting Trek and, within that predominantly white region, maybe developed a close association with a regional/cultural acting group or things like that).

            I know people in those realms that focus on these things all the time will say it’s “privilege” making me think so (because they infer my age, race, gender, sexuality, etc. due to how I phrase/frame things, whether their inferences are accurate or not)…but I think distorting this framework to be “keeping score” of race is rather anti-Trek. I know others think, “But it’s the most Trek of Trek things!” but…I just don’t see that at all. I don’t understand the…weird presumptions people have surrounding matters like this specific subject either. Some seem to think the issue surrounding it being a white male is it’s another “main character” since it’s the captain but…the captains were to a decent degree focal (often more than other characters) but still not so much so that it was all about them…and this specific show has been noted as being primarily about another character anyway who isn’t the captain…and I don’t really expect him to be the captain forever if the show continues. There are just a lot of variables not being considered because, “But what about my erroneous assumptions!” Some of those may hold up, sure…but some are just…”What?”

            …I just don’t see the way (why) people frame things the way they do. “Let’s not focus on _______” and then as soon as something associated (even in the least relevant or most tangential form – although some may claim it’s not) is mentioned, it’s, “No, not that because of _______!” I don’t get it. To me, if you speak the language of isolating due to superficial factors (some may call it “hatred”), simply “turning the tables” (“Those of this superficial factor often were ones engaging in that language! Let’s do it back!”) is not the appropriate route to progress. I find that it’s usually doubling down, contorting the existing poor framework into even more of a mangled mess that it’s then even more difficult to deconstruct/dismantle so we (as a “society”) can actually progress forward.

            I honestly could not care less what human “race” (Does the first word matter there? …Not to me regarding Trek, really.) the captain is or what the sexuality of the captain is or whatever is going on in those regards. I know some will say, “But think of the social implications!” but, to me, that kind of misses the point of optimistic fiction in these realms – which would tend to lead by example (“Who cares?”) rather than any particularly notable agenda beyond the inherent narrative framework or conceit. For instance, as I believe Avery Brooks noted, he is incapable of “playing black.” They could have cast Laverne Cox (who I find to be a notably capable actress) as this captain and, assuming the show wasn’t taking some awkward “grandstanding” or unduly focal stance (you know, how cringy “after school special” stuff from decades ago often feels now), I would have been here facepalming at and questioning pretty much everyone who reacted with any narrow focus upon those matters (of race/gender/sexuality/whatever…particularly to stress exclusion on the basis of any of them). I know some may consider that narrow-minded or callous in its form but…

            In my view, the way to treat people like people (and enable “the world of Trek”) isn’t by reducing them to these labels. We can recognize these largely “superficial” things but, outside of certain specific subjects (often generalities or studies in social sciences), when we attach frameworks to that which ignore “who they are” as individuals (and how it may or may not have the direct associations we infer)…I don’t think we’re helping matters regarding human progress. In some cases, I think we’re hindering it.

            And so I do my best to avoid framing things in those ways internally and externally. Of course I don’t always succeed. I mean, let’s be honest here…we had two captains in a row who, for the majority of their time onscreen, were significantly bald on the top of their heads. Statistically, this is a questionable repeated occurrence given the human population, even when the focus is narrowed to males within a specific age range.

            But, honestly, in the grand scheme of things (while we may struggle with perceptions of this “concern” in some regards now, if we believe leading by example is the best thing to do – which many don’t believe but I’m not them and I think the example stands regardless), who cares?

          • TUP

            Well said. But as recent political results show us, there are a lot of bigots who dont think they’re bigots. And sadly, many have shown themselves on these and other Trek forums.

            I hope the premiere features an extended and as-explicit-as-possible gay love scene just to watch heads explode on the forums.

          • Ace Stephens

            I don’t know what “recent political results” expressly have to do with anything. I don’t think most of these sorts of things break down into political frameworks as easily as many believe. Perhaps to some notable degree there may be overlap on certain subjects but, comprehensively, not in a plainly clear-cut fashion.

            As for a gay love scene, I don’t want to see it because I don’t want “love scenes” (if you’re referring mostly to “sex scenes,” as many often are when using that term) in Trek (or most storytelling) in general. That’s not the point to me. I don’t know what I’m meant to invest in there. The stakes of an action-associated standoff have consequences in the immediate. Two people fumbling over each other in bed or some artsy take on “representing” intimacy in a private form beyond any necessity to the story? I just don’t see the value (since, as I just indicated, I fail to see the necessity to the story most of the time).

            The story is the story to me and what’s most focal (since that is what the work is)…and so I would be here complaining about that portrayal unless the whole point was…one of them was infected with a virus they gave the other or…things like that. Which, now that I mention it, may sound uncouth to suggest surrounding a gay love scene but I rather obviously didn’t mean it in some “stereotype”-associated fashion. I meant more like some…alien parasite or similar “virus” that may be transferred. And hopefully not used too focally as a direct commentary on anything in that realm.

            My point here being…when works in these realms lose sight of the characters’ humanity due to a focus on these elements (pushing race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc. as relevant concerns), it usually doesn’t help support the story. Now, when a guy holds a guy’s hand or kisses a guy or wakes up in bed next to a guy or whatever that visually represents something dramatically (the development of a romantic subplot or…such), I take no issue with that.

            But if it’s just, “Look, shirtless people!” and/or “Nakedness!” and/or other things of that nature, I tune out. Unlike certain cheap entertainment devices (for instance, 1980s horror pictures), it doesn’t even reach the level of being so utterly superfluous to the nature of the story as to be entertaining through absurdity in my book.

            For instance, I recall some scenes during Enterprise involving T’Pol in various states of undress that just had me going, “What am I looking at here? Does this mean something to the story? What’s going on?”

          • Eric Cheung

            Stories only matter when they happen to well-developed characters that move the plot forward through character-based motivations. Otherwise, you just get pawns on a chess board. The consequences you want to see happen don’t really mean anything if it happens to people we don’t know. Sometimes that means that developing those characters involves relationships, but that’s only natural, because that’s part of the human condition. Every series had long-term relationships embedded in the story. Even TOS had Kirk Spock McCoy. Spock’s death would have been far more shallow if we didn’t feel we knew him, not because things happened, but how he felt about those things and how it changed his worldview.

          • Ace Stephens

            …I have no clue what people are replying to me here regarding sometimes. I’m wondering if it’s occasionally a “term usage” issue and I picked the wrong one or used one with varying meanings and they thought I meant something else.

            Although I do get the impression oftentimes that people are reading what they assume I’m trying to say rather than what I actually said. Of course, in those cases where I poorly articulate something but meant the thing they assume, I accept it. So I guess I can’t be too choosy in those regards.

            But I’m afraid I don’t know what you’re talking about here. Although I suppose there’s always the chance you accidentally replied to me when meaning to reply to someone else. Regarding past experiences here, I find it more likely there’s some context or meaning being applied to what I said that isn’t applicable within the manner I intended to convey my thoughts.

            But who knows? You, I’m hoping.

          • TUP

            If you’re against love scenes for some reason, that’s weird. You want action-associated standoff. Well, do you want to characters to have a standoff for no reason? No, you want the plot to be driven by the story and the characters. I didnt say I wanted a non-sensical love scene.

            But if the show is well written with a focus on the characters, surely we will get inter-personal relationships.

            I was being mostly facetious in saying I hope they have an explicit gay sex scene…because the wishy washy morons who arent that comfortable with their own sexuality would go nuts seeing that…which would be highly entertaining on these boards.

          • Ace Stephens

            I oppose “love scenes” (as I specified, when referring to “sex scenes”) because there are no stakes within it to me. As for “wanting” an action-associated standoff, I didn’t say that I wanted such things. I noted that there are consequences in the immediate.

            I didnt say I wanted a non-sensical love scene.

            Which is why I specified that I was referring to sex scenes because those are what many (probably most) refer to as “love scenes.” So that if that wasn’t the case, you would understand. But if you do mean to refer to sex scenes in some fashion, I don’t see the point of those scenes in the vast majority of instances. I don’t relate. Generally, we know or understand the conditions surrounding it so a focus on the act of sex or “love” that doesn’t add to that…is superfluous in my view.

          • Fctiger

            This whole thing is pretty funny but so far not ONE person here has objected to Issacs being on this show. Not one. And yet when it was announced Martin-Green, the black woman, would be the lead there was SO MUCH ‘PC talk’ over it here it was unbelievable.

            Now to make it clear MOST people were happy with it. But I find funny is I remember saying at the time the only time you get any real push back is when its a minority actor and here comes the bigots in full force on why they don’t think its a good choice. Now they cast a white guy as the Captain and everything seems to be right with the universe because there is no complaints or calls for how its ‘unfair’ and so on.

            And for the record before people start typing I’m VERY happy that Issacs will be on the show and it will be interesting to see him as Captain. I have no issues with it but I never had a single issue with any casting of any Star Trek show. My feeling always been the people writing and running it will know a little more about whose right for the part than the rest of us so I just wait and see.

            But yes its gone as predicted. A lot of cheers and very little else as the way it SHOULD be. It just sucks when a minority actor gets a role then its questioned like its a conspiracy. It proves we still have a long way to go on some of this stuff.

          • Ace Stephens

            I think in the case of some characters/roles (particularly where the “type” is announced prior to casting), there is a sense that they were cast to suit a “minority status” rather than the best actor for the part. In some cases, this “style” of thinking is also applied toward a “majority status” casting (even if not prevalently here) as though it was the assumed default or intending a “message” beyond inclusion. Almost in the range of defying the original show’s relative (perceived-by-some) “tokenism,” people tend to suggest that the inclusion of certain individuals in any way due to what might be a focus on race, gender, nationality, etc. is no longer Trek.

            It’s odd when I see it just tossed out there at an actor based on these factors but, at the same time, when it’s announced that “We’re looking to include a race/gender/etc. actor…” it does start to sound less like genuine “open casting” (unlike what some projects mean when claiming to engage in that) and more like playing into racial/gender/etc. archetypes/superficialities or concerns beyond “what Star Trek is about.”

            While I can understand Roddenberry casting in the manner he did, I do feel that suggesting “We must have x number of y people…” at the current time is a rather cynical, reductive take regarding these concerns. Because if (the attitude intended behind the property overall is) we’re all the same deep down, what does it matter and if one is suggesting we’re not…that’s not a very good suggestion to many.

            Of course, as with anything in these “charged” realms, one will get some people who seem to be complaining due to some animosity toward the given “type” rather than due to concern about the suggestion that the project may seek to cast “type” over appropriateness.

            But some would argue that, in those cases where “type” (of race, sex, gender, etc.) seemed to “lead the way” regarding casting, that is the odd framing which proves we still have a long way to go regarding this stuff.

          • pittrek

            I absolutely agree. I never understood the need for any “diversity”, all I want are interesting characters played by good actors and put into good stories. I don’t really care about the rest and I’m just not capable of understanding why some DO care.

          • Ace Stephens

            I don’t get it. I honestly couldn’t “care” if it was a ship where everyone was non-human. Where everyone was white. Where everyone was gay (although I would hope the show maintains a sense of not focusing on sex or similar). Where they all spoke some other language (as in, not English). In fact, many of these things might be very interesting to “explore” in some form even if the distinction is trivial in my view. (“Which was the first Star Trek series to feature an entirely non-human crew?” being some Trivial Pursuit card…)

            It just doesn’t matter to me. Trek’s basically all about saying “Who cares?” about this stuff and I agree. But I find many people who seem to think “It shouldn’t matter.” are those running around stressing how much it matters. And I just don’t get it.

            Michelle Yeoh was cast and I was pleased with this because I like Michelle Yeoh as an actress and feel she could suitably portray what I think of regarding a captain. Some other people seemed to be happy in some notable regard because they liked the inclusion of “an Asian captain.” To me, that’s rather reductive. But they think it’s the opposite.

            I believe I understand a lot of this style of thinking…but I really don’t get it.

      • ¡ zer0 !

        WHO GIVES A SHIT FOR FUCKS SAKE.

        • pittrek

          Well I agree but we’re getting a bit off-topic

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Take your blood pressure pill, dude. LOL

  • jonathanwthomas

    He will make a great Starfleet Captain. Weird that the focus of the show won’t be him. I have a feeling once the show starts he will become the focus. He’s a pretty big name to not have a primary focus.

    • Ace Stephens

      I have a feeling he’s a “big name” who’s intended to be around for just a season or so. And with Fuller behind things (in-premise) and the focus being on roughly the “second-in-command” (to start)…expect at least a few character deaths which move things along. I know some fans may not like that but I value the show maintaining stakes and I think the current storytelling that is prominent in television allows it (higher stakes more consistently and major character deaths where they more often stay dead).

    • Eric Cheung

      Martin Sheen was a big name for The West Wing, but he wasn’t really the focus of that show. It’s a different style of storytelling with this show, though even in TNG/DS9/VOY, the show would often simply have the captain there to sign off on some mission that would focus on another character, like Worf or Kira or Harry Kim. With this show, it would seem to be a similar strategy, though it might tend to focus more on one specific crewmember, in this case, Rainsford.

      • TUP

        West Wing is an interesting comparison because Martin Sheen’s character (The President) was not meant to be the lead and was only going to be recurring. Rob Lowe’s character Sam Seaborn was meant to be the lead with the series focusing on the West Wing staffers.

        But Sheen was so good that they switched focus.

        • Eric Cheung

          At this point, we can only guess at the initial intentions, not the eventual trajectory of the show. So, Isaacs being a well-known actor doesn’t necessarily mean his role is prominent. In fact, it could be argued that the opposite is likely, given the availability of a bigger name.

  • The Science Fiction Oracle

    Good for Moonvies regarding the recent rumors of him stepping after Fuller bailed out….I was fearful we were heading to Berman 2.0 instead of a must needed re-imagining of the series. This sounds very good, and I’m also happy that they replaced the special effects team — which I in fact predicted would have to be done given those awful first images that Fuller oversaw.

    Since Fuller left, I now see casting completed, sets being built, a much better special effects company in place, filming actually underway and a cool teaser and inside info. I would argue that this “ship” was disorganized and not being run very professionally — this is further supported by what a huge disappointment and overrun budget his other show, American Gods is turning out to be for Starz — rumor has it, Starz was close to pulling the plug on that show. Discovery now has focus, and the best exec in TV is assisting. I like what I am hearing here.

    Remember folks, these “bad rumors” are from the “side of the story” of the disgruntled staff who wanted something which would have resembled Voyager/Enterprise…so of course this news is made to sound as dour — people who leave productions because they don’t get their way are obviously going to give very negative opinions on what those in charger are doing.

    • Xandercom
      • Fctiger

        I saw this too. I hope its not true but I wouldn’t be surprised this is why its been so many delays and why Fuller really left. But hopefully they worked things out but I actually agree with Moonves (if its true) that you want it to look as modern and updated as possible and why it just makes sense to put it in a later timeline because all the old Trekkies its harder for them to accept a reboot in prequel form (and why the KT films were given their own separate universe) and that they will scream blasphemy when they realize the uniforms and ship designs are out of place and the ship is more updated then what you got in TNG and Voyager. So why try?

        But again IF thats the case hopefully these guys will accept it but I think they are just playing with fire here just like what happened with the KT films (and did I mention that was literally in another universe?).

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Yep, this is what I was responding to. I believe this is primarily based on:

        (1) the opinions of Fuller and a couple of his staff who are no longer with the show and are disgruntled that their concept for the show was rejected, and

        (2) the author of this video has put this together as essentially an advocacy piece for those who want a more traditional Berman style Star Trek show.

        This is essentially an editorial that spins difficulties in the complex creation of a re-imagined and more modern version of Star Trek towards gloom and doom.

        • Xandercom

          It’s nothing but a cash cow for greedy CEO’s and Executives looking for a vehicle to cash in on assets and share dividend and push CBS All Access with their zero original content.

          They have no clue what they have greenlit.
          Discovery is dead before it hits Netflix, and I’m glad.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            With all due respect, you are gullible to believe all the whining of the disgruntled staff who were correctly booted off the project.

            PS: Check out on what a production disaster Fuller has done over at Starz for American Gods.

          • Xandercom

            I’ve no interest in Fullar’s other work and wasn’t particularly enthused with his appointment and setting yet another uninteresting prequel in motion in the first place.

            This is also a widely held position of the fandom as a whole right now. I suggest you stop basing your information on a handful of trek websites who wouldn’t say a bad thing about Trek if it raped your mom.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Yea, you sound like someone who is really tapped into fandom…NOT. LOL

            I have been involved in fandom since the 70’s ,go to conventions yearly, and have several dozen Star Trek fans who I consider good friends. If this were really a “widely held position” in fandom as you suggest, then I would no about it. It’s not.

          • Xandercom

            You appear to be a fool.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            And you a troll.

          • Xandercom

            So’s your mom

        • Xandercom

          I believe trek has a great future, but not in endless re-iterations of prequels, recasting, cameos. TOS TOS and more TOS.

          Where’s the 1 star rating button again?

  • Tim Lade

    I understand Sisko was the lead of DS9, but I always felt it was a far more ensemble cast which suits me just fine if it the same idea.

  • TheRenegadeRebel .

    Why does everybody forget DS9? Sisko didn’t make Captain until the end of season three making Discovery the SECOND series to focus on a lower rank character.

    • M33

      Weirdly, so far the black leads in Star Trek never start off a captain…

      Hollywood coincidence?
      Maybe I am just being shallow.

    • Eric Cheung

      The difference is that he was still the commanding officer. The analogy would hold if someone like Picard, Admiral Nacheyev, or Admiral Ross kept on checking in consistently from the start of the series.

      • TheRenegadeRebel .

        The article specifically refers to the rank of Captain, not the position as the commanding officer. If that’s what they meant than they needed to word it differently.

  • Jason F. Perry

    I’m a little curious when they keep mentioning that so-and-so isn’t the “main star”. I can’t recall a Trek where we really had a main star in the past. TOS was all about the big three (Kirk, Spock, and McCoy), TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT were all ensemble series where we’d focus on a specific character from week to week – some of the actors had more story lines that involved them and some less but none of the series really focused on a primary individual. I never had the feeling that TNG was about Picard and the rest of the group was just secondary – DS9 was absolutely anything but focused on a main individual as you even had secondary characters who became prominent throughout the series with their stories (far more than the primary characters on the other Treks).

    It’ll be interesting to see what they mean by focusing on a primary individual as I much prefer they also make this an ensemble series as the other Treks have been in the past.

    Isaacs is an excellent casting choice. I look forward to boldly going – and hopefully into more philosophical and intelligent areas as opposed to “monster of the week attacking the ship and a threat to the Federation” CGI blow sh*t up action series. They definitely have a fine actor with Isaacs.

    • i was just going to point out the same thing. i’m rewatching DS9 at the moment, and it very rarely focuses on Sisko.

      i think what they probably mean for DISCOVERY (but can’t say yet) is that the captain will not actually be a “good guy”. my theory is that he will have pretty regressive values, probably being racist/speciesist towards aliens, maybe also misogynistic. looking at TOS today, even Kirk’s behavior wasn’t really up to today’s standards in those areas. and given that DISCOVERY will be set about 10 years before that, Lorca might very well be a bit of a “dick”, and it will probably be up to Rainsford to set him straight 🙂

      • Eric Cheung

        I kind of have that feeling as well, which is why I posed the theory that Georgiou might actually be Rainsford’s chosen mentor, and they talk shop over subspace between missions.

  • deanomh

    Excellent news! Isaacs is fantastic actor. He will bring needed gravitas to the cast. I have not heard of Mary Wiseman, but going on looks alone she’s an exotic beauty for sure. I hope she keeps her curly red hair for the show.

  • pittrek

    Finally an actor I know

    • Eric Cheung

      I think ENT is the only show where I knew who the star was before it aired. I knew LeVar Burton before I started watching TNG, but that’s partly because I didn’t start watching until 1991, and by then I’d watched several seasons of Reading Rainbow, including the set visit to TNG.

      • Brian Thorn

        I liked Avery Brooks from “Spencer For Hire”.

        • Eric Cheung

          I was a little young for that show at the time, but I’ve heard good things, particularly of Hawk.

  • Newdivide1701

    Let’s hope unlike the last time he was in space, his guts won’t be literally spilling out of him after being eviscerated by Sam Neill.

    Remarkably I did see Event Horizon, not the greatest but it did have the WTF factor that keeps me glued.

  • SpaceCadet

    I have to admit I’m not familIar with this actor and I never could get into the Harry Potter movies after watching the first one but I’ll take everyone’s word for it he’s a good actor! I’m curious to see what additional casting announcements we’ll get.