This week’s newest issue of Entertainment Weekly has a three-page feature interview with Star Trek: Discovery shorunners Aaron Harberts and Gretchen Berg, who spoke to EW‘s James Hibberd about the development of the show and its cast.

In addition to revealing that one more factor that led to some of Discovery‘s production delays was the need to wait for series star Sonequa Martin-Green (Cmdr. Michael Burnham) to become available after her work on The Walking Dead concluded, the producing pair also revealed some new tantalizing details as to the path Season One’s story will take.

Harberts describes how Burnham’s choices affect the season:

Burnham’s background is that she was the first human to attend the Vulcan Learning Center and Vulcan Science Academy – so she’s spent a lot of time on Vulcan, but she’s human. Sarek plays and important role in her life, which has been completely planned until she makes a difficult choice that sends her life on a very different path.

When we meet her, she’s the first officer on the starship Shenzhou. Burnham’s choice that we’re alluding to is the most difficult choice you can make – it affects her, affects Starfleet, affects the Federation; it affects the entire universe.

That choice leads her to a different ship, the USS Discovery, and there we begin what Gretchen and I call our second pilot.

Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) takes on a Klingon warrior – part of her fateful ‘choice’?

Harberts also detailed how Discovery‘s well-publicized serialization plan will help explore the characters:

It’s a serialized telling of a tale; an exploration of one particular character, Michael Burnam, along the path of discovering what it means to be human and finding her individuality.

Those types of stories have been really well told in the ‘Star Trek’ movies, but it’s been hard to do in the television iterations because episodes have been so closed-ended.

The joy is in the journey. The advantage to [Burnham] not being in charge of the bridge right now is we get to tell stories from a different point of view. It’s a fresh feeling because we’re not on the bridge all the time. We get access to more parts of the ship.

Below decks aboard the Shenzhou.

One thing that’s been somewhat constricting to past Star Trek writing teams is the so-called ‘Roddenberry Rule,’ which dictated that there should not be any conflict between humans or Starfleet officers, something which originated during The Next Generation and maintained by Rick Berman when he lead the franchise.

Will Star Trek: Discovery‘s writers be following that rule? Harberts and Berg say ‘no,’ with comments expanded upon in an EW online article today.

Harberts:

No, [we’re not held to that]. We’re trying to do stories that are complicated, with characters with strong points of view and strong passions. People have to make mistakes – mistakes are still going to be made in the future.

The thing we’re taking from Roddenberry is how we solve those conflicts. So we do have our characters in conflict, we do have them struggling with each other, but it’s about how they find a solution and work through their problems.”

Berg:

The rules of Starfleet remain the same, but while we’re human or alien in various ways, none of us are perfect.

Harberts’ description of Burnam’s journey to Discovery seems to lend credence to the rumors and speculation that Michelle Yeoh and the Shenzhou may not be long for the series, at least in a primary role – especially with the reference to her arrival on Captain Lorca’s ship as a “second pilot” episode.

STAR TREK: DISCOVERY’s two captains: Phillipa Georgiou (Michelle Yeoh) and Gabriel Lorca (Jason Isaacs).

Relaxing the ‘Roddenberry Rule’ on character conflict also sounds like it will open up a real opportunity for development and depth as the series progresses. TNG and DS9 writer Ron Moore quite clearly shared his disdain for that restriction with TrekCore back in our 2013 interview:

We can’t wait to see what this team brings to the Trek universe – Star Trek: Discovery debuts this September.

  • James

    Hmmm, worried by these comments. TNG was hard to write for, but that is part of what made it unique? Lets have some high concept hard Sci Fi. Klingons and Vulcans? They’re old hat, new and exciting please.

    • Sean Dailey

      If you rewatch the first 2-3 seasons of TNG, you’ll see what Moore means about it being hard to write for. Banned personal conflict makes for boring stories. DS9 was much better in that regard.

      • prometheus59650

        By miles and miles and miles.

        • Ace Stephens

          You’re right. O’Brien did help a lot. 😉

          • prometheus59650

            Booooooooooooooo 😉

            But, yes. He actually did. he was the first real ‘everyman’ in Star Trek and it worked well.

      • BatesHotel

        Season three of TNG was very good, and even season two had some good episodes. The show found its legs at that point and kept to the Roddenberry rule pretty well for its entire, excellent run.

        • DC Forever

          No.

        • Pedro Ferreira

          The only weak season was 7.

    • I’m pretty tired of Klingons, but I’m not sure I’ll ever get enough Vulcans. 🙂

      • prometheus59650

        Vulcans, over 50 years, are surprisingly untouched, Enterprise showed just how much there was yet to mine.

        But I’m Klingoned out. They’ll REALLY have to work it to get me interested in them again.

    • pittrek

      Exactly. The reason why TNG is loved 30 years later was BECAUSE it was different. Because the writers had strong limitations, they had to come with very unique stories and seasons 3 – 6 are just brilliant stories.

      • DC Forever

        Seasons 3-6 are when they largely started ignoring the no conflict rule.

        So you just proved the opposite of what you were trying to suggest. 🙂

        • pittrek

          Conflict amongst the main Enterprise crew?

          • BatesHotel

            No idea what he’s talking about either.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            There was indeed.

        • BatesHotel

          I don’t think so.

        • scooternva

          I can think of four examples right off:

          Barclay vs. LaForge.
          Vash vs. the crew.
          Picard vs. Nechayev.
          Jellico vs. the rest of the crew (and especially Riker).

          • DC Forever

            Exactly. And it’s no accident that Best of Both Worlds, which dumped the rule, is the recognized turning point is TNG become a long-term succcsful series.

            Make no mistake about it, dumping that moronic rule saved the series and the franchise.

          • BatesHotel

            And none of those examples involve the main crew of TNG. Thank you.

          • DC Forever

            Lol — if you are going to draw the rule that tight with “primary bridge crew” then I would point out as well that there are hardly any examples as well in the original series where the bridge crew did not get along excepting the obvious external factors by the episode plots.

            But in terms of the crew in general, yeah they started dumping the rule by season three. Fact!

          • Pedro Ferreira

            There was conflict in TNG for all it’s seven years.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        I’d take Season 1 over 7 anyday thanks.

  • weerd1

    To be fair, TOS certainly never followed any “Roddenberry Rule.” Neither do any of the first six films. Even the GR written and produced TMP has the Kirk/Decker conflict and for that matter the Spock vs. everyone conflict until he finds what he truly sought from V’Ger.

    The “Roddenberry Rule” was an invention for TNG, and mostly pushed by his lawyer if sources are to be believed.

    • Sykes

      Not only did TOS and the movies not follow the rule as you mentioned, neither did the later seasons of TNG (Not completely). And neither did Deep Space Nine. And Voyager sometimes. And sort of Enterprise. The Roddenberry Rule is early TNG garbage.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        All seasons of TNG had conflict of some kind.

    • prometheus59650

      His lawyer was a legit part of the TNG production staff as I recall.

      As for the films, Roddenberry had ceremonial title on the films and wrote memos that were, mostly correctly, ignored.

    • Blimpboy

      But remember that all professional conflict took place behind closed doors. Kirk and Decker worked their differences out away from the crew in Kirk’s quarters to maintain the unity of command. That’s what I want to see in place if they do decide to have strong differences among the crew. Military type discipline in dangerous situations is a must. No time to bicker.

      • weerd1

        Unless that is the crux of your drama. Maybe the fact there’s a crewmember who ISN’T keeping it behind closed doors is where the conflict lies.

        Spock and McCoy in “The Galileo 7” certainly didn’t keep it to themselves.

        • Blimpboy

          Bailey was relived of duty in “Corbomite” for loosing it and Styles in “Balance of Terror” was threatened.

          • weerd1

            Exactly the type of drama I’m talking about.
            Let’s not forget Kirk rather publicly arguing with nearly every ambassador or diplomat who came on board.

          • prometheus59650

            And, in “Obsession,” Kirk snaps and all but accuses the bridge officers of conspiracy to commit mutiny.

    • pittrek

      There was ALWAYS conflict on all Trek shows. But there was no real conflict between the main characters. Even though Spock and McCoy argue a few times, it never crosses the line to actual hatred.

      • weerd1

        “Conflict” does not mean “hatred.” Indeed, it is better drama when it specifically isn’t between people you expect to fight. Those are the examples listed in this thread, especially prevalent on TOS.

      • Your Worst Nightmare

        Human drama comes from conflict. We certainly have petty squabbles in our lives and that is something I think by the 23rd century we should outgrow. But we’ll always have conflict. We grow because of conflict. The idea of a completely enlightened people to the point that we don’t argue is wholly unrealistic.

        And conflict certainly does not mean hatred.

    • Roger Birks

      Agree. I believe that Roddenberry thought that conflict would be all but eliminated by the 2360s.

  • startrekker1701

    Really hoping the uniforms look like the Yeoh than the Isaacs photo and something has gone wrong with Photoshop for the later!

    • Jody McDonnell

      Pretty sure they’re the same. It’s the lighting that’s different between the two bridges.

  • All of this sounds very promising! I love the idea of having the focus on the main character’s personal journey and not on a villain or politics or whatever. But then, I’m a clinical psychologist in real life, so personal journeys are kinda what I live for. 🙂

    • Locutus

      I agree. I am not surprised given Fuller’s involvement. I went back and watched a number of his Star Trek stories recently, and it struck me how how his stories alway provided a window into the characters.

      • Ah, that’s interesting! I’ll have to take a look at his credits and see which stories were his; thanks for the tip.

          • Ah, thanks! That looks useful.

          • pittrek

            That’s sad.
            Spirit Folk is crap.Barge of the dead is tolerable. Deck 12 is crap. Retrospect is crap. Alice is OK. Juggernaut is crap. Workforce is OK. Flesh and Blood is crap. Darkness and the light is OK. Empok Nor is crap. Fury is crap. Raven is crap. Gravity is OK. Living witness is pretty good. Friendship One is OK. Mortal Coil is crap. Bride of CHaotica is crap. One small step is OK. Relativity is great. Course Oblivion – no clue what it is. Drone is crap.

            So I hated almost all of his Trek episodes. That’s a bit worrying.

          • Eric Cheung

            I think it might be more informative to look at what he was able to do with more freedom, such as when he was in charge of Pushing Daisies and Hannibal.

            He has themes that have persisted throughout his work. He likes to combine quirky comedy, the macabre, love of food, stylish and gorgeous production design and costuming, and the psychology of death in compelling and interesting ways. The seeds of that are even in his DS9 and VOY work, but he had far less freedom at the time.

          • BatesHotel

            Oh my, that’s a frightening unassuring oeuvre to have. Most of them I’ve completely forgotten because they are forgettable. Living Witness was very good, one of Voy’s best

          • pittrek

            Yes, I like that one too.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            A couple I like, most I don’t.

        • Brian Thorn

          “Living Witness” is outstanding.

        • Locutus

          Four immediate examples of character episodes for which Fuller has story credits include Voyager’s “The Raven” (Seven), “Juggernaut” (Torres), “Mortal Coil” (Neelix), and “Gravity” (Tuvok). All of these episodes have a plot devised to explore a specific characteristic of a particular character. As a clinical psychologist, I think you also might enjoy that mini-marathon. Throw in “Empok Nor” (Garak) too for some DS9!

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Most of Fuller’s episodes were poor.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      Yeah it sounds so…interesting…sorry almost dozed off there.

  • TUP

    Hmmm, does Burnham make a mistake that results in the destruction of Shenzhou? But whatever it is she knows (the last remaining member of a mission to engage the Klingons?) she is kept around and assigned to the Discovery where she has to deal with guilt over her choices?

    • Locutus

      A very reasonable take. Eventually, she’ll overcome her guilt and fulfill her destiny of command when Capt. Lorca bites the dust.

    • The Magic Christian

      I doubt it. The wouldn’t have put so much of the cast on the Shenzhou if that was the case. I think both ships will be shown on the show.

      • Locutus

        I think there will be a few survivors from the Shenzhou, like Lt. Saru and Burnham, but a lot of that crew, including Michelle Yeoh, is probably going to get toasted in the pilot or after the first few episodes.

        • BatesHotel

          Yeah, I have a feeling Yeoh is toast early on. What a shame and waste, but I guess it would be hard to get her to commit to a multi-year gig.

      • Deplorable Flyboy

        The Magic Christian – 8 months ago
        You sound butthurt? LOL Trumpy is going down tonight

        How’s that working out for you so far, libtard troll? How did the last four special elections work out for you butt monkey leftards? HAHAHHAAA!!

  • Cap’n

    “it affects her, affects Starfleet, affects the Federation; it affects the entire universe.”

    Well, not really, It effects her and that’s about it, because it’s a prequel so we all know it turns out fine.

    Star Trek: The Problem With Prequels

    • prometheus59650

      I would have been fine with a sequel so long as it basically destroyed the Federation and its ‘solve everything in 10 button presses ir less technology.

      • Cap’n

        That’s why the 100 year gap between TOS and TNG was there. Anyone with half an imagination would have done the same, instead of being continually beaten around the face with prequels and reboots of a series which, quite frankly is of interest to no one other than a small subset of the existing fanbase. What with Discovery being aimed at bringing in a wider audience (who are going to have to pay to watch it from the outset).

        I don’t think the TOS fans are going to suspend their disbelief enough to provide a backbone to it anymore than they have done with the Kelvin movies. As for the wider audience – what chance does a £7 per month subscription have if full blown high budget box office movies arn’t keeping them engaged?

        • Planetary

          “Anyone with half an imagination would have done the same”.

          No, they wouldn’t.

          I’m not interested in watching a post Voyager series where the
          only real changes are that the crew wears different uniforms, the delta
          is different, the GUI’s on their equipment looks different and now
          they’ve added “super” to all the tech names in order to show how faux
          advanced they are from previous shows, but everything is basically the
          same. Unless we’re going to have Starfleet personnel bonded with nano
          tech that allows them to communicate with the ship directly, to self
          beam, to be able to emit beams from their hands allowing them to stun, kill or de-materialize threats, to be able to act as a living tri-corder, then
          forget it.

          I’m not interested in another show like TNG that wasn’treally in the future of the future, so much as we were told it was in the future. The world of TNG was nothing more than the world of Classic Trek, with slightly different costumes and sets. We did not see a world that showed any real tech progress nor did we see a world where the people interacted with the tech significantly differently. As an example of what I’m talking about, look how we interact with technology on a day today basis now versus forty years ago. We should see a something similar in the Trek world. We don’t.

          They are not constrained by resources or power. The real world, that has those constraints, has changed more in forty years than the Trek world in a century.

          The people of a post Voyager series would be almost alien to us, as well as being damn near godlike with the abilities I listed above. That’s the reason B&B made series 5 a prequel. Because they understood that to reasonably extrapolate from the tech on TNG, that based on how fast our own world and tech was changing and how we interact with it, the world of 100 years after TNG would be unrecognizable and unrelatable to a modern audience.

          • Cap’n

            Unfortunately Sir, there are simply not enough people of your way of thinking to bolster a production that has inexplicably decided to plow more money in to this production at the expense of it’s audience.
            You’ve stated that continuity is not an issue for you, but you must realise that you are in the minority willing to give up continuity in exchange for bombastic action adventures which don’t play any part in the franchise to date.
            We all relish the occasional visual effect marvels we’re fortunate to enjoy, but to canvas it in to every single first and second unit shots as a standard is not what Trek has ever been about.
            While I appreciate that you are not interested in TNG, VOY or DS9, you must surely realise and accept that there are very few people who prefer your alternative of TOS, in which nearly all of the original cast are dead, as are the producers, writers, designers, etc.

            There is little point in placing worshipers of your beloved TOS in charge of modern productions when you are all of a lost generation unable to fund the STD/TOS reboot alone.
            Are you angry at us for hating what you are doing to the future of the franchise, or are you angry at us for not wanting to be a part of your nostalgia, yet again? I can assure you, we’re not interested and furthermore detest what you and your TOS superfans are doing to the franchise.
            You’ve killed it again and again.
            You’re hated.

            When will there be a movie or tv series which doesn’t get molested into yet another TOS prequel/reboot/origin story? Really? Please?
            No? Well you can go explore yourself in whichever reboot/prequel/retcon/fan production you choose.

            You’re on your own.

            You’ve stated that continuity is not an issue for you, but you must realise that you are in the minority willing to give up continuity in exchange for bombastic action adventures which don’t play any part in the franchise to date.
            We all relish the occasional visual effect marvels we’re fortunate to enjoy, but to canvas it in to every single first and second unit shots as a standard is not what Trek has ever been about.
            While I appreciate that you are not interested in TNG, VOY or DS9, you must surely realise and accept that there are very few people who prefer your alternative of TOS, in which nearly all of the original cast are dead, as are the producers, writers, designers, etc.

            There is little point in placing worshipers of your beloved TOS in charge of modern productions when you are all of a lost generation unable to fund the STD/TOS reboot alone.
            Are you angry at us for hating what you are doing to the future of the franchise, or are you angry at us for not wanting to be a part of your nostalgia, yet again? I can assure you, we’re not interested and furthermore detest what you and your TOS superfans are doing to the franchise.
            You’ve killed it again and again.
            You’re hated.

            When will there be a movie or tv series which doesn’t get molested into yet another TOS prequel/reboot/origin story?

          • Planetary

            “You’ve stated that continuity is not an issue for you, but you must
            realise that you are in the minority willing to give up continuity in
            exchange for bombastic action adventures which don’t play any part in
            the franchise to date.”

            Really? Find specifically where I said any of that. I’d say “I’ll wait”, but I won’t because it’s not anywhere in my post. What I posted was about how unrecognizable humans and the world they inhabit would be in a 25th century show and why, based on that, they’re doing prequels.

            As for the rest of the blathering nonsense you vomited out…..it must really suck for you knowing that the original Trek will ALWAYS be the most iconic and most famous of them all. And the most bankable. I enjoy the 24th Century Trek’s just fine, but they’re little more than pop culture footnotes at this point, largely forgotten by most non-fans.

          • Cap’n

            We’re just not interested in your nostalgia buddy. You can tart it up in as wide a variety arguments as you please, but the bottom line is we’re just not into your last gen nostalgia.
            We’ll prove it to you. Watch as STD crumbles, you’ll not get any degree of civility being shown here beyond that point. Reflect upon the failure of ENT, chat amongst your friends on the up and downsides of your TOS reboot.
            You’re old. You’re boring. No one born after your decade cares for your nostalgia. We’re happy to accept you into the group, but you constantly try to make the group about you.
            Thanks for screwing up fan fiction with your obsessive daily need to place a footprint in to your beloved TOS.
            You’re hated. Absolutely hated. Go find a convention, we’ll continue to ignore the fat middle aged kirk wannabies and laugh at your stupidity. We’ll also laugh at your brethren trying to shoehorn your beloved Sarak *yawn* and Michael *cough proxy Spock* into your new fan production.
            You’ve all become a parody of yourselves. Big, fat, settled down with a family, boring parodies.
            On another note, Seth’s Trek parody is making you lot look even more of a parody. You’re done. You were done after S2 of Enterprise, and you’ve continued to do yourselves ever since. Have some self respect and understand the reality of 2017, and try not to get angry when you’re being laughed at, as it’s your problem, not ours.

          • Planetary

            Who’s “we”? You’re happy to accept me into the group? What group? Fandom? Junior, I was a fan before you were literally an itch in your daddy’s nutsack. You joined my group, I didn’t join yours. Never forget that.

            Now, you’ve vomited out two posts like some kind of frothing at the mouth zealot, screeching about my supposed “nostalgia” and telling me I’m hated, but you still haven’t addressed anything I actually talked about. You’ve done nothing but throw a childish temper tantrum because the big bad world isn’t giving you a pony or doing what you want. Either address what I actually talked about, how the world of a hundred years beyond TNG would look, or frankly shut the f*ck up.

          • Cap’n

            So what are your thoughts on Doug Drexler refusing to watch, or have any part in Discovery owing to the poor treatment of “his dear friends” in pre-production?

          • Planetary

            Don’t really care about behind the scenes drama. Never have.

          • DC Forever

            Agreed. Drexker lost out in the staffing battle and has sour grapes. So what?

          • Christopher Roberts

            Where has he said this?

          • M33

            Drexler might have a case of the “Continues”.

          • Cap’n

            “We” are everyone who does not have an active interest in TOS.

          • Planetary

            And?

          • Cap’n

            “You” are the people determined to get more TOS at all costs, including the franchise as a whole.

          • DC Forever

            He’s certainly can’t count on me being part of his “we” here. You are spot-on here on your comments, and I can’t for the life of me see where he is going with this.

          • Planetary

            Me neither and thanks. Is this kid the board troll or what?

          • Cap’n

            Yes. People who don’t want TOS are trolls.

            Congrats! You progress to level two redshirt

          • Cap’n

            Aaaand the TOS Fanboy bullying commences.
            Keep it up lads, you’re
            being reposted and laughed at on Reddit by the terrible, horrible people
            who simply don’t understand how epic and overdue STD is..

            ;-).LOL

            et cetera…..

          • Cap’n

            Well of course not, you actively frequent any and all articles linking to TOS. You also actively frequent posts berating TOS, so you have no authority outside of such articles. You do seem to enjoy jumping to the defence of TOS fans, as per your post history.
            Can you offer any historical impartiality? A few links will do, no need to bore us with your TOS mantras yet again Sir

          • DC Forever

            Yea, why can’t “WE” all be as subjective and impartial as you are here?

            ;-). LOL

          • Cap’n

            Aaaand the TOS Fanboy bullying commences.
            Keep it up lads, you’re
            being reposted and laughed at on Reddit by the terrible, horrible people
            who simply don’t understand how epic and overdue STD is..

            ;-).LOL

            et cetera…

          • DC Forever

            Oh yea, what an incredibly bullying post that was.

            LOL

          • Planetary

            Dude’s a troll, a zealot or just plain ole unhinged. Regardless of whichever it is, he’s just flat out boring at this point.

          • Ryan Withers

            Don’t be an asshat friend. Their points are well made, and your knee jerk childish reaction serves to prove it.
            Discovery is an atrocity. By all means enjoy it, there arn’t enough of you pillocks to keep it in the running, thank god.

          • Cap’n

            Aaaand the TOS Fanboy bullying commences.
            Keep it up lads, you’re
            being reposted and laughed at on Reddit by the terrible, horrible people
            who simply don’t understand how epic and overdue STD is..

            ;-).LOL

            et cetera.

          • Cap’n

            Aaaand the TOS Fanboy bullying commences.
            Keep it up lads, you’re
            being reposted and laughed at on Reddit by the terrible, horrible people
            who simply don’t understand how epic and overdue STD is..

            ;-).LOL

            et cetera…

          • Cabo 5150

            Please, just stop this…

            You’re hated. Absolutely hated.

            fat middle aged kirk wannabies

            You’re old. You’re boring.

            Big, fat, settled down with a family, boring parodies.

            You’re making this place really uncomfortable and unpleasant for most of us here.

            Why do you have to be so belligerent and hateful? Star Trek is just an entertainment franchise – cherished, beloved and important to many of us – but just an entertainment franchise.

            Please, have some respect for your fellow human beings, there’s simply no need to adopt such a rude, insultive and antagonistic tone.

            Trekcore staff, I sincerely apologise, I know you’ve issued directives about engaging in this type of back and forth – but those comments are just horrible.

          • Planetary

            Yeah, it was pretty over the top. If he was truly sincere, then he’s to be pitied. Seriously, it’s a tv show. The funny part is, Discovery would probably look pretty much the same even if it was set post-TNG. Any new post-TNG trek isn’t going to utilize 90’s production values or aesthetics.

          • DC Forever

            This post is way over the top hate – UNNACCEPTABLE!!!

          • Planetary

            Yeah, that’s some pretty crazy stuff. Does this guy post here often? I wasn’t sure if it was a troll or not, but when he started pasting the “Aaaand the TOS Fanboy bullying commences.” comment on everything, even totally innocuous statements like one you posted below, I figured he was a straight up troll.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            What the hell?

            This is way out of bound for this site. Shame on you!!!

          • Cap’n

            ..
            Aaaand the TOS Fanboy bullying commences.
            Keep it up lads, you’re
            being reposted and laughed at on Reddit by the terrible, horrible people
            who simply don’t understand how epic and overdue STD is..

            ;-).LOL

            et cetera…

          • Lee O.

            Most of what you accuse other people of, actually applies to you. 😀
            And there is no “us”. You’re alone. People who aren’t interested in TOS, probably don’t care if the new show looks different or not.

            You have to accept that the 1990s have come and gone and that now, in the 2010s, there are new Trek shows and aesthetics.

            Plus, this new show isn’t TOS. 😀

          • M33

            Star Trek and all its spinoffs technology and the time span of their development were and continue to be limited by the imagination of the writers of the time.

          • Planetary

            And budget. Although early in TNG’s run, I think the first or second ep with the Ferengi, Picard had a 3d holoemitter on his ready room desk IIRC, that showed the Enterprise and the Ferengi ship. That was the kind of thing they should’ve followed up. Not sure why they didn’t. I always figured it was budget related.

          • Binyamin Koretz

            In the 100 years between TOS and TNG they developed the technology that allowed people to give voice orders to food replicators rather than having to press buttons!

          • Lee O.

            They should have just called Discovery a reboot or “soft reboot”. Honesty all the way.

          • Planetary

            I would’ve been okay with that. But keep in mind that “The Motion Picture” was also a soft reboot, but many fans insist that it isn’t.

    • Eric Cheung

      The point of prequels isn’t just to lead up to the beginning of a previous story, but to provide that story with context and depth. And any good story should be able to sustain the audience’s knowledge of what’s to come if it has any hope of having any value in repeat viewings.

      I mean look at any story based on a true story or period piece. We go into those knowing at least a little bit about how things turned out, but there are so many details that such a story has to fill in.

      And in both true stories and DSC, we’re talking about characters we don’t even know, so it’s only a prequel in the sense that it takes place before TOS, but the storytelling freedom exists in not knowing what’s going to happen to the Discovery and Shenzhou crews. It’s less a prequel than it is a spinoff.

      • Cap’n

        What you fail to realise is that there has to be some kind of interest, any kind of interest in the story it’s a prequel to. What you have here is a fan of TOS (Fuller) attempting to create a prequel to something which, to be blunt, is a 50 year old TV show which holds little appeal to people who didn’t grow up with it forming a part of their childhood and adolescence.

        There’s the odd chance that someone grew up a little later with their parents
        as fans, but in all honesty TOS isn’t really that interesting to anyone under
        40.

        That’s the fatal mistake here. It’s the same fatal mistake
        that made the Kelvin timeline, and it’s the same fatal mistake which greenlit
        Enterprise. It was widely known that Enterprise faced cancelation at the end of the 2nd season but the TOS fans persisted with letter writing to CBS, to say nothing for the ongoing drop in ratings in 3, budget reduction in 4 and then ultimate termination.

        The price paid for that was the complete removal of Trek from the airwaves. Do you think people who knew from the start that Enterprise was a bad idea have any respect for the same people who kept pushing it until the franchise was considered a lame duck?

        That’s the problem when fanboys grow up and get control of franchise assets, they all want to go back to the start and re-imagine it with modern production values. That’s fine for the fanboys and their friends, but doesn’t really leave much for anyone else. So then they get in to a terrible muddle with trying to please both the fanboys and enough new viewership to sustain it.

        This is somewhat unfortunately made much worse by the fact
        that Paramount and CBS are essentially not a single entity learning from it’s
        mistakes. They are constantly trying to outdo each other with ever increasing
        budgets, and still manage to completely miss the mark.

        Of course this website, and websites like this are going to
        give a false illusion for posters, because by it’s very nature it’s for the
        superfans. The TOS brigade flock to articles like this, fill it with enthusiasm
        and hopes and daydreaming, while failing to realise that not only are the wider
        viewership not interested in such sites in the slightest, or TOS reboots/origin
        stories/prequels, but then also slap down anyone of the fanbase in general who
        dare have an opposing opinion.

        It’s a dangerous game being played, and the TOS fanboys
        ought consider the wider effects their bubble of enthusiasm is having on the
        franchise in general, again, because let’s face it, aside from TOS reboots/prequels/origin
        stories, we’ve had nothing new for over a decade, and the failure of Discovery
        could kill it entirely.

        By all means, continue to fall back on the “wait until you
        see it” mantra, but the simple fact is we don’t want to see it, because we’ve
        seen it fail twice already and never had any interest in support it the first
        time around. Now there’s a 3rd outing, and this time behind a
        paywall. Draw your own conclusions, im sure you’re delighted to pay for another
        attempt, just bear in mind that your views are not shared by all, and it’s
        going to take something pretty spectacular and universally accepted to undo the
        damage done since Enterprise. Given what we’ve seen so far, this is just adding
        insult to injury. No doubt writing will be blamed, or post production, or CBS politics
        bla bla bla. It’s just a rubbish concept, end.

        • Cabo 5150

          Could I enquire what evidence/data you’re basing your conclusions on?

          It’s all very well making sweeping statements reference the irrelevance of TOS, and making generalisations about the “TOS brigade” “flocking” to sites like this – filling them with “daydreams” etc, etc.

          But do you have anything outside of subjective opinion and personal bias to back your claims up with?

          You seem to be extremely keen on drawing strict, black and white, them and us, lines of demarcation between “TOS fanboys” and essentially – anyone else.

          Whereas, in my experience, most fans I speak to have at least an appreciation for most, if not all iterations of the franchise – and are able to enjoy them to varying degrees.

          Although Star Trek Beyond was certainly a financial disappointment for the studio, the previous two Kelvin Timeline films are amongst the most successful in the series.

          And Beyond itself performed better than the majority of the TOS/TNG entries – and was still Paramount’s highest grossing film of 2016.

          The final TNG movie, Nemesis, was a dire critical and financial bomb – quite comfortably the worst of the series. Two of the others brought in, at best, modest box office returns and middling reviews – and while First Contact certainly did well, it wasn’t a “mega hit” by any stretch of the imagination.

          Despite what you state, ENT was pretty much a prequel by the calendar/date setting only. In tone, execution, production values, acting, scripting, scoring etc, etc – it was very much a direct continuation of the Berman era.

          CBS have not “ruled out” any fans, they are doing that all by themselves, by making priori judgements on a show they haven’t even seen based on an arbitrary, preconceived “dislike” of the prequel premise.

          That’s pretty sad IMHO, they may be cutting themselves off from an exciting new venture into the final frontier for no logical reason.

          My advice – at least give DSC a fair crack of the whip before weighing in.

          • Cap’n

            As previously explained to the best of my ability, STD is seemingly aimed at TOS fans. Rather than countering that, you have re-enforced it by reacting so aggressively to my post, and in doing so have reinforced that this fan site, and others like it have articles such as this realistically only attract TOS fans, and attack those who do not have any interest in it. You have only served to prove my point quite spectacularly.

            Subjective opinion is what makes a TV show watchable. The factual evidence will of course be a mesh of viewer metrics and revenue. Both Ent and the Kelvin movies are at this point effectively dead. If you can provide evidence, rather than hope, to the contrary, I’ll happily review it and adjust my views accordingly.
            Please don’t be offended by my post, I’m simply trying to express the general feeling STD is having on the fandom in a balanced way. If you wish to see factual evidence of the other end of the wedge, you might wish to go to YouTube and see the feedback of the most recent, and every other trailer by the very people STD is supposed to be attracting. Obviously people wouldn’t view a video without having some kind of interest in it, so its not unreasonable to assume that those who have viewed and taken the time to comment are in fact the market STD is hoping to penetrate. It doesn’t look to be going well.
            You can choose to opt for the most popular comments, or scroll through the most recent. In both cases a quick bit of math shows an average of 17 negative comments for every three positive, although I’m happy for you to provide a revise calculation if you’re prepared to show your working out. Of course, the TOS fans will inevitably claim that YouTube and sites like it are not representative of the actual viewership, they do however fail to provide any evidence of that, or alternative suggestions other than vitriol and anger. Will that anger bring in more viewers to the paywall? I think not.

            I’ll correct a few issues in your post.
            With regard to your claims that Beyond was the highest grossing film of 2016. Gross is total revenue before deductions are made. Net is what’s left after those deductions. Once deductions are made for the share the cinemas receive, the fees to the actors, production companies, advertising, marketing and distribution costs, payment to shareholders and dividend returns, etc etc, the NET amount Paramount generated for themselves was minus $56,000,000 or there about. To put it simply, Beyond lost Paramount over fifty million Dollars once all the books were settled.
            General viewers lost interst, TNG/DS9/VOY viewers lost interest, only the TOS fans remained, and is evidenced by how aggressively you defend it while the rest of the fanbase literally voted STID as “The worst Star Trek Movie” by the fanbase itself at the LA con in 2013. What other evidence do you want of the Kelvin timeline being a complete disaster so far as the fanbase as a whole is concerned?
            Considering that Beyond went in to production with a reduced budget due to the failure of Into Darkness to generate expected net profits, the “kelvin timeline” has been an utter failure. There are no plans to put a 4th movie in to production on that basis, and that basis alone. It’s what people refer to as “a flop”.

            Regarding Enterprise, you agree that it was a prequel by calendar and date setting only, which is exactly what STD is, and exactly the point I have already made. That is why It failed, because it tried to convince viewers that it was something other than that. It’s a historical fact that viewers rejected it, and it’s a fact that the fanbase are, right now at this very moment, rejecting STD.

            There is absolutely no way that you, or any of your TOS fanboy friends can twist our arms in to shoring up your paywall for you. So far as we are concerned, you are the reason Trek keeps failing over and over again, and we’re sick to the back teeth of you killing it.

          • Lee O.

            Cap’n sounds like a TNG/DS9/VOY fanboy who is just mad that “his” Star Trek is sidelined.

            I’d argue TOS is even today more relevant than TNG/DS9/VOY.
            Ask 1000 people on the planet and most of them will know Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scotty, Klingons, Vulcans and the Enterprise. Ask the same 1000 people and probably about 1/3 of them will know a bit about Picard and Data and the Borg. Only a small percentage will know about Sisko, Deep Space 9, Cardassians, Bajorans, the Dominion, etc. And probably 5 guys tops will know about Archer xD.

            The original show is so iconic. Every episode tackles serious philosophical issues and the plot of each episode is only a means to convey something about the human condition. Even the look of the show is timeless, because it isn’t realistic, but highly stylised with its extremely bright primary color scheme. Especially since the 2006 remaster updated the exterior effects.

            By comparison, TNG/DS9/VOY (or VGR^^) try to be much more realistic, but make things much more complicated. They focus in great detail on technology, cultures, languages, histories, etc. and at times lose sight of the simplicity of TOS which made it so genius. The stories, while they occasionally tackled actual subjects, focused more on the world and characters of Star Trek than our own world. And that’s why no one returns to them and watches them outside of the people who grew up with those shows. Don’t get me wrong, I grew up with those shows and I loved them, I do still. However, as I grow older, I realise just how imaginative and compelling the original series is, dispite its flaws, it is too me a much more compelling work than the other shows. I’d even say, this show is actually art, whereas the others are not.

            That’s the reason why TOS alone served as the template for the new films, who brought back simplicity, action, adventure, color to Star Trek, while modernizing it for the 2010s. Now let’s hope Discovery can sustain this.

          • Hogwash

            Nahh, just fed up with TOS origin stories mate, to the point of projectile vometing.

          • Planetary

            Ah, so you’re Cap’n posting under a different name. Got it.

          • Lee O.

            Well, not the brightest bulb on the Hanukkah tree. 😉

            Anyways, to anyone hating this show and TOS: just don’t watch it and leave us at peace. Your Star Trek has been lovingly remasteres (to 1/3) and is out there for you to enjoy. And there is a decent free MMO that continues the story, not to mention all the great novels that came out of it.
            You live in an amazing time! Enjoy yourselves!

          • Hogwash

            We’re just sick to the back teeth of TOS origin productions. It was cute when Enterprise did it, you have all of your fan productions on the sideline, irritating when paramount went in that direction, and is nothing short of a slap to expect us to support STD. Who the hell do you think is going to pay to watch your garbage this time around?

          • Cabo 5150

            First of all, welcome to Disqus, “Hogwash” – I see you have a new account. It’s always nice to see new posters sign up and get involved. There’s nothing worse than boards getting filled up with commentary from individuals setting up numerous shill accounts to support themselves!

            I’m going to pass on engaging with you in this thread, as what you’ve posted is extremely similar to previous statements made by posters such as Xandercom, Rose and Cap’n.

            That’s not your fault of course – obviously, you’re not them. The similarity in your posts is purely coincidental.

            I know your comment reference “garbage” and such is only exuberance in your desire to express your opinion – I appreciate you’re not deliberately trying to be confrontational or antagonistic.

            Anyhoo – you can look up my responses to the posters I’ve mentioned for a clarification on my viewpoint.

            Thanks again, “Hogwash” – I hope you have a long, pleasant and prosperous time posting here.

          • Mark Fry

            It’s just not of interest mate. I wish you the best in that I hope it becomes something more widely accepted, and indeed more widely available, but at this point it’s neither. It’s trash and is going to be completely oblitorated by Seth’s Star Trek Parody. We’re all be watching that.

          • Cabo 5150

            Oh, that’s great, Mark.

            Thank you for your input – very much appreciated. 🙂

          • Mark Fry

            You’re welcome

          • Cabo 5150

            Why, of course.

            Thank you so much again.

          • Mark Fry

            why am I given the choice of another TOS origin reboot, or
            no star trek at all again? I don’t want any more kirk reboots thanks. i truely
            hate what has become of this show. never did i think it would ever get to such
            a low point. at least now i can protest against it with apathy capitalism
            at its worse backed by a studio who will happily take fans to court for trying
            to do better. They sure do know how to trigger a boycott

          • Cabo 5150

            🙂

          • Really need you to stop doing this please. We are paying attention to this situation and this kind of reply is only making things more difficult. Just move on with your day if you see a post you feel may be from this user and don’t feed the cycle.

          • Cabo 5150

            OK, no worries.

      • Planetary

        The reason they’re doing prequels is because extrapolating a 100 year jump in a society that has no energy or resource limitations would make that society alien to us, the viewers. I’m 50. Kids today would find the world I grew up a massive shock. 3 television channels. Not having the ‘net to get instant answers. Not carrying a little box that holds thousands of songs. Not having a portable telephone…not having a portable telephone that’s pretty much a portable computer with the ability to carry hundreds, if not thousands of songs, apps, that allows online bill paying, has a camera, video games, etc.

        Try this: Imagine meeting someone from the 1920’s. Now try imagine describing the world of 2017. Imagine trying to describe the Net. “Well it’s a bunch of computers linked together”. That person would ask “What’s a computer?” Imagine trying to describe a modern computer. “Well we can play video games on it, pay bills, write sto……” before they interrupt you and ask “what’s a video game”. Now imagine having to explain what a video game is to someone who has zero frame of reference for them, or even the primitive computers of the 60’s. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. This level of change exists in a society WITH limited energy and material resources. Imagine not having those limitations and having replicators. Now imagine that society after a hundred years.

        It would be unrecognizable to a modern television audience.

        That’s why they’re doing prequels.

        • Eric Cheung

          Yup. Berman and Braga said as much on the ENT special features, and so have I

          • Planetary

            Cool. I remember them saying as much prior to ENT’s airing, explaining why they were doing a prequel. Funny thing is, until they said it, I never really gave it much thought. Afterwards I have to say it was one of the few things that I agreed with them on.

        • DS9 is King

          That is interesting but It would of been great to get a Post Voyager series though and Bryan Singer had a great Idea, Bryan Singer’s STAR TREK: FEDERATION T.V. Pitch Revealed http://whatculture.com/tv/bryan-singers-star-trek-federation-t-v-pitch-revealed

          • Planetary

            Unfortunately, you still run into the issue I described. The society of 100 years post TNG would be heavily using some kind of bio / nano tech in their bodies. They wouldn’t be getting “fat” or “lazy”. That sort of melding of tech and organics would open up new abilities, freedoms and lead to even more exploration. Not just of space, but what it means to be “human” in a rapidly changing world. Singer’s pitch just describes nothing more than a world where the only thing that’s marginally different, are the uniforms, ships appearance, some alien dynamics, but beyond that, there’s no real evolution. And in a society with no power or resource limitations and machines that can, in essence, grant your every wish, society itself would be massively and fundamentally transformed long before the year 3000. In 200 years the Feds would be as unrecognizable to the 24th century humans as we are to cavemen.

          • Hogwash

            Oh shut up mate. You’re trying to justify a childhood fantacy

          • Planetary

            Nope. It’s called “realistically extrapolating a future based on the existing technologies presented to us”. Not my problem that you’re completely incapable of doing that and instead want a future where nothings really different, except the pieces have been moved around a little. It’s like thinking that the world of 1817, or 1417 is only slightly different from the world of 2017. It’s lazy shite for the mentally lazy. Either think big or go home.

          • Lee O.

            The thing about Trek (and really any science fiction) is that it is never truly about the future, but about today. Yes you extrapolate society how it is today into the future, but you do so in order to say something about today. Trek went even further in that they extrapolated our future onto other planets. A planet where the cold war went badly, a planet where there are still gladiatorial fights, a planet where there are indians etc.
            Anyway, that means, that you have to keep things relatable to us. Which is one of Roddenberry’s directives was “far enough in the future that we have spaceships, close enough to our own time that we are still essentially the same”. As such, its not mentally lazy to keep humans the way we are today, but absolutely neccessary to make it easy for us to care for them and understand the message. Only make them different if you want your audience to distance themselves from them. In the end Star Trek is about adventures and fun just as much as it is about the human condition.

          • Planetary

            You make a good point. I still stand by mine though. Mainly because we’re living in a time of rapid change ourselves, especially technologically. We’ve seen the world change so much just in the last quarter century and who knows what it will look like in another quarter century. I don’t think audiences are going to be as willing to buy into a 25th or 27th century Trek that really isn’t all that different from what we’ve seen before. In order for it to ring true, it would have to present, like the real world, a world that is very different from the world of a hundred or two hundred years prior. As I said somewhere else in this thread, when I was a kid, we had five t.v. channels. We listened to music. And by “listen” I mean we would put on a record and just sit there and listen to it. Not as background noise while we did other things. Try that sometime. See if you can do it. Listen to an entire album with no other electronic device active. I’ve put that challenge to people my age and THEY find it hard to do now. if not impossible. They’re not used to doing that anymore.

            The world we live in today, and the way we use technology on just the basic day to day level is vastly different from that world. And in order for Trek to ring true, it’s going to have to reflect that level of change in it’s fictional universes as well.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        The thing about prequels and not sure why people don’t get this is that if we know what’s going to happen in the future there’s little jeopardy for the characters in the grand scheme of things.

        • Eric Cheung

          Pretty much all you know about a character going into a prequel is where they end up and that they don’t die. Whether or not a character dies isn’t the only source of tension and drama.

          And with Star Trek: Discovery, we certainly don’t even know that about any characters except for Sarek and Mudd. And with the revelation about Sarek, this show has the potential to add some depth and nuance to his objection to Spock’s entry into Starfleet. That’s precisely the kind of thing prequels are there for.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            The thing about filling in details is that it becomes not only a checklist but also takes away the mystery behind these characters. Going forward instead of backwards is going into the unknown with new characters who have no backstory, that’s what should be done.

          • Eric Cheung

            I think part of the problem is that we’re thinking of these as prequels, when they’re just set in a different period within the same vast universe with infinite possibilities. Really, it’s only a prequel in the cases of Sarek and Mudd. For everyone else, it’s basically a completely fresh story. We wouldn’t choose not to see 1776 because we know how that turned out, right?

            Aside from whether or not a story is a prequel, if it’s good, then it can sustain foreknowledge and it can sustain repeat viewings. If it’s bad, it won’t be because it’s a prequel.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Most people grumble about prequels and they most always turn out bad or substandard. Look at the response to Enterprise. You are right to an extent although doing prequels is more an obsession by Hollywood today rather than because they’re being brave.

          • Lee O.

            @ Pedro Ferreira: By your argument, most Episodes of Star Trek have no tension, because you know the characters are going to be fine at the end of it or that things do eventually work out. If the Enterprise is trapped in a weird interstellar Trap you know that they won’t all be killed at the end of the episode.
            How something happens can be as interesting as what happens next, if told well. How many films begin with a scene late in the film and then flash back to 36 hours earlier or something. It can add extra tension, seeing your character on top of his/her game, when you know that later in the story he/she will be down on his/her knees.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            No, you misunderstand what I’m saying. Star Trek episodes are nearly always linear going forward. For films you can design them to begin with an ending and then go back and show what brought that person up to that point. That’s fine for experimental or one off movies but for a TV series or franchise doing prequels robs the tension of what could happen in the past as we already know what’s going to happen in the future. Hollywood’s current obsession is to do endless prequels because they’re scared to go forward and explore the unknown. The problem of going back and filling in details is that you also rob the mystery as you’re basically not allowing the viewer to make up their own minds about the past. This is why for instance I feel Rogue One is a redundant movie. We knew what was going to happen, we didn’t need a film to join the dots between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope, it as though the studio thinks the audience is stupid and lacking in imagination.

          • Lee O.

            Agree and disagree. Filling out details can indeed take away from the mystery, but so can sequels. While Aliens is a great film, if it would have just been Alien 1979, the creature and Ripley would have remained more compelling in a way.
            I think knowing, how a situation ultimately plays out, be it from an opening scene or from a prior work in a franchise, doesn’t make the prequel any less compelling.
            By the same logic, how you usually know that by the end of the episode, Voyager or the Enterprise is still standing. You know these things going in.
            Also, a history film or biopic has a defined framework how things play out – in other words, you usually know how it’s gonna end. But that isn’t what makes these films compelling… how a character is going to succeed or fail or just plainly affecty by what you know is going to happen can be as compelling as not knowing what’s going to happen next.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “Filling out details can indeed take away from the mystery, but so can sequels.” The thing about sequels is that while there’s a tendency to rehash you have from a creative point of view more room to create something that leads into unknown territory, something that you can’t do with a prequel as there’s timeline restrictions.

            “By the same logic, how you usually know that by the end of the episode, Voyager or the Enterprise is still standing. You know these things going in. ” Yes but every week of a Voyager episode doesn’t rely on joining the dots to the next part of the timeline. Enterprise had this issue and while the results were mixed it was limited by the definition of being a prequel. The only thing that could change anything there is the Temporal Cold War but looking at that in a linear way you could still say everything is going to be okay in the end as Star Trek TOS happens.

            “how a character is going to succeed or fail or just plainly affecty by what you know is going to happen can be as compelling as not knowing what’s going to happen next.” There’s nothing wrong with period pieces, the problem is the reluctance to go forward because that means being more creative. That is the common issue in today’s media. There are very few people who greet with delight yet another prequel to a long running franchise.

          • Mark Fry

            Unfortunatly it’s impossible to reason with the TOS fans on here, because by Discovery’s very nature it’s an origin story they want to see. They will obviously find a response which in their minds makes sense.

            People are a little sick of origin stories and prequels these days. I guess if it’s something you enjoy watching rehashed then good luck to them.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I totally agree with you obviously but we will have to see how well Discovery does in streaming. There’s still a number of fans that will get All Access just for this show. I totally agree that there’s only so many prequels to TOS they can do before repetition and boredom set in.

          • Mark Fry

            They won’t pull their heads out of dreamland until it’s officially announced as cancelled.
            And ask around the office, or wherever it is you work, who’ll be subscribing to watch it.

            Then, ask around the fandom on non-specialist sites such as this is, because there is obviously going to be massive bias on here with you lot lapping up every tidbit of information of their belovid TOS reboot/prequel/origin story.

            Make no mistake, Orville achieving higher ratings and better feedback than STD will be the nail in the coffin that it won’t be able to recover from. It’s coming two weeks before STD too. CBS have made a massive mistake by having Netflix fund the entire thing because Netflix are ruthless when it comes to cutting shows with poor ratings, like sense8 for example. A similar budget, a cult following, but still not justifiable in Netflix’s viewer metrics. It’s cast off, and done with.

            That obviously means it would fall back to CBS AA to justify paying the whole budget themselves in season 2.

            Let’s see… $6m-$8m per episode, 15 episodes.. So between $90,000,000 to $120,000,000 to produce.

            The CBS AA subscription is $6 per month with adverts, so STD will need a paying viewership of between 15,000,000 – 20,000,000 subscribers in the USA just to break even with STD’s production costs without Netflix paying it for them, that is to say nothing for marketing and ancillary costs, the cost of making CBS AA fit for purpose, servers, etc. As for Netflix viewers.. we all generally have huge 4K tv’s, home cinema systems, or are kids in dorm rooms.

            Clearly it will be one of the few Netflix Originals not in 4K, to say nothing for HDR or Dolby Atmos/Digital etc. Netflix can’t appear to be streaming a higher quality feed than CBS AA or all hell will break loose, so we’re stuck with CBS’s crappy network’s sub-par subscription service blighting what should quite rightly be a 4k HDR masterpiece on the world’s biggest and most capable online streaming service.

            That is clearly wildly optimistic and completely unachievable with a specialist sci-fi show. STD appears to be haemorrhaging it’s potential audience on every where you look, every single review, video, press announcement, tweet, you name it, people are being turned off by it. To expect those people to suddenly change their views after a single on-air broadcast of the pilot and instead be enthusiastic for something they categorically don’t want is also unrealistic.

            Not here of course, this is the place where TOS fanboys congregate to talk about their beloved Sarak, Harry Mudd, rebooted starships, Klingons and and god knows what other TOS junk is being thrown in to the mix for them to argue legitimacy with.

            People simply are not supporting this show, the sooner the TOS fans get their collective head around the fact that no one is really interested in TOS anymore and gracefully step aside from pushing this unwanted rubbish again and again, the quicker the series will be abandoned and a chance at some point in the future to produce something the majority of people want to see, not yet another TOS origin story. It’s killing the franchise’s followers.

            At this point it won’t matter how good the writing is, or the OTT special effects. It’s dead before it’s even been aired. The fanboys might be more forgiving, but the wider fanbase and audience as a whole has completely lost interest in it.

            No one wants an STD.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            They’ve taken great steps to make it look nothing like TOS. I mean I’d think it was related to the reboot movies if I hadn’t read the press release that it’s set in the Prime Universe. It’s good that you’re more of a realist about this than just someone who’ll just hop on the bandwagon. It may do extremely well for people who binge watch TV. I don’t but a lot of people today do yet having said that it’s asking a lot to get people to pay for a channel just for one show that they may or may not end up liking.

            As I’ve said before we’ll just have to wait to see how well it does but from what I’ve seen so far I can’t really see it lasting long. It just looks so unappealing.

          • Mark Fry

            What they have essentially done is taken all of the intellectual property of TOS, which they quite rightly own, and then painted over it with the same bad robot stylistic rubbish peddled in the defunct JaJa Abrams reboot.
            This was greenlit long before “Beyond” flopped and they’ve now locked themselves in to it, hoping that a tv reboot will do better than the movie reboot.

            Claiming it’s in the “prime universe” is blatantly dismissed from the outset by completely retconning everything from top to bottom, without regret or care. It’s a “Star Trek Prequel” in title, but little else. Take away the namedropping of characters, Starfleet and associated abuse of iconic Trek IP such as the badge deltas, etc, all you’re left with is a generic parody of Star Trek taking itself far too seriously on a ridiculous budget.

            Throwing a paywall in to the mix burnt through the goodwill of the fanbase nearly a year ago. All that is left are the hard core TOS Trek fans who will agree to anything if it means another flop is put in to production.

            If they think the backlash in preproduction is bad, they had better brace themselves for the irreparable damage yet to come, and damage they so gleefully and willingly were a party to.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Let’s see what happens but I agree with everything you said.

          • Lee O.

            Both Paramount and CBS seem to be almost embarrassed about Star Trek. I admit the designs aren’t as timeless as say Star Wars, but comparing these two franchises and how they are treated by the powers that be reveals quite a bit: while Star Wars gets this really well crafted expension with sequels, new films and new television series that lovingly expand the universe and feel like a part of the same world, it seems Praramount and CBS just don’t get Star Trek and want to get rid of the ridiculous elements or downplay them with cheap humor. Especially when you look at the TNG blu ray trailers and the Beyond marketing, they clearly have no idea, who to market Star Trek to and why people would think it compelling.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Have to disagree there. Disney has ruined Star Wars and will continue to.

          • Lee O.

            “The thing about sequels is that while there’s a tendency to rehash you
            have from a creative point of view more room to create something that
            leads into unknown territory, something that you can’t do with a prequel
            as there’s timeline restrictions.”
            No arguments here.

            “Enterprise had this issue and while the results were
            mixed it was limited by the definition of being a prequel.”
            I think the big issue that Enterprise had was, that it claimed to be a prequel when in reality (especially if you read/watch interviews of Berman and Braga on the topic) it was actually meant to be a reboot, that brings Star Trek down to earth. Especially when you look at the characters: they’re al quite similar to TOS. The captain is now the sun of the creator of the ship, spock is no a sexy woman, the emotional doctor is now and engineer and has sexual tension with sexy female Spock, the miracle worker is now a miracle healer, the communications officer is also a linguist, the helmsman a space boomer, etc. That’s why it worked so poorly as a prequel, until Season 4 when they actually wrote the show as a prequel to TOS.

            “There’s nothing wrong with period pieces, the problem is
            the reluctance to go forward because that means being more creative.
            That is the common issue in today’s media. There are very few people who
            greet with delight yet another prequel to a long running franchise.”
            Yeah, that is the real issue here and I see where you are coming from. CBS is kind of setting up the same trap that UPN did with Enterprise. They are calling it a prequel when they are actually making a re-imagining. I think they are using the prequel-expression as a gimmick, because TOS has by far the most recognition these days, especially since the films and the HD remaster were pretty successful. While I can’t blame them – after all, they need not just the core Trek audience, but many potential new viewers who have never seen Trek or maybe just the Abrams films – CBS’ dishonesty about the whole thing and that is the main issue. If they had just openly said, that this was a reboot, I think some people would have been far less critical about the show beforehand.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “it was actually meant to be a reboot, that brings Star Trek down to earth.” Well they wanted it to be the very beginning and that meant using the whole Kirk, Spock, McCoy friendship again. There was even talk about setting the first season entirely on Earth with them trying to launch.
            My biggest problem with Enterprise was that going back to that friendship felt forced and didn’t allow the other characters to be developed. They also didn’t make enough of showing the beginning of everything in detail. But I do think it was always intended as a prequel and not a complete reboot.

            “But since they didn’t this show will turn off some hardcore fans who will dislike the new style.” CBS have handled the whole thing poorly. Now obviously I’m not in favour of this Discovery show because it suffers the same issues most modern TV does but it also isn’t clear what it’s trying to be. Doesn’t help the producers went on record as saying they were aiming to ape Game of Thrones. I mean when you’re aiming for the contrived, exploitation writing of GOT you know you have a problem.

          • Mark Fry
          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Nope, not at all. Again, my reference to historical fiction.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Fiction has continuity though. Possibilities for unpredictable storytelling only exist as you go forward in time.

          • Husnock

            I think you’re partially right. When ENT put Earth in jeopardy in S3, it felt a bit stupid. It was a prequel, so we knew Earth would survive. But we didn’t know Trip would die (I’ll ignore the wisdom of that creative decision). On a cosmic scale, things are known, but not on an individual scale.
            Therefor, I’d call DSC a semi-prequel (a semquel?). We know the universe, but not the main characters, nor their place in history. Will the Shenzou survive, for example? No one knows.

            If it’s a prequel about known characters, you’d be right. There would be no room for unpredictable storytelling. Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing – there are a lot of movies about historical events and people -, but that’s not the case here. Almost everything is still possible, since we know almost nothing about this period, this ship or it’s crew.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I want to reiterate I’m not saying prequels can’t tell stories, it’s just they can’t tell stories with far reaching consequences. This is why I can’t quite understand the need to see a story about Harry Mudd’s early career. It’s like what they’re doing with the next Die Hard movie by focusing on John McClane as new recruit. It’s stupid because the first Die Hard told us everything we need to know about the character.

          • Mark Fry

            Would you want to watch a prequel to “Titanic”?!
            Do you think people would pay a monthly subscription to watch a TV show all about it?
            That is what you are asking of people here, and you are the person craxy about Titanic and can’t understand why other people don’t want to watch a Titanic prequel.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Exactly! I don’t think he gets it and he claims to be a fan!

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          No offense, but that is just silly. I read a lot of historical fiction, and none of that bothers me at all in terms of knowing how the broader history worked out….and that is from our real universe, not the fictional universe of Star Trek.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            But it becomes a join the dots thing doesn’t it. That’s why I felt Rogue One was unnecessary, we knew what was going to happen.

      • Hogwash

        You’re pushing well beyond believability
        and the suspension of disbelief there Sir. This isn’t Trek aimed at kid
        scientists, astronauts, pilots. It’s Trek aimed at nostalgia and filling a
        gaping hole in the gut of people who are really old enough to know better.

        • Eric Cheung

          It can be both at the same time. But frankly, I hope the show is even more an inspiration to kid politicians and economists than scientists and astronauts, especially.

          I don’t care whom it’s aimed for, I just hope I like it. On some level, anyone posting here is nostalgic for the version of Trek with which they fell in love, so yeah, the producers are aiming for that. One big clue is that every show is represented with writers from Trek’s past, except for TOS and ENT (though Eaves is working on the show). TOS-era movies: Nicholas Meyer, TNG/DS9/VOY: Joe Menosky, DS9/VOY: Bryan Fuller

          So, if you liked any of those shows, chances are you’ll like elements of this, even if it’s not slavishly devoted to canon.

      • Mark Fry

        sick to the back teeth with prequels and origin stories especially star trek when its all we have had available for 15 years. why do you persist mr anderson?

        • Eric Cheung

          I don’t really care if it’s a prequel or not. I just want a good TV show that hopefully portrays an optimistic future, and how we get there.

          I still think the term prequel isn’t quite accurate. It’s a prequel like Mad Men is a prequel to 30 Rock. It’s a show that happens to take place in a time prior to TOS in a similar setting, but it’s about completely different people (except for Sarek and Mudd).

    • Moralnihilist

      Unless it…forms a THIRD universe!!!! DUN DUN DUNNNNNN

      But seriously, I’d be so done with Trek if they went that route.

      • DS9 is King

        New ‘Star Trek’ Logo on ‘Discovery’ Might Split Old Timeline
        https://www.inverse.com/article/27487-star-trek-discovery-starfleet-insignia-log-symbol-uniforms-t

        • Snap

          Except they don’t really seem to know what they’re talking about when they show the Enterprise’s delta insignia with the caption “Original ‘Star Trek’ Starfleet patches and then, later in the article, acknowledges that it wasn’t universally used at that point. But the delta isn’t and has never been the “Star Trek” logo. The only series which shares even a similar logo is Deep Space Nine and Voyager, their logos based on the movie typeface. Now, Discovery’s logo is similar to the original, with the exception of the weird “R” they have gone for, as well as the more subtly altered “K.”

          I can certainly buy that Discovery is its own thing and, if such happens to be the case, then every seeming inconsistency can be ignored and the show can be judged on its own merits. Just because the producers have “said” it is in the prime timeline doesn’t necessarily mean it is, as prior to Into Darkness we were told that Benedict Cumberbatch wasn’t Khan.

          But, on a personal level, I watch Star Trek for Star Trek. I don’t watch it for Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica or your soap opera of choice.

    • Mark Fry

      Oh jezus. The site’s admin are actively removing and barring anyone who speaks ill of STD. Of course they will! They make advertising revenue from each and every page viewed!

      Fucking dumb cunts the lot of you. Scrap with yourselves, you busted Star Trek
      with your TOS obsession. You wont be welcome at conventions anymore.

    • Mark Fry

      it will affect your bank ballance if you are stupid enough to buy into it

  • prometheus59650

    Very happy to hear this. Not everyone is going to get along all the time because that’s not how humans work or ever will.

    Personally, I never would have gotten along with whining about his honor constantly, happily narcissistic, deadbeat father and proud of it Worf.

    I certainly could bury my dislike enough to do my job, but we’re never going to be anything like friends.

    Because that’s how real humans work.

    • BatesHotel

      But that was the whole point of Trek, that humans evolved beyond our petty jealousy and ego issues of today. There’s plenty of dystopic sci-fi out there, actually pretty much all of it, what made Trek different was its optimism.

      • Star Fox

        That is the Reason why Star Trek is a Small niche Audience, the Majority of people the General Audience does not want to see that.

        • BatesHotel

          So you want homogenized storytelling in order to reach the largest audience?
          Would hardly call Star Trek niche. TNG, which followed the rule most closely, was the most watched and profitable show in syndication during its time. In other words, it was wildly popular.

          • Star Fox

            it was wildly popular among a small niche audience, and now that we have Star Wars every year people will look at Star Trek and say what they say when a Star Trek movie comes out in theaters, they say ”why should I watch this when I can watch Star Wars.”

    • Pedro Ferreira

      I’m worried it’s going to turn into the remake of BSG.

      • prometheus59650

        I don’t think so, at least at this point. I mean, I see it as only more a return to TOS form in that way. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were each other’s best friends, but there were times that Kirk and McCoy had it out on the bridge.

        They didn’t always get along yet they could rely on each other.

        If that’s what thy are going back to, great.

        • Pedro Ferreira

          I do hope so but today’s TV has me worried.

  • Eric Cheung

    My interpretation of the no-conflict rule has always been that good people with the same goals would still disagree on how to achieve those goals and hold spirited debates on it while giving each other just enough of a benefit of the doubt not to let it destroy relationships. Even if this show says it will break that no-conflict rule, it remains to be seen if it will break my take on it. I kind of hope they don’t, because we need reason now more than ever.

  • M33

    23rd century didn’t have the “rule”.
    Plenty of inter-crew conflict.
    Discovery should be the same

    • Moralnihilist

      Neither did the 24th century, except for the first few seasons of TNG. This article is making news out of nothing.

      • Locutus

        I don’t think the article is making news out of nothing. They even back it up with reference to an interview with Ron Moore. Although TNG bent the rule, DS9 was probably the first to truly break it. Discovery sounds even less tethered to the rule, which is good. Regardless, it is newsworthy since the producers of the new series spoke to it specifically. It certainly gives us a better inkling of their frame of reference.

      • DaMac

        The supplements for the new TNG Blu-rays make it clear that it was Rick Berman’s rule that they stick to the no conflict thing. However all the writers pretty much snuck it in there whenever possible anyway, so you can barely tell they had to follow it. Then Deep Space Nine quickly threw it all out the window anyway.

    • Star Fox

      Since this series is 10 years before TOS there maybe more conflict also they are on a Streaming site so they do have more Freedom to do more things.

  • pittrek

    They’re not holding on the no conflict rule? Well then I’m out. Sorry, this is no Star Trek.

    • Moralnihilist

      They stopped using the no conflict rule over 20 years ago. Where have you been?

      • pittrek

        Was there any conflict between the Starfleet leads in any of the shows? Honestly the only “conflicting” relationships I remember were Worf and his son in TNG. They tried to bring some conflict to Voyager by mixing Starfleet officers with the Maquis, and they abandoned it immediately. They tried to have conflict on Enterprise between T’Pol and Archer, and gave up after a couple of episodes.

        • Christopher Roberts

          Enterprise was full of interpersonal and interspecies conflict. The Roddenberry rule was regularly bent out of shape, and was only really in full force up until Maurice Hurley left TNG and the man himself was increasing ill and unable to argue about every little thing.

          • pittrek

            Interesting, I absolutely don’t remember ANY conflict between the main characters besides the Archer-T’Pol relationship

          • M33

            Conflict between Reed and Trip, between Trip and Archer, between Trip and T’Pol..

          • pittrek

            What? Did you watch the same series as me?

          • M33

            Watched the series three times already.
            Conflict doesn’t mean the characters clash all the time. People can work together and get along most of the time, but there are times when people can conflict seriously due to newer viewpoints or circumstances in which they choose actions that clash with their coworkers ideologies, too.
            That’s life.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Yep!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Agreed.

          • BatesHotel

            Those petty arguments is one of the reasons Ent wasn’t very good. Trip being combative with every other alien and mocking their cultural differences is when I stopped watching because it stopped being Trek.

    • DC Forever

      Lol

  • Your Worst Nightmare

    Good. The no conflict rule in Star Trek was not the smartest thing in the world. It really tied the storytellers’ hands from time to time.

    As for the hints of the plot, sounds interesting. We shall see!

  • Fiery Little One

    Conflict between characters is fine, just so long as they don’t actively try to stab each other in the back for no particularly good reason. That was the thing that turned me off of RDM’s BSG.

    As for the storyline for this season, it seems interesting.

    • pittrek

      Conflict between main characters is one of the reasons why I hate Ron Moore’s version of Galactica.

      • Fiery Little One

        For me, disagreements are one thing. Actively working against everybody else, like on Galactica, no. Not okay.

        • Planetary

          Well to be fair, the circumstances Galactica was operating under were about as extreme as it gets. While it was somewhat realistic in it’s grimness, it was too grim even for me.

          • Fiery Little One

            Yeah I stopped watching new after the first season for that and I didn’t buy into their take on Baltar.

      • DC Forever

        Apples and oranges – a nonsensical comparison between two completely differerent types of shows. It’s like saying you dislike Modern Family over Happy Days – a silly contrast!

        • Snap

          But isn’t it also apples and oranges to compare TNG with DS9 or even Voyager? The conflict in DS9 was facilitated due to relationships between Starfleet and the Bajorans, likewise in Voyager it was the Starfleet crew and the Maquis crew. Neither had that “Starfleet ship with a Starfleet crew operating under Starfleet protocol” which the “Roddenberry Rule” seemed to specifically cover.

          The problem with DS9 and Voyager is they didn’t really capitalize upon it. It was sort of shunted to the background until they decided to showcase it for a story or two.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Agreed!

  • Moralnihilist

    Do you guys not realize the no-conflict rule hasn’t been in effect since the early years of TNG? It would actually be news if they were implementing it again.

  • Moralnihilist

    Am I taking crazy pills, here? The “Roddenberry Rule” was only ever in effect for the first few seasons of TNG. It’s not an established part of Star Trek. It’s a weird phase Gene had just before he died. They got rid of the Roddenberry Rule DECADES ago. This isn’t news. It’d only be news if they were reinstating it.

    • Lee O.

      Even in the original series it wasn’t intact. There was constant conflicts among the crew (notably Spock and Bones, but also average redshirt who had an issue with Spock or the situation and whatnot).

      No offense, but Roddenberry wasn’t well at this stage in his life. He had been abusing alcohol and some other drugs in the 1980s and clashed with virtually everyone who worked on the Original Series during the first season of TNG. It wasn’t until he reduced his role in the series (during the writers’ strike of 1988/1989 and then because of health issues) that the series actually got good and brought quality writers back in who managed to constantly bend and even broke this non-sensical “rule”.

      I also think it might have been misinterpreted. I think he meant more something on the lines of serious personal conflict between characters. Like spite between Riker and Data or something. There can still be conflict because of differing opinions.

  • DC Forever

    DS9 was the final nail in the coffin for that well meaning, but moronic rule.

    • Star Fox

      Thank God for DS9.

    • Planetary

      “DS9 killed that well meaning and moronic rule that was exclusive to TNG because it certainly wasn’t a rule for Star Trek” Fixed that for you.

    • Ryan Withers

      Yet again the TOS fanboys chime in to dictate what everyone else did wrong. You’re killing the franchise you fools. We hate you.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      There was conflict in TNG though?

  • BatesHotel

    Not interested in an action soap opera in space with the crew having petty ego conflicts and bickering with each other. I want a group of super professionals who confront the mysteries, dilemmas, and challenges of space together as an incredible team that makes measured, scientific and rational decisions. That they should be super cool and rational is actually realistic to who would be assigned such important roles on a starship. Ugh, I’ve got a bad feeling about this show now. The Roddenberry rule is one of the primary factors that made Trek different and interesting to watch compared to all the other shows.

    • Star Fox

      Thanks God they are throwing out the Roddenberry Rule and making it an Action Adventure Soap Opera in Space.

  • DaMac

    Deep Space Nine is my favorite Star Trek show, so obviously I am not beholden to the Roddenberry rule. However it’s funny to have them just basically toss it out the window without a second thought. A lot of Trek fans hate that. It’s kind of what made the franchise unique, in a way.

    • BatesHotel

      It’s kind of what made Trek be Trek.

    • Cap’n

      I think it’s true that most of the fanbase now understand that you either agree to disagree with most of the directions taken by STD, or you just hate it, don’t want to get involved in funding it, observe the abysmal treatment it has given to dear freinds of the franchise, or open your wallet.

      I will not give it a dime.

  • Ryan Withers

    What I think you’ll find, is that moderators of this website systematically delete and ban comments they dislike. As such this website has now become a serious issue in imparciality, and has essentially placed itself in a dubious position in which the majority of the fandom now wish it were not here. Advertisers, google adwords, Bing, etc, are being notified today. Clickbait and click manipulation is not in keeping with the terms and conditions of ad revenue this website sustains itself with.

    Esentially, screw with your patrons, say goodbye to revenue.

    Thy will be done.

  • Ryan Withers

    I simply can’t deal with these idiots anymore.
    You don’t represent the fandom, you are the reason it keeps faceplanting over and over and over agian.
    To hell with your TOS rubbish. Grow up lads, you’re hated.

  • adamclark83

    One hope for this series is that the producers realise and understand that it has an ensemble, not just one character to give all the focus.

  • Bill Smith

    Pretty much confirmed my suspicions that section 31 is heavily involved in this show. To truly explore section 31, the Roddenberry rule had to fully go.

    I think Discovery is a dual purpose ship. I also think it was built in secret in that asteroid for a reason in the first crappy trailer last year. I also think Discovery’s Captian has been compromised by section 31, and that’s the true reason the focus is on Michaela as the first officer.

    I am calling it now – Discovery – not the Klingon’s – will somehow be responsible for the Shenzhou’s destruction and Michaela and Saru with be forced to serve with Lorca or spend the remaining time of Discovery’s mission in the brig. Discovery is “radio silent”

    Over time Michalela watches the sometimes odd orders of Lorca and realizes over the season that something is not quite right. She learns about section 31 and it’s mission through Lorca’s actions.

    Lorca is going to be a very aggressive Captain. Don’t expect season 1 Archer – think after Xindi debriefing Archer who wished he had 20 times the weapons on his Enterprise.

    And I think a major clue was revealed a long time ago – why would they go out of their way to emphasize that Discovery has a mycology specialist onboard?

    Hmm..

  • Bill Smith

    To end the discussion, this is the PRIME universe. NOT the Kelvin universe, and NOT a “third” universe.

    This is the PRIME universe, but re-imagined for 2017.

    • Snap

      “This is the PRIME universe, but re-imagined for 2017.”

      In other words, a “third” continuity. You can’t go back to the industrial revolution and “reimagine” it so it makes for a more modern take. So, what is it? Is it the “prime” timeline or a “reimaginin”? You can’t have it both ways.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Sure you can — it’s a fictional universe, but re-done now with much more modern production values.

        It’s not a “real universe” dude. Fictional universes can certainly be updated.

        • Snap

          Don’t patronize me, I know full well what I’m talking about. I’m sorry you don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept and the difference between “updating” and “reimagining.” I don’t understand your narrow vision that seems to interpret basic continuity of “must slavishly look exactly the same as the 60s.”

          The Motion Picture in 79 updated Star Trek with modern production values. The only “reimagining” which took place was what the Klingons looked like. Trek 09, on the other hand, reimagined Star Trek and changed things to give themselves a blank canvas to work with, as here is no way you can say events will play out exactly from Trek 09 to Nemesis.

          It doesn’t matter if a universe is “real” or “fictional,” once established, events become the history of that universe and changing them just for the sake of changing them with the excuse of “modern production values” is still “reimagining” that universe. So, no, it would not be the “prime” universe, it would be based off the prime universe but would be its own unique, yet similar entity.

          Oh, and just because it may be an alternate, “reimagined” take on Star Trek, where have I said that would make it “bad” or “illegitimate”? It will be its own thing and it will be “Star Trek” and, just like the rest of the franchise, there will be things I like or dislike about it and just as you can go around belittling people who don’t share your point of view, I can voice my own opinion.

          • Mark Fry

            Don’t waste your keystrokes. You’re dealing with TOS Fanboys here.
            In their minds its all logical. They simply can not grasp that STD is already a dead duck, has not been universally rejected, and clearly will not even begin to grasp the damage to the fanbase until STD is cancelled and they find something else to blame it on.

            It’s not worth your time arguing with the TOS trolls, they are unobjective and have put themselves in the position of being hated.

            Trek is dead. Thankfully we have a shed load of box sets to keep even the most avid fan entertained. We just never thought it’s downfall would be from within.

      • Planetary

        They did it in 1979 and they can do it again.

        • Snap

          No they didn’t, they updated it. A big difference there. It took place after what we saw in the TV series and didn’t contradict anything which was established and they even included dialogue which would explain differences, such as ” refitting and redesigning the Enterprise” as well as “this is an almost entirely new Enterprise” etc.

          The only hint of a “reimagining” were the Klingons. They are nearly unrecognizable from a cosmetic and character point of view that they could have been an entirely new species. It was pretty much even lampooned within the series itself, so take it how you will.

          • Mark Fry

            Yawn Trek – The TOS fanboy generation

  • Bill Smith

    I can’t wait until people see how much violence and blood/gore/sex there is in Discovery. People are going to flip out. Lol

  • Pedro Ferreira

    “Harberts also detailed how Discovery‘s well-publicized serialization plan will help explore the characters” Serialization?! Uh-oh, this show is turning worse every single day.

  • Vincent Tornillo

    I still think they should have gone forward way forward and followed a ship from the 29th century that takes care of the temporal prime directive , you can have episodes spanning the whole star trek timeline . Just imagine all the possibilities , even factions wanting to not undo Neros “Kelvin time line” just so much room to explore without the same old tropes being rehashed.

    • Planetary

      As I posted earlier:

      The reason they’re doing prequels is because extrapolating a 100 year jump
      in a society that has no energy or resource limitations would make that
      society alien to us, the viewers. I’m 50. Kids today would find the
      world I grew up a massive shock. 3 television channels. Not having the
      ‘net to get instant answers. Not carrying a little box that holds
      thousands of songs. Not having a portable telephone…not having a
      portable telephone that’s pretty much a portable computer with the
      ability to carry hundreds, if not thousands of songs, apps, that allows
      online bill paying, has a camera, video games, etc.

      Try this:
      Imagine meeting someone from the 1920’s. Now try imagine describing the
      world of 2017. Imagine trying to describe the Net. “Well it’s a bunch of
      computers linked together”. That person would ask “What’s a computer?”
      Imagine trying to describe a modern computer. “Well we can play video
      games on it, pay bills, write sto……” before they interrupt you and
      ask “what’s a video game”. Now imagine having to explain what a video
      game is to someone who has zero frame of reference for them, or even the
      primitive computers of the 60’s. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
      This level of change exists in a society WITH limited energy and
      material resources. Imagine not having those limitations and having
      replicators. Now imagine that society after a hundred years. Now imagine it two hundred years later.

      It would be unrecognizable to a modern television audience.

      That’s why they’re doing prequels.

  • Dan King

    Wished this was after Voyager

  • Lee O.

    Theory time: to me, it now seems like Michael Burnham will get demoted to the Discovery due to the events in the pilot. “You’ve served me for seven years. Time to get your own command.” It seems she has a promotion to Captain lining up, but then during the events of the pilot, she is possibly forced to take command (due to Georgiu’s death, possibly) and does something that she thinks is right, but obviously doesn’t sit well with Starfleet, maybe even causing the destruction of the Shenzhou. Then she gets demoted and send to the older, less state-of-the-art Discovery along with some surviving crewmembers of the Shenzhou and is reassigned as first officer under the sharp eye of Captain Lorca, who doesn’t respect her initially (Kind of Jellico-Riker situation).

    • Dan King

      I disagree. Discovery is more advanced than Shenzhou

  • Mo

    I kind of wish they hadn’t thrown Sarek into the lead’s backstory, but I understand why they did it. Familiar names for insecure fans who need callbacks.

  • Dan King

    Sarek feels thrown in to me

  • Hogwash

    Trek is NOTHING without it’s continuity. This is garbage and I see nothing other than Original Series fans showing any interest in this latest drastic miscalculation of it’s audience, by the latest Executive hoping to prop up his annual figures and bonus. Shame on you.

    I’m truly ashamed of this trash being associated with Star Trek, with everything else that has come before, and I won’t defend it in any way, shape or form. It embarrasses me and I want it to be over and done with as quickly as possible.

  • Mark Fry

    Can someone PM me when this STD pandemic is over?

    • Dan King

      What do you mean

    • The Rabid One

      When we find an upgraded version of Penicillin, I’ll send over a vial.

  • Mark Fry

    why am I given the choice of another TOS origin reboot, or
    no star trek at all again? I don’t want any more kirk reboots thanks. i truely
    hate what has become of this show. never did i think it would ever get to such
    a low point. at least now i can protest against it with apathy capitalism
    at its worse backed by a studio who will happily take fans to court for trying
    to do better. They sure do know how to trigger a boycott, and people who make this website sure do know how to remvoe posts after screenshots are taken. their advertisers are going to be less than impressed.