Well, after months of rumors, Star Trek: Discovery is returning to San Diego Comic Con after its debut presentation last summer!

Announced on social media today, CBS revealed that the cast and creative team behind the newest Star Trek series will be holding a fan panel in SDCC’s Ballroom 20 on Saturday, July 22 (2:30PM PT / 5:30PM ET).

Last July, then-showrunner Bryan Fuller held a discussion with Trek luminaries William Shatner, Michael Dorn, Jeri Ryan, Jonathan Frakes, and Scott Bakula to get their takes on Trek and its place in pop culture, culminating with the first launch trailer and series-name debut.

We’ll be keeping an eye on all the action as July 22 approaches – and keep checking back to TrekCore for all the latest in Star Trek: Discovery news!

  • The Science Fiction Oracle

    OMG, Trekcore, please don’t use that painfully bad Discovery special effects test footage from last year anymore. 🙂

    PS: Can’t wait to hear what you learn at ComiCon!

    • STD Infection

      You want this garbage to be successful? At what cost?

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        No, I don’t want you to be successful at any cost. Keeping failing, troll.

        • STD Infection

          ??

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            So you you weren’t talking in the 3rd person about yourself?

    • I like to pretend that teaser footage was never shown to us. Talk about starting off on the wrong foot. Luckily, most things shown since then have looked much better (including the Discovery itself).

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Agreed. The new version is growing on my for sure. It helps that the VFX quality is much improved versus last year — that had looked like it was done in the 90’s.

  • Mark Porter

    ..on its short journey to the cutting room floor and a financial write off by CBS.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      First, there haven’t been any cutting rooms at CBS for years — it’s all digital now.

      Secondly, the show has already been bankrolled in advance — probably enough to cover two seasons.

      Next?

      • SpaceCadet

        You gotta wonder what’s up with all these people who actively want the show to fail before it’s even aired. A bunch of Negative Nancy’s I tell ya.

        • Dan King

          Who knows, perhaps they did not want a TOS Kelvin style prequel?

          • SpaceCadet

            Maybe it’s Kelvin style in appearance but that does not mean that it’s going to be all style over substance. This appears to me to be a very thoughtful and engrossing storyline with new and I nteresting characters. You cannot judge the show until you actually view it.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Well said! Some people can’t separate “a visual look” from storylines and plotting. They have a completely different writing team, backed by a different studio, leading this production.

          • Dan King

            The problem is many fans dislike the plastic look of the Kelvin universe. and the ships we are seeing are completely unlike the ships shown in TOS. A massive break of canon

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            The difference in canon in terms of the look of the Star Trek universe between TOS and TMP was by far the biggest change in the look of the universe to date — only 3 years were suppose to have passed, but the look of everything was drastically changed.

            The look of the Kelvin universe, by comparison, is a nice evolutionary update to what Rodenberry came up with for the new Trek universe look in TMP. It’s nothing like Enterprise, where they basically completed ignored what one would expect a pre-TOS Trek universe to look like, and just “Bemanized” it because they could.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Actually I just wanted a good Star Trek series that doesn’t look like poop.

        • Cabo 5150

          Are you new to Trek fandom?!!!

          Seriously, I’d say a certain vocal subsection of Star Trek fans are some the most parochial, conservative and utterly dedicated to the eradication of their own franchise as I’ve seen!

          Not IDIC!!

  • STD Infection

    This is going to go down as well as Into Darkness did at fan cons.

    They are smashing up continuity, replacing it with silly money courtesy of Netflix, retconning left and right, rubbed virtually all but the hard core TOS fans up the wrong way, and now going to shove it in the faces of congregated franchise fans at an event they pay to be at.
    My god, how can they expect anything but near total rejection? What the hell are they
    thinking? STD has lost the plot entirely. Grab some popcorn and watch the reaction.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      HI Mark Porter. WHOOPS… I mean “STD Infection”

      LOL — nice try, dude.

    • Cabo 5150

      First of all, welcome to Disqus, “STD Infection” – 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 in tone to previous statements made by posters such as Xandercom, Rose, Hogwash 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, “STD Infection” – I hope you have a long, pleasant and prosperous time posting here.

  • I’m very excited for the new show, but I hope they don’t reveal a lot at Comic Con, since I’d like to come to the show in September as unspoiled as possible (but I’m not strong enough to avoid all information :-D).

    • Cabo 5150

      Yep, it’s a real dilemma deciding how information you allow to filter through in advance of each new Star Trek project.

      I’m fairly certain there’s a significant “reveal” coming in episode 1/2 – and quite honestly, I’d much rather remain ignorant of that until the 24th September (or the 25th for myself the UK)!

  • hellion

    i like this motion poster!

  • Dan King

    I wish they would stop portraying the show as action-violence. That’s not what Star Trek is about.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Please cite your source?

    • Cabo 5150

      Where has the show been portrayed as “action-violence”? Link please.

      And who are the enigmatic “they” you speak of? The producers? The actors? The script writers? Again, link please.

      Failing that, it may be just as well to make your declarations reference DSC as the subjective opinions/conjecture they probably are.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        One would have to conclude that he’s just “making shit up”

        Sigh!

        • Dan King

          Not making stuff up, I saw the interview here on Trek Core

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You already admitted this was just a made up guess:

            “Even if I was mistaken, being it’s on streaming it’s a good guess”

          • Dan King

            I refuse to answer any more posts you make that include Michael. I said I am not that poster – stop harassing me and grow up. Discuss Star Trek

          • The Science Fiction Oracle
          • DC Forever

            Dan, there was no such article on Trekcore that mentioned beheadings. That is simply an untruth.

          • Dan King

            I never said TrekCore reported that

      • Dan King

        The hand to hand combat with the funky looking Klingon on the outside of the ship is supposed to end with a surprising and sudden violent act. ( beheading )

        That’s the current rumor in the Star Trek fan circles

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Jig’;s up, Michael — you are back your making up special sources again. I am in “fan circles” and this is not being discussed.

          Mods — HE’S BACK

          • Dan King

            I am taking about a popular Star Trek forum, not “special sources” – I am simply a fan of Star Trek. I know no one in Hollywood lol

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Please cite with a web link then where in “fan circles” this supposed beheading is being discussed?

        • Cabo 5150

          That’s the current rumor in the Star Trek fan circles

          I need not say another word.

          • Dan King

            Rumors often turn into facts the closer to the shows air date.

          • Cabo 5150

            Rumours actually turn our to be just that, rumours, more often than not.

            Also, you’re proceeding here as if I have accepted your original statement reference the alleged “rumour” in “Star Trek fan circles” is itself factual by default – which, I can assure you – I do not.

            As both myself and The Science Fiction Oracle have requested – please supply a credible link.

            Edited to correct the wrong citation!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            They often never materialize as well. Still waiting for that web link???

          • Dan King

            Provided the link

    • DC Forever

      That’s just ridiculous. The trailer has as little action violence of any Trek trailer I have ever seen, with the possible exception of TMP trailer. The TNG trailer in early 1987 had a lot more action and violence.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Good point. It’s very easy to go to Youtube and view all of the old trailers. You 100% right — this is one of the least action/violence/sex trailers in the history of Star Trek. His comment in DOA in terms of truth and logic.

        • Dan King

          They are saving all of that for the actual show. Lol
          Decon chamber 2.0 with no limits on what they can show on streaming!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “They are saving all of that for the actual show.”

            Another guess….MAKING SHIT UP again…sigh!

          • Dan King

            Please stay on topic and stop this Michael crap. You keep reminding me of Stargate and Connor as Michael

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Look at the bright side, you can now continue to yell about me calling you Michael and completely ignore that I exposed you for making this all up, which was the focus of my post.

          • DC Forever

            Again Dan, trailers usually have more action and violence than the series, not less. Oracle is spot-on here is commenting that this is one of the least action-packed trailers in Trek history. You really can’t argue that point. The trailer speaks for itself.

          • Dan King

            They heavily imply that Michael influences the Shenzhou Captain to betray Federation values and fire first.

            I suspect ( speculation ) that Shenzhou is destroyed because of this and Michael’s actions on Shenzhou.

          • DC Forever

            Yes, I have deduced a similar opinion to this.

        • DC Forever

          I agree.

      • Dan King

        How do you explain the spacesuit fight with the apparent Klingon warrior?

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          There is no such “spacesuit fight scene” with a Klingon warrior shown in the trailer. There is a standoff with a Klingon brandishing his bat’leth, but not any fight scene whatsoever is shown in this trailer.

          F
          A
          C
          T

          This is the most non-violent, devoid of action trailer in over 50 years of Star Trek, with the possible exception of TMP trailer.

          • Dan King

            The fight scene obviously takes place right after the standoff. What do you think happens? They stare at each other for 10 minutes?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            We simply don’t know. Trailers in many cases don’t really provide linear plot details or scenes that pan out in the actual movie.

            What we can take from the trailer, as I have said before, is that this is the most non-violent, devoid of action trailer in over 50 years of Star Trek, with the possible exception of TMP trailer.

            So, having only the trailer as any real evidence of the content of the series, SO FAR, there is nothing in the actual content we see to suggest your hearsay about this series being very violent (be-headings) and sexual is at all true.

          • Dan King

            It’s not hearsay, it’s educated speculation from a fan. I am sure they will be using the freedom of streaming to show far more betrayals, sex scenes, and a little more graphic violence compared to the rest of the shows.

            Think about the bloody Klingon butchering from Star Trek Undiscovered Country, where they shoot arms off and pools of blood literally hit the floor – but a little more graphic due to advances in VFX

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Thank you for acknowledging that this is your own speculation.

            I have no problem with that.

          • Dan King

            If they dismembered limbs in STVl, imagine what they will do when streaming

        • DC Forever

          I think if there was a fight in that scene you are refering to, they would’ve showed some of the action in the trailer, because trailers almost always include MORE action that an actual TV series delivers.

          So I have my doubts a so I have my doubts about that trailer scene being a prelude to a hand-to-hand combat scene.

          • Dan King

            I would disagree. I don’t think they want to spoil the fight scene in the trailer, so they implied there would be a zero-g fight scene. The way the Klingon brandishes his weapon suggests he eagerness for combat.

  • Dan King

    I am getting concerned, I am hearing that the show will have very high levels of violence and sex compared to all other Star Trek. People are saying it is more in like with Ron’s Battlestar

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Please cite your source?

      • Dan King

        The creators of the show, when discussion the benefits of streaming over broadcast TV

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          “Even if I was mistaken, being it’s on streaming it’s a good guess”

          Exactly — YOU MADE THIS UP.

        • DC Forever

          There is nothing in those interviews about “people saying it’s like Ron’s Battlestar” or “there are beheadings.”

          Please provide a source or Just admit that this is your own conjecture?

    • “Hearing”, “People are saying”, you’re going to have to give us more than that if I’m to believe what you’re saying. Is that based on the recent ‘news’ that Discovery won’t follow the so-called Roddenberry rules (no conflict between Starfleet officers, etc)? It’s pretty definitively shown that those rules haven’t been followed in quite some time, ending after the first couple seasons of TNG.

      • Dan King

        I read it here on trekcore within the last several months.

        • DC Forever

          I come to Trekcore every day, and I know for a fact that both your “it’s like Moore’s Battlestar” and your “there are beheadings” NEVER were reported by Trekcore.

          Again Dan, if you could please provide us all a link to substantiate this, we can clear this up quickly?

          • Dan King

            I never said that trekcore said it was like moors battlestar, I said “people”
            The beheading speculation was found on a popular Star Trek forum.

            What I did say is that TrekCore ran a story where someone creating the show said they have more freedom on streaming vs. broadcast

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I’d be interested as well in seeing this fan forum where “people” said this. Please share the link or at least the site name so that those of us who are interested can view what you are talking about?

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        “Even if I was mistaken, being it’s on streaming it’s a good guess”

        In other words, he MADE THIS UP

    • DC Forever

      Per our discussion in the 2:1 thread — this type of unsubstantiated claim in a little one sentence quip was a hallmark of Michael’s.

      You should consider retracting this if you cannot substantiate this. And if you come back with “I have an inside source,” then please don’t complain if people start wondering again if you are Michael.

      • Gene’s Vision

        Ah yes. Guide us Michael! Alas he may be forever lost…

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Now I am not so sure about his ID — perhaps I was right after all….
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKF9g_BKmXU

      • Dan King

        I am going by one of the interviews recently held with the creators, or it could have been Les Moonves himself. One of them said since it was not on television they had far more freedom to explore adult themes.

        I won’t retract anything. I know I read this recently. Even if I was mistaken, being it’s on streaming it’s a good guess they will be more graphic with the violence and sexual situations.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          “Even if I was mistaken, being it’s on streaming it’s a good guess”

          Exactly — YOU MADE THIS UP

          • Dan King

            I am not “Michael,” please stop with the harassment and discuss Star Trek or I will begin flagging off topic posts.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You are not going to brow-beat me here. There is no harassment. I call it like I see it.

          • DC Forever

            That quote of Dan’s makes no sense at all. There are tons of shows and series’ streaming today of all types – action, drama, sci-fi, kids, documentaries. In actuality, most of the “darker shows” are still found on pay cable/sat, not streaming.

          • Dan King

            You are probably right, but streaming shows do have more freedom than broadcast

        • DC Forever

          You specifically said, “people are saying it is more line with Ron’s Battlestar.”

          OK, was this just fan conjecture on a web site you were on? Or was it from an inside source like the production team? Can you please provide a link?

          This is a major claim you are making here, so I am sure you will want to provide the source to all of us fans here. Thanks!

    • Pedro Ferreira

      Great, just what we need (rolls eyes).

  • Fiery Little One

    I think I would have been surprised if it was said that Discovery wasn’t going to have some presence at SDCC.

  • Dan King

    Why does Avery Brooks never do any of these actor panels?

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      OK, you are Michael — you just outed yourself.

      Michael was always taking potshots at poor Avery Brook’s health, bitching about him not be at cons, etc. It’s way too much of a coincidence that out of the blue, you bring up Avery Brooks here.

      Go away, troll. You were banned from this site.

      • Dan King

        What are you taking about? I said nothing negative about Mr. Brooks at all. I am just wondering why he never attends the panels. I am assuming he is frequently invited, and I am sure the money offered is good.

        I think Mr. Brooks was phenomenal as Captian Sisko and would love to hear his thoughts on various Star Trek shows – including his.

        It’s been funny, but you really need to stop all of this “Michael” stuff. It’s getting annoying and borderline trolling. Please stop harassing people. Can you stick with the topic at hand, Star Trek?

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          So you claim….

          • We have asked you to stop this, The Science Fiction Oracle. You will not be asked again.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            No problem, I will not post further on this topic. I will leave it in your hands to carefully monitor if banned individuals are returning. I’ve presented my case on this one for your to consider and monitor, and I will now shut up on this — I promise.

          • Dan King

            Sorry I had to flag the posts, it was getting to harassment. 🙁

            Let’s start over and talk about Star Trek!!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I’ve alerted Trekcore on what I think is going on here — I’ll leave it at that.

            Sure, we can talk Star Trek.

          • Dan King

            Please stop with this harassment. Nothing is “going on here” except for the fact you keep attacking me thinking I am someone else. You must think TrekCore is stupid, don’t you think they could tell if I was who you accuse me of being?

            Move on man and yes, let’s talk Star Trek

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Sorry, not taking the bait.

            Let’s talk Star Trek please.

          • Dan King

            Not baiting. Glad you have chosen to move on, a wise decision based on what TrekCore told you recently.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Enjoy your temporary “victory lap.” I am taking the long view on this.

            Let’s now finally talk Star Trek please.

          • Dan King

            I am going to suggest something to TrekCore that will facilitate more discussion

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Here’s an honest Star Trek fan question for you — can you please provide the web site of the fan forum that provides the information on discussion on the beheadings, about the series being like Battlestar Galactica, etc. A number of people here keep asking you for a link — it would be cool for you to be able to share that and allow the fan community here at Trekcore to see the source of all these posts of yours about this showing being darker and more adult?

            Can you please share a link now or a web site name?

          • Dan King

            Sure, I actively post on the well known The Trek BBS

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Thanks.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I’ll tell you what, yea, I guess I over-reached and am most likely wrong on your identify.

            Can you perhaps see from my point-of-view (and I am not the only one here) how with the timing of you showing up a week after Michael was banned, with very similar rapid fire posting and some harsh comments towards others (as you have just admitted), how easily it might be for some of to wonder if you got a new router, email address and Discuss account and we thought you were “the return of Michael?” That Michael dude was a class 1 a-hole, and the worst thing that bothered many of us what that he made up like he had inside sources on the Discovery production team, which we later exposed as fraudulent. And then you show up, and immediately start with claims that sound kind of like Michael’s regarding the action/violence thing — which now you have made clear is fan conjecture, which is fine.

            With that, I offer my apology as well. Sorry!

          • Dan King

            I did not see the posts of Michael very much before I decided to register. I used to read the news stories and gloss over the comments. I can’t find any comments by a Michael so I can’t judge the account myself. I think you are trustworthy so I will take what you say as true. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they show me otherwise.

            EDIT: I will add that disagreement is inevitable beteeen fans. Everyone has their own likes and tastes. It’s ok to disagree without being savage and hateful to each other.

          • DC Forever

            I believe when Trekcore cancelled Michael’s Disqus access, all of his previous posts were automatically deleted.

          • Eskay

            This Dan person does write here in the same way and with a lot of the same content as Michael. If I was in Vegas, my bet would be they are one and the same. So he may have defeated your canceling of his site access.

          • Dan King

            What are your thoughts on Avery Brooks and his lack of participation on the various Captain discussions at Cons? Mr. Brooks is a very intelligent man and he must have some great insight on Discovery.

          • Eskay

            I was not addressing you. I was addressing the moderators. Do you not understand how “Reply” works?

            And I would still make that bet.

          • Dan King

            Thank you.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      He does on occasion.

      • Dan King

        Does he have any upcoming dates?

        • Pedro Ferreira

          I don’t keep up to date on that type of thing.

  • StarGate

    Do we even consider these Kirk fanboys part of the overall franchise anymore? How many origin stories do they want???
    What a mess.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Hi Charley!

  • Charley Coleman

    Question: Do we even consider these Kirk fanboys part of the overall franchise anymore? Why are they running the show and oblitorating Star Trek with our continued good will? How many origin stories do they want before they naff off?

    I’m so exhausted with it. I’m sick of it. I’m starting to hate it. I never cared for it in the first place and now it’s in my face all of the time.
    Guess I should just not like star trek. own goal.

    I’m tired of expecting something new.
    Is their intention to make everyone hate the guts of star trek, or do they not even know they are doing it?

    What is their excuse for this constant TOS fixation?

    What a damned mess. It’s never going to end.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Congrats on just joining Disqus tonight — and this is your first post as well!

      And coincidentally, we get another Discovery hate post. Wow, what are the chances of that? Spock says: 4,809,598.35 to 1.

      • Charley Coleman

        Oh would you give this obsession with 1960’s a rest already? Just how many people do you belive want to actually watch that?

      • Charley Coleman

        Interesting diversion from the conversation… but back to
        reality…..

        where are the TNG, VOY, DS9 and ENT fans backing up your
        conclusion? In spite of my best efforts, with 38,410 YouTube subscribers, 14
        have come forward. I’ve given a huge degree of leeway on both sides, remaining
        as impartial as possible. I can’t find any validity in the claims of the hard
        core fans who frequent hard core star trek websites and BBS.

        How long must this charade of laughter go on?

      • Charley Coleman

        I would however ask that you let it go on for at least 17 mins, I have to go to town with a Rustlers Flame Grilled BBQ Rib

    • Dan King

      This is not a Kirk origin story. What are you taking about? It’s set 10 years before Kirk and is on a completely different ship.

  • Charley Coleman

    One can’t
    help but to raise serious issues with “Star Trek Discovery” as new information presents itself.

    Firstly, it doesn’t take a high intellect to appreciate that it’s set for TOS
    fans, and I struggle to see any information thus far that contradicts that.

    I’d gladly debate anyone who could provide even 3rd hand evidence to
    show that “Discovery” provides any continuity for life-long fans of “Star Trek
    The Next Generation”, For fans of “Star Trek Deep Space Nine”, fans of “Star Trek Voyager”, or indeed anyone who has previously worked extensively within the franchise.

    In fact, “Discovery” appears to categorically remove, by design, any continuity
    for the majority of the fandom of the “Star Trek” franchise, systematically disregarding
    people who have invested huge portions of their lives in to creating “Star Trek”,
    and essentially sitting on the sideline while their work is being pissed upon.

    I genuinely fail to understand how “Discovery” has arrived at this point.

    I can only guess that perhaps it’s not designed for Star Trek fans at all, but
    instead using the intellectual property CBS quite rightly owns as nothing more
    than a platform to launch it’s obscure sub-par video streaming service to
    bolster the returns of it’s shareholders.

    On that basis, and in support of various stakeholders, friends and extremely talented professionals, that NeonVisual Ltd stands with others in preservation of not being rewritten by the current journey of CBS and Star Trek Discovery.

  • Dan King

    Second extended trailer is supposed to drop at Comic Con, with the first peek at the actual USS Discovery from direct footage from the first episode. Space scene.

    Avoid Comic Con news if you want to wait to see Discovery at the premier

  • Dan King

    FOR THE STAFF OF TREK CORE!!

    I have a suggestion for the site. Many people enjoy posting on the news stories you put up. Like this one! I am suggesting to put up retrospectives to facilitate targeted discussion for everyone who posts in the news stories.

    I suggest you start with Star Trek: The Motion Picture! A writer at TrekCore, or a guest writer fan approved and invited by TrekCore, could come up with a retrospective on the movie.

    I have no idea if this has been done yet, but it would be awesome and easy for fans to discuss specific movies, without cluttering up other news stories. What do you guys think?

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      SOMETHING WE AGREE ON — GREAT IDEA !!!

  • Dan King

    Who is confirmed to be at ComicCon?

  • Pedro Ferreira

    Do you think they’ll actually clarify whether it’s supposed to be set in the Prime timeline or Kelvin timeline since the trailer looks exactly like the Kelvin timeline when that’s not when it’s supposed to be set?

    • Dan King

      They have stated it is in the prime timeline multiple times. The artistic style has simply been updated since the 1960’s show. It would be absurd to use the same sets and props from the 60’s.

      I am not a fan of the Kelvin-ish style, but I am willing to watch it and hope I enjoy it.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        Stylistically the whole show looks confused. Would be better off set in the Kelvin timeline and leave it at that.

        • Dan King

          Perhaps you are confused? The show looks consistent throughout the trailer.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Yes it does if it’s the Kelvin timeline!

          • Dan King

            They said it was the prime timeline. I don’t see the problem here at all. You come off as bashing the show and having sour grapes for the show not looking like previous shows.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            The thing is it doesn’t look anything like the Prime timeline so yeah it’s confusing. Now if it was set in the Kelvin timeline then it would make sense.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            TMP in 1979 didn’t look anything like TOS Prime timeline (yet was suppose to take place only 3 years after the end of the give year mission), and Enterprise bore little resemblance to what I was expecting to see in a pre-TOS Prime timeline. So if you are going to make this argument, then you must be similarly critical of TMP and all the TOS movies, as well as Enterprise.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Except this isn’t set in the future is it? It’s set in the past! If it was set in the Kelvin timeline it would still be awful but at least visually make sense. This doesn’t.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Again, if you are making this argument, then you need to accept that Enterprise was much worse in terms of this case you are making here.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            The whole point of Enterprise is that that ship represented the very first starship, of course it ain’t going to look like it comes just before Kirk! hy would you even think that?

            You can’t honestly sit there with a straight face and say Discovery is more faithful to canon than Enterprise, at least not without winding me up.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            The point was they had multiple designs of previous Enterprises “ready to go” from the paintings of the previous Enterprises shown on the wall on the Enterprise in TMP, which made their way into the Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology book as well — THOSE WERE CANON given they appeared in TMP. There was no reason to re-invent a new ship for the Enterprise series — they already had a couple options to pick from which were rubber stamped by Gene Rodenberry himself.

            Not only that, but if you look at the ship designs in the Spaceflight Chronology book Sternbach and the Bernstein did their homework in showing the evolution of starships up to TOS Enterprise, and the NX-01 would not fit into that design timeline at all.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “THOSE WERE CANON given they appeared in TMP.” Did they appear in Star Trek references books?

            “And the NX-01 just looks like shit; there is that to consider as well.” In your opinion of course, some would disagree. I think the Discovery ship looks ‘like shit’. Again some would agree or disagree with me.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Make up you mind? The Kelvin look from the JJ movies looks very modern in terms of special effects quality, whether you like the universe look or not, but yet in your other post you said it looks like 1990’s special effects.

            Which is it???

          • Dan King

            Good catch

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I never said the trailer for Discovery looked like it had 90s visual effects.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “So why does it look worse than something produced in the 90s?”

            “The 2009 reboot movies had poor CGI, poor design and physics, mostly poor everything. That lens flare will date the film faster than the stuff we got in the late 80s, early 90s. If anything we were spoiled back in the 90s. Today everything is desaturated, blurry visuals and uninspiring costume or set design.”

            “I mean the Enterprise looked most of the time like plastic flying through space. The whole picture was always really blurry when there were visual effects”

            You were saying?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Again you’ve just proved I never said the effects in the 90s shows looked like Discovery. You’re very good at taking my quotes and putting a spin on them. I thought you were good with accuracy and interpretation, being a convention guy? You are ASSUMING. Never assume.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            While I will agree you didn’t directly say, “that looks like 90’s special effects,” you’ve said multiple things that collectively sure sound like you think the trailer looks like 90’s special effects, and I do remember you recently posting I believe something on the lines of Babylon 5 (90’s show) having better looking effects than the trailer?

            If it flies like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it’s probably a duck.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “you’ve said multiple things that collectively sure sound like you think the trailer looks like 90’s special effects.” In you mind yes, NOT IN REALITY!!!

          • DC Forever

            You sure as heck inferred it.

        • Cabo 5150

          The show looks like a 2017 production.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            So why does it look worse than something produced in the 90s?

          • Cabo 5150

            It’ doesn’t, the production design and digital grading thus far shown is top notch – absolutely beautiful.

            Perhaps you saw a different trailer to me, but “the look” presented in DSC is an extremely welcome departure from 90’s “beige bland Trek” as it were.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Whatever you say mate. Meanwhile in the ‘real’ world…

          • Cabo 5150

            Oh dear – it’a a difference of opinion, Pedro.

            There was no need to adopt such a sarcastic tone – people can have contrasting viewpoints you know. Neither of us is right or wrong.

            Instead of your dismissive and caustic use of the term “mate” to address me – and an acerbic commentary reference my non “real world” opinion, you could have just expanded on why you feel DSC looks like a 90’s show.

            I’m going to retain my dignity and refrain from responding to you in kind, as it’s extremely non-productive and there’s been far too much of it on this site lately.

            I wish you all the best.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Sorry but I just don’t understand how you think what you saw in the trailer is better than what we’ve previously got. I mean even the colour saturation in the trailer looks off. Listen you’re entitled to your opinion but I can’t figure out how anybody could like what we’ve so far been presented.

          • Dan King

            I can’t figure out how anybody could dislike what they have been presented so far.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            It looks terrible! I mean if you like the JJ Abrams movies cool but this isn’t the style they should have gone with. It’s awful.

          • Dan King

            What style should they have gone with then?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Maybe something that makes logical sense to what’s gone before? Too much to ask?

          • Cabo 5150

            Well, I actually said it was a welcome departure – something different to the bright, overtly beige version of Trek we got in the 90’s.

            I feel I’m always repeating myself, but I am a big fan of TNG et al – but I do feel much of Berman era Trek suffered from a kind of “creeping blandness” in the production design, the editing, the by the numbers blocked out camera angles – and, the horrible, horrible “muzak” directive that crept in from late S4 TNG.

            I guess your incredulity at my appreciation for the design of DSC comes down to nothing more than personal taste, Pedro. That has always been, and always will be, the nature of human opinion.

            Again, no one is right or wrong when it comes to the subjective appraisal of any artistic endeavour.

            One man’s art is another man’s garbage and all that…

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I agree with your last few paragraphs. I’m glad you like the new show.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “I can’t figure out how anybody could like what we’ve so far been presented.”

            Maybe you would understand if you started to realize, “hey in looking at Trekcore every week, it certainly does seem like the majority of people posting on Trekcore do like the trailer, even I don’t”

          • Pedro Ferreira

            We’ve already had two Star Trek prequels so I’m guessing the fans that are looking forward to Discovery are desperate for a third prequel? Kind of doesn’t make sense to me.

            Also yeah we all have differing viewpoints and ok it’s another prequel but I don’t get the impression yet anybody on this show understands the universe of Star Trek. Every decision which shows in the trailer sounds terrible.

          • Dan King

            Pedro is probably bitter because he wanted a Voyager relaunch or something.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I do think from past discussions with him that he was really hoping for a more “Berman 2.0” type of show. Nothing wrong with that, but he is just so one-sided, all-is-bad on this, that it makes him look foolish and detracts from his otherwise right as a fan to be critical.

          • Dan King

            The amazing thing is the author of the Voyager relaunch novels is a writer on the Discovery staff!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Good point!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            That’s just silly. Obviously, it does not. You said itself that it looked like JJ-Trek, which is very modern, if you don’t like it.

            When you contradict even your own opinions, plus insist that “every single thing” sucks, you really make yourself look moronic. I’m not calling you that, but I am saying you are behaving like that.

            How do you expect people to take you seriously?

          • Dan King

            He is seriously comparing it to Babylon-5 lol
            On a side note, perhaps Pedro is simply trolling? I can see his posts unlike Michael and Pedro might be trolling?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Looks like Trekcore removed all traces of Micheal’s existence from the site…like he never existed…wow!

          • Dan King
          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Yep, he’s just trolling. His posts are like reading Trump Twitter feeds.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I haven’t contradicted myself or maybe I just wasn’t clear. JJ-Trek really does date as well so while it might look modern now it’ll age far worse than the stuff from the 90s. Discovery looks the same. People can take me seriously if they choose to but really from what I’ve seen so far looks inferior.

          • DC Forever

            The first JJ movie was nominated for two VFX Academy Awards , one for Special Effects and one for Makeup (which it won).

            So the VFX peers who are Academy members that highly regarded that Kelvin movie’s VFX are wrong, but you, a random guy posting on a web site, are right?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Exactly!

            Seriously who cares what awards it got, the effects were bad. I mean the Enterprise looked most of the time like plastic flying through space. The whole picture was always really blurry when there were visual effects so yeah I would say I am right.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Now you really are just trolling. Dan was right.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            As I’ve mentioned before you need glasses if you think the visual effects in the reboot movies is good. Who cares what ‘top’ awards it wins. It’ll date faster than a pot of yogurt.

            And no you can’t keep whining that I’m trolling because you don’t know what else to say. Have nothing good to say to me? Don’t say it! My thread remember?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            No. LOL

          • Pedro Ferreira

            LOL yes!

          • DC Forever

            Nope

          • Eskay

            But you are trolling on this. Of course the Academy Awards, which are voted on by the leaders in the film industry, matter, especially in the more objective technical areas like this.

            Stop being such a dunce.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I am not trolling and you’re being the dunce. Rubbish gets awards, you don’t seriously think just good films get awards do you? Are you that naive?

          • DC Forever

            Nope, you are both trolling and behaving like a dunce.

          • Dan King
          • DC Forever

            Well said!

          • Dan King
          • DC Forever

            And this for Pedro:

            “Once you start down the moron path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will.”

          • DC Forever

            The only blurry thing his is your vision as you suck down beers as you type this drunken banter.

          • Cabo 5150

            For me, Berman Trek has already aged really, really badly. I feel I must advise I am not making that statement as a slight.

            Although the majority of it aired in the 90’s, the production design, the hairstyles, the costumes, the shooting techniques and just the overall aesthetic and tone of the show screams 1980’s!

            Example, a fluffy haired therapist with a seat on the bridge – EIGHTIES!!

            Again, don’t get me wrong, Troi is actually one of my favourite characters on TNG (and I know that’s not a widely held opinion), but a counsellor on the bridge? Get out of here!

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I never understand the whole criticism of having Troi on the bridge as being an 80s thing. That always sounded silly to me. The production design doesn’t in the least bit today look outdated at all. It’s just TV looks crap today. The 2009 reboot movies had poor CGI, poor design and physics, mostly poor everything. That lens flare will date the film faster than the stuff we got in the late 80s, early 90s. If anything we were spoiled back in the 90s. Today everything is desaturated, blurry visuals and uninspiring costume or set design. Again my opinion but a view held by fans.

          • Cabo 5150

            The whole therapist craze is mired in the 80’s IMO, hence putting one on the bridge in an 80’s show. For me, having one on the bridge at all is more than “silly”.

            The Kelvin Timeline films (they are not, in fact, reboots) display state of the art CG renderings that are about as good as it’s possible to achieve IMHO – especially the first two. I’m curious, could you give an example of “poor physics” – and provide an explanation of exactly why it’s so?

            While we’re at it, could you give an example of what, in your opinion, is “good CG” and why it is qualitatively “better” than the KT movies.

            Today everything is desaturated

            Well, perhaps you could have a word with Michael Bay, or any number of other filmmakers producing eyeball scorching, high contrast, “teal and orange” movies. Hardly “desaturated”!

            Yes, it’s your opinion, and it may be held by some fans, but that statement is in itself a subjective opinion unless you can link to definitive evidence.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “whole therapist craze is mired in the 80’s IMO, hence putting one on the bridge in an 80’s show.” Never got the issue so not a problem for me.

            “The Kelvin Timeline films (they are not, in fact, reboots)” Yes they are, they take place in an alternate universe hence the Kelvin timeline.

            “state of the art CG renderings that are about as good as it’s possible to achieve ” They need to do better.

            “could you give an example of “poor physics” – and provide an explanation of exactly why it’s so?” Even before the films were released the guys behind the previous ships hated what Jar Jar Abrahams did. They said there’s no proper physics or logic behind the designs. They were made just to look flashy. Hard to disagree. Even the most ardent fan will agree the Enterprise in the reboot movies is totally underpowered. A fly could hit the Enterprise and it would tear apart.

            “in your opinion, is “good CG” and why it is qualitatively “better” than the KT movies.” Good CG? Films that don’t rely on CG effects and use models. More CG means less quality, means worse effects. Simple common sense.

            “Well, perhaps you could have a word with Michael Bay, or any number of other filmmakers producing eyeball scorching, high contrast, “teal and orange” movies. Hardly “desaturated”!” Not saying the reboot movies are only guilty of this but then what about setting a standard eh? No harm in Star Trek doing that.

            Here’s the difference:

            TMP – Nemesis – good quality contrast picture
            2009 – Beyond – blurry desaturated picture

            There’s a difference as to how colour is presented, i.e. the set of films do it more competently.

            “but that statement is in itself a subjective opinion unless you can link to definitive evidence.” There is no definitive evidence, same as people giving awards for visual effects like that DC guy below mentioned. It’s all subjective and based on what we know. You could even argue there is no right or wrong answer as to what good CG or physics are in movies.

            Personally movies today date worse than movies made decades ago. That’s the problem with CG. Probably doesn’t help Hollywood is obsessed with using those awful Alexa cameras that have problems acknowledging daylight and colour.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “state of the art CG renderings that are about as good as it’s possible to achieve ” They need to do better.

            Nope. NOMINATED FOR ACADEMY AWARD. Nuff said

            “2009 – Beyond – blurry desaturated picture”

            NO — CRYSTAL CLEAR

            “They said there’s no proper physics or logic behind the designs.”

            The Enterprise is the same basic design. I have no clue what you are talking about.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “Nope. NOMINATED FOR ACADEMY AWARD. Nuff said” So? The effects in The Farce Awakens were nominated for Academy Awards, that film had awful effects as well so what’s your point?

            “The Enterprise is the same basic design. I have no clue what you are talking about.” Of course I don’t. I offer evidence someone said and you conveniently ignore it because you can’t admit I’m right. Can’t say I’m surprised.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “Of course I don’t.”

            Thank you for admitting that.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “Thank you for admitting that.” I’m guessing you don’t understand sarcasm as well as logic then? Ha, ha!

            “because that movie used ton’s of models and real sets, and full spaceship mock-ups, more than any other recent big budget sf movie” It used more CGI then people want to admit. For all the talk of wanting to do everything practically they really didn’t do it that much so please don’t say I’m contracting myself when you clearly are making stuff up.

          • DC Forever

            Prodigal is right — you are contradicting yourself.

            And Dan is right as well — you are a troll.

          • Dan King
          • DC Forever

            Dan, LOL, yep

          • DC Forever

            Hey dufas — the Enterprise in the Kelvin movies is in fact basically the same design as TMP and TOS Enterprises.

          • Cabo 5150

            The KT movies are not reboots, they take place in an alternate timeline which is created as a direct consequence of actions taken in the prime timeline.

            The KT is an alternate timeline/reality no different than any of the others created in numerous episodes before it.

            The Prime and the KT timelines are all part of same “multiverse” and actually share chracters, events and continuity – Spock Prime and his “flasback” to the Prime with Kirk.

            A reboot would be something like Ronald D. Moore’s Battlestar Galactica.

            Please explain why the physics is wrong – don’t just quote other poeple. Your comment reference “Jar Jar Abrams” really doesn’t help your position or this discussion by the way. I thought we’d gotten past taunting and childishness here.

            Reference your comparisons – I see you’ve elected to leave both ST’09 and STID out, while singling Beyond out as beng “blurry” – the only one of the KT movies shot on digital.

            I do feel Beyond certainly isn’t as “vibrant” as the other 12 films, and it does have that somewhat more “flat” feel as opposed to celluloid IMHO.

            But “blurry” – not at all.

            As always, you are entitled to your opinions.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “they take place in an alternate timeline which is created as a direct consequence of actions taken in the prime timeline.” That’s why it’s seen as a reboot. You can’t honestly say then it’s a sequel.

            “he KT is an alternate timeline/reality not particularly different to any other shown in numerous Prime episodes before it.” Erm wha?! The physics are off most of the time!

            “A reboot would be something like Ronald D. Moore’s Battlestar Galactica.” Like the 2009 movie onwards yep.

            “there is no “good” CG rendering at all in any movie – and only models will suffice – right? And it’s “simple common sense”.” I didn’t say no good CGI at all. I’m saying most CGI movies today have mostly bad effects.

            “Please explain why the physics is wrong – don’t just quote other people who “hate” what was done [citation please]. Why would “a fly tear it apart”?” Well because the director was trying to make Star Wars, not Star Trek. Everything pre-2009 had some logic to it, everything post-2009 is done just for the fun with no idea of reality. Yeah I’ll quote other people because they’re relevant to this discussion. No citation needed, you can google their complaints. The Enterprise is totally underpowered in the reboot movies. Did you see the films? They brake apart in every film!

            “Your comment reference “Jar Jar Abrams” really doesn’t help your position or this discussion by the way. I thought we’d gotten past taunting and childishness here” Am I offending you personally? He deserves that nickname anyway.

            “But a lot of that is probably a directorial choice in the digital grading.” As I’ve said most films today are either digitally saturated or shot with those awful Alexa cameras. The films today look awful. The trailer from the new series looks awful because it has the same blurry picture picture quality whenever CGI is present.

            Yes of course, the projectionist had a bad day every THREE days I went to see these films. (shakes head).

          • Cabo 5150

            Yes, it’s seen as reboot by some fans – but they are factually incorrect.

            No, the KT is part of the same multiverse and shared continuity as the Prime, it is not a reboot like BSG. I have clearly explained why, but you have thus far not forwarded an explanation demonstrating why they are “reboots”.

            Parroting the same statement over and over sans any explanation doesn’t make it so, Pedro – no matter how much you want it. Again, you are simply factually incorrect.

            OK, if you don’t actually explain why the physics “are off most of the time” I’m going to assume you don’t know what you’re talking about and are simply repeating baseless and meaningless claims. Essentially, because you’ve been called out on them and are just plain unable to offer up even a half credible hypothesis to support them.

            Once again, please give me an explanation of why “a fly would tear through the KT Enterprise – and not any of the Prime’s – and now, why the the physics “is off” reference the KT reality.

            No, Pedro, you are making the claims reference quotes from production staff on previous Star Trek films “hating” the what’s been executed in the KT, and the burden of proof is incumbent on you. It is not up to me to “prove a negative”.

            So, once again, links please. If you are unable to supply them, your claims are rendered completely null and void, and frankly, I’m going to call outright bullshit on them.

            Merely repeating claims reference the “incorrect physics” ad nauseam is utterly meaningless if you are completely unable to demonstrate those claims even the slightest. Without wishing to be rude – you’re coming over as more than a little ineffectual in your ability to engage in a rational discussion.

            No, you’re not offending me, but calling Abrams “Jar Jar” is unbelievably childish, unoriginal, and has nothing to do with the debate – and, frankly – demonstrates your clear frustration at having your arguments deconstructed intellectually. Ad hominem attacks, at Abrams in this case, only serve to substantially weaken your own position to the point where it’s difficult to take you seriously.

            It borders on trolling.

            You’re saying the picture resolution of the KT films, and indeed, “most” modern films are “blurry”. What, in comparison to TWOK for instance? I think we probably both know you’ve backed yourself into a corner on this issue. If anything, the perceived resolution of modern movies in terms of sharpness and clarity is considerably higher than older films.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “I have clearly explained why, but you have thus far not forwarded an explanation demonstrating why they are “reboots”.” They are reboots and are referred so as such by everybody. An alternate timeline allows them to just start again therefore, ergo, etc it’s a reboot. I mean what would you call it if you don’t think it’s a reboot? A sequel?!

            “Parroting the same statement over and over sans any explanation doesn’t make it so, Pedro – no matter how much you want it. Again, you are simply factually incorrect.” I’m parroting what everybody thinks. Not my fault you’re unclear as to what a reboot movie is.

            “if you don’t actually explain why the physics “are off most of the time” I’m going to assume you don’t know what you’re talking about and are simply repeating baseless and meaningless claims.” If you have been taking the time to read what I’ve been typing here then you’ll see that for all intents and purposes the reboot movies don’t have proper physics. The ships aren’t designed for proper physics as called out my the VFX guys on the previous shows. The physics of what the ship can do makes NO SENSE because Abrahams was going for Star Wars, not Star Trek for those movies. My points aren’t meaningless. What is meaningless is you trying to tell me the reboot movies aren’t reboot movies when they clearly are.

            “Once again, please give me an explanation of why “a fly would tear through the KT Enterprise – and not any of the Prime’s – and now, why the the physics “is off” reference the KT reality.” Three film and the ship tears apart. How many of the original films did the ship tear apart really easily? What about the TV show? Three movies and the Enterprise breaks really easily. It’s underpowered. Re-watch the movies with your eyes open next time!

            “No, Pedro, you are making the claims reference quotes from production staff on previous Star Trek films “hating” the what’s been executed in the KT, and the burden of proof is incumbent on you. It is not up to me to “prove a negative” What the hell you going on about? Google those VFX crew, they hated the Enterprise designs for the reboot movies. You think I’m making this up?!

            “If you are unable to supply them, your claims are rendered completely null and void, and frankly, I’m going to call outright bullshit on them.” Ok, call them outright bullshit then all because you are lazy and can’t use Google. Good on you, what a pointless conversation this is with you.

            “Without wishing to be rude – you’re coming over as more than a little ineffectual in your ability to engage in a rational discussion.” Blah blah blah let’s ignore what Pedro types and read what we want to read because that makes sense right? And yes you are being rude! You are incapable of rational discussion because you have trouble understanding the movies you claim to be a fan of!

            “and, frankly – demonstrates your clear frustration at having your arguments deconstructed intellectually.” Blah blah blah, whine whine whine, Pedro is winning the argument…

            “Ad hominem attacks, at Abrams in this case, only serve to substantially weaken your own position to the point where it’s difficult to take you seriously.” I have a position? Hyperbole much Cabo? Am I supposed to be in power or something mate? Ha, ha!

            “It borders on trolling.” Trolling is blind faith in what you’re watching, then making up excuses because you can’t think of a way to disprove something.

            “What, in comparison to TWOK for instance?” No because there’s a difference? TWOK wasn’t digitally saturated or filmed with Alexa cameras!!! I mean come on man, you’re not even trying to understand. Your winding me up now by playing dumb.

            “I think we probably both know you’ve backed yourself into a corner on this issue.” Ha, ha! Are you a Star Trek comedian? That was very funny.

            “the perceived resolution of modern movies in terms of sharpness and clarity is considerably higher than older films.” YT is your friend i.e. you are totally wrong. But since talking to Cabo is like talking to a brick wall…

          • DC Forever

            You bring up the Harve Bennett movies. You do realize that the hokey Protomatter and Katras were hallmarks of those movies, right? Silly plot devices that violated the laws of physics.

          • DC Forever

            “Everything pre-2009 had some logic to it, everything post-2009 is done just for the fun with no idea of reality. ”

            Well then, please explain Protomatter and Katras to me then? LOL

          • Dan King

            “Jar Jar Abrahams”

            Yea…. and I don’t think I will ever take you seriously again. You just want to complain for the sake of complaining.

            You do entertain me though. Keep going.

          • DC Forever

            WTF? Get real.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I am real. None of what I saw in the trailer looked real.