Star Trek: Discovery executive producer Alex Kurtzman weighed in on the upcoming first season of Trek‘s TV relaunch, with a new video interview with CNET on Sonequa Martin-Green’s character Michael Burnham, and the show’s place in Trek canon.

The story that we have for Season One is really interesting and special – and I think pays tribute to a lot of what Trek has done, and in many ways is doing it in a new way. To have Sonequa and Michelle [Yeoh] as captains [sic] of our ship is really, really exciting and different.

I love stories that are based around strong women, and we have some very strong women on that show. Having Sonequa – she’s a very special, very very special actress – bringing a flavor to the character that I feel like I really haven’t actually seen in Trek, and that’s really really exciting.

Her story is very unique and draws on some really interesting things in Trek lore – I think fans will both appreciate [it] and I’m certain [her story] will be the cause of much debate.

With all the pre-series promotion emphasizing her role in the first officer position, it’s doubtful Kurtzman is revealing a promotion for Michael Burnham here, more likely (as our friends at TrekMovie note) he’s referring to the actresses as company leads among the cast.

He also spoke to the weighty issue of Star Trek canon, and fitting the story into the franchise’s vast history – and while it’s been long-established that Discovery takes place in the Prime Timeline (where William Shatner plays Jim Kirk, rather than Chris Pine), Kurtzman details the importance of knowing the backstory of each universe.

You’ve got a room full of people with very different and very devoted relationships to ‘Star Trek’ in that writers’ room – and I think that carries on a pretty proud tradition of ‘Trek’ being written by fans.

You have to respect canon as it’s been written, you know; you can’t say ‘That never happened!’ ‘Star Trek’ fans will kill you! [laughs]

You have to understand the timelines and what the different timelines were, and what the different universes were; how they all work together. You have to keep very meticulous track of who, when, where, and why – and we have people in the room whose sole job is to say ‘No!’ [raises hand] ‘You can’t do that!’

Echoing the sentiments of former showrunner Bryan Fuller, Kurtzman also emphasized the connection to the TOS era of Trek, with connections in the new show to previously-established 23rd Century history.

If you’re a fan of Trek, you’re going to see a lot of things that hearken back to the Original Series, and elements of the Original Series – I’m not just talking plot, I mean the spirit of what that show was.

We’re going to be revisiting a couple things on ‘Discovery’ that I think people will find familiar; without spoiling anything I think we are adhering to a timeline and sticking to the rules, but also finding some new areas and avenues of exploration that have only been alluded to, and never fully explored.

We’ll know more about the show when it debuts in September.

  • archer923

    That’s to be seen.

  • M33

    I pray pray pray that this is true.

    • Dan King

      The trailer sort of proves it’s wrong..

      • TUP

        Except it doesn’t.

  • Mo

    “Much debate” will take various forms, as hidebound fans who each expect to be given a pony will demand more and more familiar details while ignoring the quality of the stories being told.

    • Justin Olson

      Well, as far as storytelling quality is concerned, if Nicholas Meyer can’t deliver with this particular premise, then none of the other writers on staff can. We’ll know by hour two whether the show is worth a damn.

      • DC Forever

        Agreed.

      • Mo

        That’s a pretty broad statement covering an entire writing staff, and a pretty narrow window for improvement. Especially considering it took, say, TNG over a year to become worth a damn, to name one example.

        And neither has much to do with fans who only want to see familiar details.

        • pittrek

          The first season of TNG was great with a few exceptions

          • Mo

            If you believe that, then you’ll probably be fine with whatever DSC turns out.

          • pittrek

            I prefer most of the first season TNG stories to anything coming from Voyager to be honest. And yes, I HOPE I will be fine with Discovery, even thought it might seem I enjoy complaining about everything.

          • Mo

            Then I’m glad we can agree about something.

        • Justin Olson

          Those fans are irrelevant and not worth discussing.

          As for Meyer, his writing ability and experience (not just with Trek) is head and shoulders above the rest of the staff, no matter how good they may be. What I really meant was that Meyer’s teleplay (which he co-wrote with Fuller) is the so-called “second pilot” where the main character finally comes aboard the U.S.S. Discovery and the show’s story (presumably) kicks into gear.

          TNG was really a different beast altogether. Not only was it episodic rather than serialized with a long, meandering 26 episode first season, the original writers were fleeing from the show left and right because Gene Roddenberry’s lawyer was committing guild violations and re-writing scripts in Roddenberry’s name!

          • Mo

            I’m not diminishing Meyer’s talent; I always want to see new work from him. But you seem to be saying he will never have any peers who can succeed him. We’ll see.

            TNG had management problems. DSC has had a few of its own. Again, we’ll see.

          • Justin Olson

            Well, I wouldn’t go that far! I’m just saying that among this particular set of writers, he has the most talent and experience, so his episode has the most potential. Fuller and Menosky are the only other ones who come close.

      • pittrek

        Well we don’t really know how much Meyer is(was) involved with the show. From what we know he wrote one episode and has just a consultant position on the show

        • Justin Olson

          Yeah, but Meyer didn’t just write some random episode, he wrote the so-called “second pilot” where the main character finally comes aboard the U.S.S. Discovery.

  • Thomas Elkins

    I’m still hoping the look of the Klingons will be explained. The more I see them, the more the theory they are ancient Klingons from a really long time ago makes more sense. That leaves room for other more traditional Klingons to appear. How the old and new Klingons interact could be interesting to see.

    • DC Forever

      We as fans should just get over our worry about the Klingons. They always change them, so we just need to accept it as a weird thing in the production of different Star Trek series and movies.

      • Thomas Elkins

        They don’t always change them. They changed from TOS to TMP and then remained consistent for 40 years. They even went so far as to explain why they changed, establishing both designs as canon. That’s why I hope this “new” look is given an explanation. Their aesthetic is clearly ancient and it looks like they’re near a black hole in some of those EVA scenes. Long lost Klingons displaced in time just like the Andromeda Ascendant would be interesting.

        • Bifash

          This debate has been run over on over on the comment boards, needless to say the Klingons have changed/been modified numerous times SINCE The Motion Picture, and so have not “remained consistent for 40 years”.

          • Thomas Elkins

            Examples please, because I recall Klingon tech, ships and even armor remaining mostly unchanged across all series post-TMP. Different ridge designs don’t count either as that is an example of diversity. It’s not the same as how their appearance completely changed in DSC.

          • Lee O.

            TOS – Season 1: Klingons are dark skinned humanoids that are napoleonic dictators. Technology level about the same as Federation.
            TOS – Season 2: Klingons are light-skinned and seem pretty much like humans and can even be comic relief (Trouble with Tribbles)
            TOS – Season 3: Dark skinned again, first hint of a Samurai-esque honor.

            So in TOS alone they were three different incarnations of them.

          • SpaceCadet

            The Klingons in the third film behaving like humans? Really? How is destroying a starship, murdering one of your subordinates, and killing a prisoner in order for your enemy to accept your conditions supposed to be behaving like humans in the 23rd century?

          • Lee O.

            I didn’t say 23rd century humans. I meant more like In TOS where they behave like (barbaric) humans. In contrast to the Norse/Feudal-Japan-esque culture we see in TNG.

          • Thomas Elkins

            I already said ridge design doesn’t count as “changes” because it only demonstrates diversity. Klingons naturally have different ridge designs, but they are still instantly recognizable as Klingon. The DSC Klingon design is way more different than a change of ridge design. All DCS Klingons are bald, clean shaven, with large wide noses and squinty eyes. They look more like Xindi than they do Klingons.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            That hilarious. NO — TOS Klingons bear no family resemblance whatsoever to Berman era Klingons. And separately, the TMP Klingons and the JJ Klingons are both outliers from other Star Trek movie/series as well.

            Discovery is not doing anything new here.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            We get you hate Berman Star Trek, we get you’re a purist for TOS, we also don’t care…

          • DC Forever

            Have you ever had an original thought in your entire life?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Yeah I have. Have you?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            We? You and your secret friend, Lefty?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            No the fans that think you’re a complete idiot.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            All 3 of you, eh?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Ha, ha! Somehow I think there’s a lot more than that. Have your drink: https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/0*9xvLTTK5EFEBnGG5.jpg

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Finally, you provide more than just a one sentence lazy quip. I know it’s just a kids cartoon, but hey, it;s a good start for you as an attempt to include more information in your posts. I’m proud of you!

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Are you going to copy and paste your post somewhere else or is laziness just part of your character?

          • DC Forever

            Do you realize that you just responded to him again with a “one sentence lazy quip?”

            Lol, you just validated his criticism of you!

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Do you realise you’re repeating yourself? I haven’t validated any criticism, you’re just acting like your normal idiotic self again! I guess that’s what happens when you follow DC…

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “DC Forever Pedro Ferreira • 2 hours ago
            Do you realize that you just responded to him again with a “one sentence lazy quip?” Lol, you just validated his criticism of you!”

            Yea, complete validation!

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Keep trolling, I’m just waiting…

          • Pedro Ferreira

            They all look similar to me. Obviously every Klingon can’t look exactly the same due to the actor or not wanting them to look like clones but the consistency is pretty good so have to disagree here.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle
          • Pedro Ferreira

            Again you’ve proven my point about the TMP Klingons and TNG ones being exactly the same.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            LOL, again — look at the comparison. They are completely different. In fact, the Discovery Klingons actually look more like TNG Klingons, as those two Klingon types are the only ones that have the face plates. Heck, if not for the different skin color, the Discovery Klingons look like TNG Klingons with just bigger noses.

            Put on your glasses! :-))

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I bet you love that Kool-Aid eh? I hear it causes blindness.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            TMP don’t have face-plates? Like duh, look at the photos, clown.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            You understand I don’t like drinking Kool-Aid if it makes me act like you.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            What I do understand is that when you lose an argument you resort to childish trolling to try to deflect your failure.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            What I don’t understand is when you don’t get your own way you try to disprove everyone else instead of accepting a different opinion. But we know you’re a hypocrite as mentioned by others here.

          • DC Forever

            You really need to start acting more mature here and actually look at the photo comparison. It speaks for itself, and as I said earlier, I showed it to three non Trek fans here at work, and they all said that all four looked unique and different from the others.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            You need to start acting like an actual fan and not a troll, good advice to take. Also stay off the Kool-Aid eh?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Here is something on your level — enjoy.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RrWfNonLDQ

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Here’s footage from Oracle posting on Trekcore:

            https://media.giphy.com/media/KVoMJqOteskbC/giphy.gif

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Yep, four completely unique types of Klingons.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            They cannot provide clear examples.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle
          • Pedro Ferreira

            Yes we know TMP and TNG have the same designs. Your point is?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            LOL — look at the comparison. They are completely different. In fact, the Discovery Klingons actually look more like TNG Klingons, as those two Klingon types are the only ones that have the face plates. Heck, if not for the different skin color, the Discovery Klingons look like TNG Klingons with just bigger noses.

            Put on your glasses! :-))

          • Pedro Ferreira

            For someone who calls themselves Oracle you seem totally blind. Keep drinking that Kool-Aid mate.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Again, TMP Klingons don’t have face-plates? Like duh, look at the photos, clown.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            You need to look at the photos and stop acting like the hypocrite you are!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Question — which two Klingon types in the photo set have forehead plates that cover their entire forehead from side to side?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Here’s a question: when users here have dismissed your claim of the Klingons always being redesigned how do you harp on about it like a stubborn child?

          • DC Forever

            I see you are deliberately avoiding answering his question. Can’t say I’m surprised. 🙁

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I see you’re trolling again. Can’t say I’m surprised.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “DC Forever Pedro Ferreira • 2 hours ago
            I see you are deliberately avoiding answering his question. Can’t say I’m surprised. :-(”

            Yes. He refuses to man-up and answer a very straight forward question.

            Everyone reading these posts can now clearly see that he is afraid to answer my question.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Why should I answer Internet trolls?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I dare you to answer my simply question and stop avoiding it. Man up, here it is again:

            Question — which two Klingon types in the photo set have forehead plates that cover their entire forehead from side to side?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Here’s a question: when users here have dismissed your claim of the Klingons always being redesigned how do you harp on about it like a stubborn child?

          • DC Forever

            Seriously??? I just showed this showed Oracle’s photo to three people here at work who are not Trek fans, and they each said that the four Klingons all looked unique from each other with major differences. How do you explain that?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Probably all drinking the Kool Aid!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “DC Forever Pedro Ferreira • 2 hours ago
            Seriously??? I just showed this showed Oracle’s photo to three people here at work who are not Trek fans, and they each said that the four Klingons all looked unique from each other with major differences. How do you explain that?”

            YEP !

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Keep drinking that Kool-Aid!

          • pittrek

            Not really. All changes done between TMP and JJTrek were just cosmetical. The first drastic departure was in JJTrek, this is the second one.

          • Lee O.

            Then you are deluding yourself. Klingons in TMP might have the same costumes but look drastically different from both TOS and TNG-era klingons.

            Before TNG the klingons were also strongly associated with Sowjets. In TNG their Culture and behavior was drastically changed. And the subtle shift from Sowjet- to Nazi-inspired portrayal was made intentionally to make the analogy of that film to glasnost less obvious.

          • pittrek

            Different from TOS? Yes, of course. But different from post-TNG? Not really, there were changes done of course but all of them were very minimalistic, basically cosmetic. I agree with the shift in their culture, but I was talking only anout their design and nothing else

          • Lee O.

            Well, that’s where we disagree. The make-Up changes between TMP and Star Trek III were at least as big as from TNG to Into Darkness. And while VI is more subtle, it is still quite noticable. On the cosmetic changes from Star Trek III to TNG era to Enterprise being subtle, I can agree. But that still leaves the cultural shifts. 🙂

          • TUP

            Are you saying all Klingons should look alike? Do all humans look alike?

          • Lee O.

            No, not really. But there is a frame of reference that many feel has been broken. (I was trying to make the point that this frame of reference has already been through some transformations). It’s like suddenly there would be a Neanderthal whom someone would try to sell to us as a normal human.

          • Lee O.

            Something I’d like to add: I do believe that the new klingons break the mold more than the ones in Into Darkness, because of their weird light skin tone, their elongated heads and their lack of any har whatsoever. However, I do not think it is unlikely that these will not be “regular klingons” and that these quite radical changes will come with some explanation, especially when Orci stresses how they want to respect what has come before.

            That being said, Star Trek has always operated on a revisionist mind-set. If an earlier plot was in the way of a new story, then they would outright violate canon. Take TOS “The Enterprise Incident”, where they treat the cloaking technology of the Romulans as something extremely new, almost like a prototype and like they’ve never heard of it before…. except they fought a ship with a cloaking device two years earlier in “Balance of Terror”. Even on TNG, Roddenberry hat the Phaser colors changed from blue to yellow because it looked better. For a time there in the TNG era they had a fairly consistent visual language and had done a lot of world-building and made the Trek Universe feel almost as fleshed-out as Tolkien’s middle-earth and for a time it was good. But we can’t live forever in the 1990s and ultimately Star Trek isn’t about the world and the fictional future history that can never happen (since we didn’t have the Augments in 1996), but about the stories it tells in this framework that ultimately are basically ruminations on the human condition wrapped in an engaging and exciting story with – most importantly – interesting characters we can empathize with…. and that is really true for most stories worth telling.

            So if they completely revise the show in order to update the show for the current times, I can live with that and I will probably welcome this incarnation of Trek into the larger family with open arms, even if a little part in me wants everything to fit neatly together in a fictional history and is a bit disappointed that this show doesn’t aesthetically.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Exactly!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Of course they were– your post is spot-on.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            There was no shift on their culture. GR himself said that the Klingons in TMP were the more alien type of Klingons he had always intended, but that it was not possible to do that in TOS. There was no separate culture shift — this was all done because the producers wanted to update the look. The Enterprise episode simply pandered to fans and did a disservice to those of us who can separate fact from fiction with our brains.

          • DC Forever

            Kilingo heads are radically different in TMP versus Klingon heads in any other Trek production. They look more alien.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Exactly!!!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “Klingons in TMP might have the same costumes but look drastically different from both TOS and TNG-era klingons.”

            Of course they do.
            Just look at the photo and see the aline vertibrae that rounds the head, and notice no forehead plastes whastover.
            A completely different alien. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b876e9e79edb2010f4223847a48bbdae8c0c8b8c862d7223464032e9b7a12d4d.jpg

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Ah, how convenient to ignore the period between TOS and TMP. LOL

          • Snap

            You mean how YOU conveniently ignore a canon Enterprise story because you don’t like it? Quit being a hypocrite.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I assume mean the Enterprise episode that was specifically written to pander to fans who incessantly whine about how production decisions confuse their understanding of canon?

          • Lee O.

            I would also like to add, that the way the foreheads turned out in TMP were extremely grotesque in the eyes of Leonard Nimoy and distorted the actors and their expressions too much… which is why he had the make-up significalntly toned down between TMP and TSFS.

            “There was no shift on their culture. GR himself said that the Klingons
            in TMP were the more alien type of Klingons he had always intended, but
            that it was not possible to do that in TOS.”

            At least when I spoke of a cultural shift, I didn’t mean in-universe, but in their portrayal. In TNG and ENT they treat the klingon culture as if they had always been that way (Mixed Norse and Feudal Japanese-ish), when in TOS and most of the TOS movies they were basically Sowjets.

            As I said the portrayal changes and that is also part of the reason that makes Star Trek unique. While franchises like James Bond or Batman constantly reinvent themselves and basically reboot the character every few years, franchises like Star Wars on the other hand add retcons, but only add to the world and stay truly faithful to the continuity and every redesign can only be motivated by somethin within the story. Star Trek is in between these two. It constantly re-imagines itself, yet also keeps somewhat of a history and continuity intact. Some re-imaginings and redesigns are given a brief, if hamfisted, explanation (The Enterprise was refitted in TMP, the alternate timeline in Star Trek 2009), but some are just ignored and you either get frustrated because things don’t add up or you accept the changes and enjoy each new incarnation of Star Trek for what it is with its unique spin on the franchise.

          • Snap

            I agreed with you that it was stupid, not that it isn’t canon. There’s a BIG difference there. And, sad to say, you destroyed any ounce of credibility you may have had when you essentially said you ignore anything you don’t like as canon. But if you’re going to argue canon, you HAVE to accept what is presented as canon, otherwise whatever you say is worthless.

            You’re also twisting my quote to suit your argument, big surprise there, as it had nothing to do with whether a visual continuity should be maintained. When “fans” write the show, you get the cringe worthy elements on display in Enterprise season four, with Arik Soong musing that human augments wasn’t the answer, but cybernetics and that he wouldn’t finish his work in his lifetime. The only thing missing was Brent Spiner giving an over the top wink to the camera.

            Nemesis is pretty much considered the worst TNG movie, right? You know the scene with Data at the end? I saw another guy saying Data should have either just set his phaser on overload and chucked it into the core, or put it on a ledge and set it to fire automatically and then get off the Scimitar. As bad as people say Nemesis is, you cannot honestly say THAT would have been better thematically or service the movie in any way.

            Fans often think their ideas are the best thing in the world when, nine times out of ten, they’re just as bad as the stuff they are complaining about on TV. Hell, JJ Abrams is an unapologetic Star Wars fanboy and, after doing everything he could to turn Star Trek into a version of Star Wars, he made a lovingly faithful semi-rehash of A New Hope. Guess what… VISUAL CONTINUITY! More than thirty years after the original Star Wars trilogy and Episode VII looks and feels like something which belongs in that universe, yet it’s wrong for us to want something similar for Star Trek?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “Fans often think their ideas are the best thing in the world when, nine times out of ten, they’re just as bad as the stuff they are complaining about on TV. Hell, JJ Abrams is an unapologetic Star Wars fanboy and, after doing everything he could to turn Star Trek into a version of Star Wars, he made a lovingly faithful semi-rehash of A New Hope. Guess what… VISUAL CONTINUITY! More than thirty years after the original Star Wars trilogy and Episode VII looks and feels like something which belongs in that universe, yet it’s wrong for us to want something similar for Star Trek?”

            Yes, which is exactly why I keep going back to my example of TMP, dude. Gene Rodenberry himself, in TMP, just 10 years after TOS in our time, and taking place only 3.5 years in TOS universe time, gave us a movie that completely and fundamentally altered the look of the ships, the universe, the costumes, the aliens, etc. With TMP, Roddenberry himself set the precedent that Trek should always be updated and changed, UNLIKE YOUR STAR WARS example. I think Rodenberry would be amused as your way too orthodox interpretation of canon.

            Once again, inadventently, you have brought up a line of thinking that n early exactly makes the point I was trying to make, but in a more clear and unique way. THANKS!

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Yep!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            No, I don’t ignore it at all. In fact, I PROUDLY REJECT IT from canon, AND I FREELY ADMIT THAT I DO SO!

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Exactly!

          • Thomas Elkins

            You cannot honestly look at these Klingons and tell me that the DSC Klingon fits perfectly in with the rest of the Klingons from TMP, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT. He looks NOTHING like the others. There must be a canon reason for the different look and I honestly believe it’s because they’re ancient, hence the Egyptian aesthetic and the actual sarcophagus shown in the trailer. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/24ca3bea402e6245541b8fec22267db2f291bdf95238b3c69b5ceb7cb3faa827.jpg

          • TUP

            I agree. Lets wait for some context. If their intention is that these Klingons are the same as TNG era, then I will concede that it was a poor choice.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            It’s a fictional construct, and every era of Trek producers/creators, for whatever reason, like’s to retool the Klingons. Get over it.

          • Thomas Elkins

            So you’re telling me if the production staff decided this was going to be the new Enterprise in DSC you’d tell people to get over it and use their imaginations because it’s all fictional anyway? What a complete load. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b16892efe21ecef7890afea67cd68ef96270cfc79c1b9d5a168be14a0031fca8.jpg

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Yeah what Oracle is saying is a poor excuse.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Blah, blah, blah. The inept side-kick provide another meaningless once sentence quip.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Aren’t you supposed to be the resident hypocrite here?

          • DC Forever

            Lol — do you even realize you just responded to him with another one sentence quip?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Lol, do you even realise you’re not making any sense?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            And Pedro just did it again. LOL

          • Pedro Ferreira

            And Oracle is trolling again.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I am talking about the unusual example of how different eras of Star Trek production teams have repeatedly redesigned the Klingons. That unusual example is not analogous to how starships have been redesigned across Trek productions, although I suppose you could single out the NX-01 as being a pretty crappy outler if you really wanted to have that discussion.

            Kappish, Mensa?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            The Klingons for the TMP era onwards have been redesigned once man! Once! It’s only in ITD and Discovery they’ve been redesigned. Not sure how you fail to see this.

          • DC Forever

            Look at Oracle’s new photo comparison. The Klingon heads are completely different between TMP and TNG.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            No they are not!!!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “DC Forever Pedro Ferreira • 2 hours ago
            Look at Oracle’s new photo comparison. The Klingon heads are completely different between TMP and TNG.”

            E X A C T L Y !!!

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Keep trolling, you’re on a roll.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            No you see apparently all these Klingons look different so therefore lack of continuity in Discovery is okay according to some of these so called ‘fans’.

          • DC Forever

            TMP Klingons AND the Discover Klingons really stand out as different from the others here.

            So are you saying that TMP Klingons may be ancient as well given they look nothing like the others shown here?

          • Thomas Elkins

            “So are you saying that TMP Klingons may be ancient as well given they look nothing like the others shown here?”

            Open your eyes, man. The TMP Klingons look different, but they are not as different as the DSC Klingons. When TMP opens we instantly recognize the battlecruisers as the same ones from TOS, (albeit more detailed because of the larger budget), so we instantly know they are Klingon. From what we’ve seen of the Klingon vessel in DSC, it looks absolutely nothing like any Klingon vessel we’ve seen before.

            The TMP Klingons also have the same uniforms that we would continue to see over the next several decades, worn by Kurn, Gowron, Martok and many others. So while those Klingons looked slightly different, they still shared the same design aesthetic as the TMP Klingons. Again, the outfits worn by the DSC Klingons look NOTHING like anything we’ve seen before.

            Klingon forehead ridge designs have always been changed, which is what I keep hearing people say, but they’ve always been instantly recognizable as Klingons. Klingons have different ridge designs because it’s a sign of diversity. Show a TMP Klingon, or DS9 Klingon to anyone and they’d tell you they are Klingons. Find someone who hasn’t seen the DSC trailer and show them a pic of the “Klingon” and they’d have the same reaction Bashir and O’Brien had to the TOS Klingons. “Those are Klingons? What happened?”

            The reason why I think the DSC Klingons are some kind of “ancient” variation is because of everything we’ve seen in the trailer. The interior and exterior of their ship looks ancient. It has a very, heavy ancient Egyptian look too it. I mean, we literally see a mummy’s sarcophagus in the trailer. In TMP we get different Klingons, but at least there is some visual evidence to clue you in that they are Klingons. DSC doesn’t give us any of that, but what it does give us is something that looks very old. It also looks like they’re around a Black Hole, which could mean these Klingons are discovered near it, similar to how the Andromeda Ascendant was trapped in the Andromeda Series.

            So yeah, I think there is a canon reason why these guys look so different.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            TMP Klingons ALL had that unique vertebrae like appendage going completely around the centerline of their skull — this looks nothing like the warped forheads of different types from the Berman era. See the photo — it speaks for itself. This was the result of Rodenberry trying to design a more realistic alien Klingon, and they went with extending the vertebrae completly around the head of a Klingon. As to why Bennett, Berman and others abandoned this and went to a “paper mache forhead of the week” type of Klingon is beyond me. But I hope that the Discovery Kligons have a logic to their appearance as and alien being like Rodenberry designed for TMP, and don’t resort to those too human looking Klingons from the Berman era. They are suppose to be alien, for Christ’s sake. Sheesh!
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b876e9e79edb2010f4223847a48bbdae8c0c8b8c862d7223464032e9b7a12d4d.jpg

          • DC Forever

            This is extremely helpful and conclusive. I see four completely unique Klingon types here, each significantly different from the others.

            Thomas’s montage was really dark and did not show the details as yours does. Thank you for clearing this up, literally. lol

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Unlike your dimly lit montage with no detail, I present the following actual headshots from four different eras of Star Trek that clearly show huge differences in all four types. And this also shows that if your are so wedded to the paper mache forehead plates of TNG, then actually the Discovery Klingon heads look more like TNG Klingons heads than TMP Klingon heads — they keep your coveted face-plates. And I will maintain that TMP Klingons were the best ever Klingons on Trek — the unique tail to head to nose vertabrae made them look much more alien then other Trek Klingons.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9b7e54db5bc3fd62b002dbe76333ec3a00a549866ee715cb7a15f203c14080a3.jpg

          • Thomas Elkins

            Ah yes, focus solely on the foreheads and ignore everything else I mentioned about the Klingon aesthetic. Slow clap, excellent work. I said eight days ago, as of this post, that I don’t consider different ridge designs to be a sign of drastic change. Klingons have different designs because they are a diverse people and despite the different designs, they are all instantly recognizable as being Klingon. This is where the DSC Klingons differ.

            Let’s look at your oh so clear image here. Without looking at their foreheads, what can you tell me about their look? All three of those Klingons have hair on their heads, bushy eyebrows and goatees on their faces. The DSC Klingon lacks all three. Now we’ve seen bald Klingons and clean shaven Klingons before, but for them to be completely hairless is unusual. Now you can bring up the Into Darkness Klingon as an example and you’d be right, but also wrong.

            You see, a lot of people hated the Into Darkness Klingon which means that it’s not a good example of an accepted change. If people didn’t like his look, then why would they like the DSC Klingon? Of course there is on difference between the two. While the Into Darkness Klingon was hairless, we do in fact see gotees peaking out beneath the helmets of some of the other Klingons. This means that they are not all hairless and the hairless Klingon is not the default look of the Kelvin Klingons. If you look at all the Klingons on DSC we’ve seen so far, they are ALL hairless. This makes them even more different.

            Of course hair or no hair isn’t even the biggest change, really. Look at the DSC Klingon’s nose. It’s so wide his nostrills look like they’re in his cheeks. I’m not even sure what those grooves are supposed to be. You can see the actor’s nose and there are grooves to the side, making it look like he has four nostrills. Whatever they are, none of the other Klingons have them. Going back to ridges real quick, the way it connects to his nose makes it pass slightly over his eyes. It makes it look like he has squinty eyes, which the other Klingons don’t have.

            That however are just examples of ther physical features. There are things to consider, which I mentioned before. Before we see the Klingons in TMP, we see their ships and they share the same design as the one from the show. So you’re informed they’re Klingon even before you see them on the bridge. We see very little of the DSC ship, but what we do see looks nothing like what we’ve seen before.

            Their uniforms are completely different as well. The TMP Klingons may have different ridges from TNG Klingons, but when we first see them in TNG, they clearly have the same basic uniform as the TMP and STIII Klingons. It was a design consistency that lasted decades. That’s why seeing the DSC Klingon aesthetic is so weird. They don’t look like Klingon uniforms we’re used to seeing. They don’t even look like Kang’s outfit and even Worf has a TOS style sash in early TNG.

            Everything about the DSC Klingon aesthetic screams old and ancient. It looks way older than even the ENT Klingons of the 22nd century.. They look like Klingon Egyptians, complete with their own sarcophagous. This leads me to believe their weird look is important to the plot of the story. Of course their change in appearance has been a plot point before, but I’m sure you’ll dismiss it as fan pandering or some nonsense like that.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “needless to say the Klingons have changed/been modified numerous times SINCE The Motion Picture, and so have not “remained consistent for 40 years”.”

            Undoubtedly!

        • Eric Cheung

          The TMP Klingons look pretty drastically different from the TSFS Klingons, and the TUC Klingons. And the Westmore-era Klingons are different still.

          • what you don’t seem to understand is that different Klingon individuals simply look different, even within the same era. some of it may very well be a result of the changes caused by the augment virus, which were passed down through generations of Klingons. and some of it may simply be individual differences. the point is: TOS Klingons had no ridges, and from TMP forward Klingons had ridges.

          • Eric Cheung

            Oh I get all that. My point is that it doesn’t matter what they look like, and a precedent was set for a wide variety of Klingons, from the TOS Klingons, the single-ridge TMP Klingons, and the various other ones. I don’t really care what the Klingons look like, or why.

          • doesn’t sound to me like you got any of what i said.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Probably because you are believing that lame Enterprise episode that pandered to some fans who have a lack of imagination.

          • just because you don’t like the episode, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s canon.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Sure it’s canon. But it’s very bad canon that I choose to reject given how dumb-ass it is withing the fictional construct of the Trek universe. Nothing wrong with us using our brains to make some logical choices.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            It’s canon, get over it and no it wasn’t lame. It was well written thanks.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Incredible analysis…all in a one line emotional quip, as usual. LOL

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            That’s a bunch of nonsense where lazy writers pandered to the fans.

            Different production teams just wanted to change them, so they did. That’s the real reason.

          • DC Forever

            Yes, even Snap agrees with this based on his/her comment about the 4th season of Enterprise.

          • Snap

            “He,” yes. What I actually agree with is that the story on Enterprise is stupid. There’s a lot of “fan wank” in season four, (though I do enjoy most of the episodes in spite of it) but I do not dispute that it is valid and canon, since it appeared within an episode of the series. As such, I will not pick and choose what to except whenever it suits my agenda.

            As stupid as it is, there WAS a virus which robbed Klingons of their cranial ridges and, inexplicably, even went so far as to be retroactive, as a recreation of Kahless in “The Savage Curtain” displays him as such. It could have all been avoided, really, had the producers of Deep Space Nine not shot down the planned gag with Worf explaining the look of the TOS Klingons (when confronted by Odo, O’Brien and Bashir) by muttering in Klingon “Budget constraints.”

          • DC Forever

            Reminds me of some friends who claimed they didn’t really have a good choice in the election and therefore would not vote. We all see now how that worked out..lol

            There is some bad canon in Trek that can be weeded out by intelligent viewers. The use of Warp 15 and Warp 36 for example in TOS is always explained away as an errors that we should ignore, as 10 is infinite speed.

            We can use our brains, people.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Yes, as fans, we always are told to “wink and look the the other way” on those episodes with those huge warp numbers.

            Great point on how most of us have no problem throwing those items out of canon.

          • DC Forever

            Exactly!!!

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          No, not at all.

          Rodenberry changed them, Harve Bennett changed them again, then more changes for TNG/DS9/Voy/Ent, then JJ changed them again.

          So we have had FIVE different versions of Klingons before Discovery.

          • DC Forever

            Yep

        • Pedro Ferreira

          Exactly my point. They look pretty consistent between from TMP onwards. Not sure what the big differences are supposed to be that guys here keep raving about to me.

          • DC Forever

            Not at all. TMP Klingons are very different from any other Klingons in Star Trek. They have a tube-like tentacle ridges that follows the center-line of their heads down to there backbone, plus they come across as more alien and less human like.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Oh boy…how many times… Look the same basic design since TMP has stayed the same. Sure each Klingon has had changes made because obviously it would be silly to make all Klingons look like clones but the basic design bar maybe tiny, tiny alterations has remained the same. Discovery and Into The Darkness the Klingons are almost completely different from anything before. The basic design that has been kept since TMP has been changed. Not sure why this is difficult to understand?

          • DC Forever

            The Klingons in TMP, which was a few years after TOS, were changed drastically from the Klingons in TOS. So I am not getting the big deal with saying that a few years before TOS, in Discovery, they can make similar radical changes? Both are within a decade of TOS in each direction — Rodenberry changed them drastically for his new show (TMP), so I have not issue with this new production team doing the same.

            This is such a silly non-issue.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Ok whatever.

          • Snap

            In my opinion, the TMP Klingons look like rough incarnations of the Klingons we have come to know. I mean, look at Spock in “Where No Man Has Gone Before” and then in “The Corbomite Maneuver,” he looks quite diffferent. Significantly bushier eyebrows and upswept at a severe angle, but he’s very clearly supposed to be a Vulcan.

            Where the Klingons from TMP are concerned, well, we only got a brief look at them before V’Ger dispatches them. The overall look IS quite consistent with the Klingons through Enterprise. Like Spock, there were some revisions to certain aspects. The hairline was raised up, beard style and ridge composition varied, the only drastic difference is between TOS and TMP. It’s almost as “racist” as when Yeoman Burke said all of the Klingons who beamed aboard the Enterprise looked alike.

            Most people don’t have the exact same features, skin tone or way of speaking as everybody around them. Yes, in TNG the Klingons were presented with an honour code, but is this really so different from how they were presented in the TOS movies? Remember, just before destroying the ship with Valkris aboard, Kruge says “You will be remembered with honor.”

            I will say that the Klingons in TOS do seem incompatible with the majority of the Klingon portrayals, though considering they were antagonists which would only show up from time to time, it’s reasonable that we don’t actually learn much about their culture until a Klingon becomes a main cast member.

            We can also call into question Captain Picard. Thanks to Q, we see him after he had just graduated the Academy, with a full head of hair, as he is stabbed through the heart by a Nausicaan. We also see another flashback of Picard (portrayed by Patrick Stewart) with hair following Jack Crusher’s death and the fact that Boothby specifically points in “The First Duty” out he lost his hair strongly implies that he had only ever seen him with hair prior to that point. Jump to Nemesis and Picard looks through his photo album at a Tom Hardy portrayed cadet Picard, completely bald. Are there two Picards? How does Captain Picard seem to remember both distinctly? Or is it just the same character but they wanted to establish that this clone really is genetically Jean-Luc Picard?

            The Ferengi, in their first appearance, aren’t profit-obsessed capitalists, with the only potential reference being their disgust with one of the Starfleet communicators being gold, which they view as a “valuable metal” but it is actually latinum which they covet and Quark clearly cries out “worthless gold!” after receiving what he believed was Morn’s fortune. Does that mean the Ferengi we saw in “The Last Outpost” aren’t really Ferengi? Or does it mean that they were tweaked in progress until they found their footing? Sounds quite similar to the growing pains with Spock and the Klingons and even the Borg.

          • DC Forever

            In TMP they drastically changed the Klingons from TOS. That change in Klingons between TOS and TMP is much greater than the change in Klingons between TMP and Discovery.

          • Snap

            I am not denying that the Klingons changed drastically with TMP but even the TMP version is easily recognizable as a Klingon when you look at all post=TOS portrayals. With what we have seen of the Discovery Klingons thus far, that isn’t the case, they could just be any other generic alien and, like if you were to watch TMP for the first time after only ever seeing TOS Klingons, you would have to be told either from them being in recognizable Klingon ships or specifically being referred to as Klingons.

            It’s a pretty drastic change in its own right.

        • DC Forever

          No way. They kept changing them throughout the movies, and TMP Klingons are a huge departures from other Kliingons as well.

    • Dan King

      I think the Klingons are from the future and represent a new front in the temporal Cold War…

      😉

      • Lee O.

        And we learn that the Prime timeline was mashed up with the Babylon 5 and Mass Effect timelines and created a totally new universe. xD

        • Pedro Ferreira

          Yeah I’d love to see them explain all that!

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      I don’t need them explained at all. Different Trek production eras always change the Klingons. Accept it and move on…have some imagination and relax.

      • Thomas Elkins

        Hey look, it’s the new DSC Romulans! The haters better learn to suck it up and accept the change. I wonder how Star Wars fans would have reacted if Disney had told people this guy was the new Chewbacca?

        “This is a new production era and our team thought Chewbacca’s 40 year old design was outdated and needed a fresh new approach!”

        Yeah, that would have gone over real well /sarcasm

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5e89df3de7096bedf5e61c682bcdfb302eb4dcfbba6619ba94fd8c3fd54d1dd8.jpg

        • DC Forever

          You are like Pedro, but with a sense of humor thrown in.

  • Laughing Boy

    The trailer belies everything he said about adhering to canon. I think the fact that we have a video with a producer invoking adherence to canon is perhaps proof that CBS is freaked out about fan reactions to the trailer.

    • Ace Stephens

      …They were always going to say that anyway (because, obviously, it’s good marketing to say, “This sticks to what fans know and love while expanding the world.”) and promotion is going to be picking up right about now. It doesn’t mean anything in that (“fan reactions to the trailer”) regard.

    • MMW

      Except the trailer was very well received outside of this website which has unfortunately become an echo chamber for fans who aren’t prepared to give this show a chance.

      • Bifash

        Absolutely – though I say the problem of b*tiching and overly judgmental fans seems to infest the comments sections of numerous sites.

        But you’re right of course, for TREK fans who do not frequent internet boards or youtube videos ( and there are many – in fact probably MOST Trek fans in the world don’t ) they are very excited.

        • Tone

          So basically you are saying that nearly all Trek fans that don’t ever talk about Trek in public, apart from when they personally meet up with you, think Discovery is great, and never complain about anything re Trek?

          Fascinating…

      • pittrek

        Nope. Read any other fan sites or youtube videos, the vast majority of old Trek fans hates the trailers. The “mainstream audience” seems to like it

      • Tone

        You are wrong.

      • Snap

        I don’t think that’s entirely accurate, since I agree that the trailer makes them look like liars when they say they are sticking with canon, but I am not writing the show off and am more than willing to give the show the opportunity to be judged on its own merits. It doesn’t even mean that I disliked the trailer.

        There is a big difference between criticising aspects of a show which don’t fit with established canon and hating on it. Hell, you can love a show and still be brutally objective and criticise it.

  • Dan King

    The Klingons don’t look canon at all. Neither do the ships. Hmmm.

    • DC Forever

      Hopefully the ships will look close once we get the context of the Discovery design. As for the Klingons, well, they always change the Klingons.

      • Dan King

        They were quite consistent from TNG to the end of Voyager…

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          See my post above please.

        • Lee O.

          Yes, they were. Pretty much the only time period when they were. 14 Years (out of 51!)

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Exactly! Rodenberry changed them twice, Harve Bennett changed them again, then more changes for TNG/DS9/Voy/Ent, then JJ changed them again.

        So FIVE changes before Discovery. Yep, this is a running joke in Star Trek.

        • Snap

          The look of the Klingons, unfortunately, lies outside of canon.”

          You don’t consider Deep Space Nine or Enterprise to be canon? In DS9, when confronted about the appearance of the TOS Klingons, Worf states “They are Klingons… and it is a long story.” while Enterprise went out of its way to explain how the Klingons went from having cranial ridges to none at all.

          “PS: And no, I’m not buying that lazily written episode of Enterprise
          that pandered to some fans with that dumb-ass virus explanation —
          Rodenberry himself said TMP Klingons were what he always intended them to be, but they couldn’t do in the low tech TOS.”

          Ah… so you pick and choose what you want to be canon, rather than what is depicted to BE canon. I hate to break it to you, but “creator intent” is NOT canon, only what is depicted on screen is. I agree with you that the episode was stupid, as was much of the fan-wank from the “fan wank” season of Enterprise, but it is a canon part of Trek.

          So… let me ask you this, why should we accept any of your arguments from this point forward when you have demonstrated you will manipulate the facts in order to suit your own agenda?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            What’s he suppose to say — they were mixing in footage of shows 30 years apart. They needed to throw something in for the viewer to not make the show more laughable than it already was, give how weird the mix of the footage was. And that episode barely worked in the 90’s – it would not work with today’s sets and technology, as general audiences would laugh it off the screen.

            Rodenberry himself said TMP Klingons were what he always intended them to be, but they couldn’t do them right in the low tech TOS — there is your REAL REASON why they kept updating the Klingons

            We need to accept that these are production decisions where they keep changing the Klingons, and have nothing to do with the canon-fictional timeline of Star Trek, and stop this ridiculous deal about stressing so much over it. It’s 50 years of TV and movies about a fictional future history — some of the stuff is going to get updated and look different. Rodenberry realized this, and he completely redid the Star Trek universe for TMP, even those it took place in the canon timeline 3.5 years after TOS.

            If Gene were around today, he’d be laughing at all this. I met the dude.

          • DC Forever

            Kind of funny how he ended up inadvertently agreeing with you on writers devolving into fan wish lists on that Enterprise 4th season Klingon episode.

  • DC Forever

    I wish the would have had the balls for just re-setting canon entirely with this series. Make this a new start for the franchise.

    • Bifash

      The “fans” will b*tch and complain either way.

      I am more than happy if it takes place in the Prime Timeiline with just an “aesthetic” reboot – that will work completely fine for me personally.

      • Tone

        We get that you don’t like Trek fans. Why are you here? Just to keep telling all of us how much you hate us, while your telling us we are wrong, and your opinion is the only one that counts?

    • pittrek

      The look of the show is a huge problem. If they really wanted to “re-invent the wheel”, they should go to let’s say pre-Enterprise era, or post-Voyager era, or do an alternate universe.

      • TUP

        The look of TOS is a problem. The look of this series, what we have seen so far, is not a problem.

        Had they made everything look TOS, it would render out of place the visuals of Enterprise, kelvin etc.

        TOS visuals are the outlier and thats because it was the 1960’s.

        • Snap

          I don’t really think so, since they took great pains to recreate the original Constitution-class sets and the original Starfleet uniforms ON Enterprise. In fact, they also respected canon to the point where the Defiant uniforms didn’t use the familiar Enterprise delta and had the wrist braid to indicate rank.

          I’m not saying Discovery should slavishly ape the production values of TOS, but every other show has shown that is is incredibly easy to respect what came before when you are either revisiting the time period or, in Enterprise’s case, using a piece of that period (in this case the USS Defiant). I don’t see what is so hard about using wrist braid if that is how rank was shown during that time, using unique patches if that’s what the practice was during that time or using the uniform style of the time. The JJ movies had no problem modernizing the uniforms, so for Discovery to not even try is just lazy and shows no attention to detail if they try to insist that it fits with the original canon.

          What if I were to make a Simpson’s spinoff set several years before the series focusing on Milhouse. However, Homer has a full head of hair and is a successful lawyer, Marge has a pixie cut and is a high ranking supervisor at the Power Plant, Bart has long brown hair tied back into a ponytail and Lisa is a child prodigy whom Mr. Burns has taken under his wing while Milhouse himself has contacts instead of glasses? On top of that, it would be CGI with the characters depicted with realistic proportions and features and skin tones. But, despite those changes, it is claimed to fit in with and respect the established continuity. Obviously it’s not the exact same situation as Discovery, but it illustrates how absurd it is to change things for the sake of change and still have people buy that it respects what came before and fits in with no problem.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Enterprise had the worst writing of any Star Trek series, bar none — and they knew it was a dud. Hence, we got fan pandering crap like the episode you are referring to, as well as that dumb-ass episode where they tried to explain away simple production updates on Klingons over time to that silly canon history explanation. Enterprise insulted my intelligence as a Star Trek fan. So great, Enterprise paid attention to detail in the throwback episode — whoopdie fracking doo!

          • Lee O.

            I would actually really like to see that show!!!! 😀

          • DC Forever

            You made some decent points until that Simpsons brain-fart. Obviously they are not bringing back bridge crew characters from other Trek series and changing those characters around. What a silly comparison.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          EXACTLY. Spot on!

    • Pedro Ferreira

      You want them to remake TOS?

      • DC Forever

        Read my post again, moron.

        • Pedro Ferreira

          “I wish they would have had the balls for just re-setting canon entirely with this series.” You want to remake the canon, yeah I read that correctly. If that’s not what you meant then be more clear for us ‘morons’.

  • DS9 is King

    I think this series will have a short run and I Think Nicholas Meyer and the other Writers know this, I also think that the Secret Star Trek Project that Nicholas Meyer is working on is a Post Nemesis series

    • Bifash

      My speculation is that Meyer may be working on a Trek Computer Game.

    • Onehalfklingon

      I hope and pray you’re right. I’d love the fabled Worf-as-Captain show.

  • Barak Aslani

    As much as I would like to believe Mr. Kurtzman, the trailer shows us ships/designs/tech that looks post-Nemesis in style. It’s distracting and dishonours 50 years of continuity. I understand the studio *think* people what flashy and sexy, but they need to give the audience more credit. If you want to do a prequel, make it look like it fits into canon. I am happy to see strong female characters taking a lead, a gay character (let’s hope he isn’t there for comic relief), but Discovery, from what I see in the trailer, doesn’t look like they are carrying much over from Enterprise continuity wise, let alone bridging the gap between Enterprise and TOS. And that bothers me as a fan, who’s invested in Trek. I resent calling it ‘Prime’ just because JJ came along and produced 3 films. All the series fit together, Enterprise was a stretch, but it still wanted to fit in. Discovery doesn’t look like it’s trying, no matter what Mr. Kurtzman says. If they show me smooth and ridged Klingons, and these ridiculous aquatic looking ones are explained as ‘ancient’ and they show more ships that fit into the timeline, and they someone explain how in just 10 short years the aesthetic will change to the simple TOS look… then I will watch it. Call me a geek, call me stupid, but I can’t watch generic action sci-fi masquerading as MY TREK. Make it fit, or call it something else – you double-talking, slimey, Hollywood hipsters.

    • Bifash

      “MY TREK”.

      Hmm.

    • Morgan Smith

      I hope you are applying “generic action sci-fi” to the JJ films, because there is no basis for applying it to Discovery.

      Furthermore, for connections to TOS (and ENT) see:
      – the Shenzhou looks like a direct descendant from the NX-01 (and the Franklin, but YMMV)
      – the hand phasers, communicators, and tricorders look like The Cage+TOS
      – the blue uniforms reference ENT

      You know what? There isn’t much else that connects them, but that is because we haven’t seen much yet. We haven’t even seen the Discovery more than a blurry background behind Captain Lorca.

      As others have said, to expect a very expensive show (with a 50-year legacy and many iterations) made in 2017 to look exactly like a mid-budget, untested show made in 1966 is a frankly ridiculous expectation.

    • TUP

      Actually it doesnt look post Nemesis.

  • pittrek

    First of all Alex Kurtzman – I hated every single thing he wrote (or directed) so his voice doesn’t really have much credibility to me. Second – he dares to say that they respect continuity? So that’s why they spit on it? Third – who cares about “stories based around strong women”? What about “stories based around interesting characters”?

    • DIGINON

      There is no contradiction between “stories based around strong women” and “stories based around interesting characters”. Well, unless you think that women can’t be interesting characters. If TNG wasn’t allowed to even reference TOS characters, how was it that McCoy had a guest spot in its pilot episode? The reason why there was less overlap between TOS and TNG was because the shows were set a century apart.

      • pittrek

        Sorry, you missed my point. There is a difference between a storyteller coming up with some interesting female characters and a “committee” coming up with how many percent of the cast needs to be of a specific gender/race/sexual orientation/political belief/social background etc. The first one is storytelling, the second one is a marketing gimmick. TNG indeed had a strong ruler disallowing any characters from previous show(s)/movies, that’s a very well known fact. McCoy had an exception, only because he was Gene’s friend, but even he wasn’t allowed to be called McCoy, he was only “The admiral”. During the many times I’ve seen Farpoint on TV I never noticed it’s actually DeForrest, the first time I noticed it was on the DVD when I’ve seen the credits for the very first time.

        • Morgan Smith

          Unless you know something that the rest of us don’t, I haven’t seen anything about a “committee” deciding ahead of time the percentages of representation for anyone. What I have seen is producers and writers discussing the idea that Star Trek should be representative of everyone (IDIC), and that many of them enjoyed seeing/writing about strong female/gay/etc. characters in addition to standard white, male, american ones. No one is excluding anyone. In fact, with the discussions going into this, I am a little surprised that so much of the cast is white males (and I assume American, though I haven’t checked). If there were real bias here would half of the Discovery crew be white males (per http://trekmovie.com/discovery/)? Would half of the other cast be white males (again per http://trekmovie.com/discovery/)?

          • Lee O.

            The issue for me with the whole “stories based on strong female characters” thing, is that 1.) it becomes a marketing gimmick, 2.) it is nothing new, neither in Trek nor in Television or film period. Strong female characters have been in virtually every facet of storytelling for decades now. (I’d argue even further back there were stories about strong female characters. Take some of the ancient gods. Athena was a strong female character). 3.) the idea of “an interesting character” isn’t excluding any group. A strong character or interesting character can be a man, a woman, black, white, asian, alien, a dog or even a rat that can fight kung-fu and has a laser pistol. “Strong female characters” is not only excluding men, but I’d argue what many would perceive a “weak” female character, someone warm, caring, or even someone who is constatly afraid, can be just as strong a character (and person for that matter) as the hardcore soldier type.

          • Morgan Smith

            I agree with some of your points 1 and 2, with the following additions: 1) everything becomes a marketing gimmick, that doesn’t make it bad – if it can be perceived as different, good, new, harkening back to the good old days, etc., anything will be marketed if they can find a promotional aspect, 2) it doesn’t have to be new to still be relevant, important, or in this case an effort to continue re-balancing gender depictions in culture – it just has to be done well.

            I don’t agree with much of point 3. Yes a “non-gender-specific character” doesn’t exclude anyone where a “female character” does. So what? Nowhere have the creators of Discovery excluded anyone. They haven’t selected an all female cast, they didn’t cast only one ethnicity or race. In this series they decided that they wanted to focus on a strong female character. Just as in TOS the main three are males, the main focus characters to come out of TNG were “male” (Picard and Data), DS9 did a good job spreading the wealth but Sisco was always the main focus, Voyager went female for the captain and had two other strong female characters (B’lana, and Seven), and Enterprise tried to recapture the TOS triumvirate but with 2 males and a female. None of those series excluded anyone and neither has Discovery. If the producers of Discovery said they wanted to focus on a strong male character, would you be expressing the same (mild) objection to their choice? (Not to get too far afield here, and I am certainly not saying this is what any particular fans are saying, but: objecting to them choosing to focus on strong female characters seems a little like objecting to Black Lives Matter focusing on black lives mattering. Yeah, all lives matter, but sometimes you can or even should focus on the underserved or disadvantaged. That doesn’t mean that those you don’t focus on are being rejected.)

            One final point on “strong characters”. My perspective on the use of “strong” (in most applications like this for a tv show) is that it means “has/exhibits agency”, not in strength or even confidence. I would think that any main female character depicted in DSC will have a balance of traditional “male”/strong traits and traditionally female/soft traits. That is just part of writing good, modern, fleshed out characters. There might be more minor characters who are chosen to fill the role of the reluctant/not confident crew member, like Hoshi in ENT (who did have her own growth), but I would still expect them to grow or show other aspects of personality, including soft traits, provided they are good, “strong” characters. So I guess I agree with you that “strong” characters can and should incorporate both typically “strong” and “weak” traits.

          • Lee O.

            First off, I am not critizising DSC writers for their characters. As a matter of fact, I think they seem to have brought together a diverse cast of characters from all kinds of backgrounds and I commend them for that. As a matter of fact, I felt both Enterprise and the new films were a significant step backward from the portrayal of female characters in both DS9 and VOY.

            My only real point I wanted to make and where we seem to disagree, is that I believe we live in an age where it seems feminism has lost its usefulness and even though we clearly have reached equality pretty much in the North-American and European continent (and I’d also argue large parts of Africa, Asia and South America), there still seems to be a specific demand for strong female characters and network executives in general tend to appease to the vocal crowds without thinking.

            [quote] If the producers of Discovery said they wanted to focus on a strong
            male character, would you be expressing the same (mild) objection to
            their choice?[/quote]

            TBH I would probably have the same reaction of “so what, it’s nothing new; hopefully it won’t be an unsympathetic hardass.”

            Let me ask you a similar question: if they would indeed say that, what would the reaction among the crowds be? Would there be a similar draw to the show of being inclusive? Would people object? Would the show be called sexist.

            One final thing to add: Star Trek is typically the kind of show that attracts young male viewers. Not that no women at all watch the show and I actually welcome them and hope they enjoy it, but it’s just how a show like Desperate Housewives (It’s I think an excellent show btw.) doesn’t attract a young male audience.

          • Morgan Smith

            In response to your other comment that I don’t see displayed here right now: for the mass audience I don’t think there would be much of a response to the producers/writers saying they wanted to focus on a “strong male character” because that would be within the majority of depictions in modern television. Among Trek fans, I think you would see some discussion/objection because Trek is seen as being inclusive and progressive – as you said about ENT, it could be seen as a slight step backward, but I wouldn’t say it was sexist.

            As for whether feminism is no longer needed in the western world (or whatever portion you want to select), I don’t think you can say that. Looking back to Mulgrew as Janeway, you might think all is okay with the portrayal of women. But despite the outwardly appearance of “full normalcy” with a woman captain they had behind-the-scenes issues with clothing, hairstyle, sex appeal, etc and they even brought on Jeri Ryan to specifically provide more sex appeal (and luckily Ryan brought so much more to the table). ENT didn’t do better with T’Pol and decon gel. And to bring us up to today, just having to have a discussion on whether having a specific focus on female characters is normal is proof that they aren’t yet on par in entertainment. And if you want an example outside of fictional entertainment, look at recent politics and tell me that Donald Trump, Mike Pence, and other elected officials treat women with the same respect and in the same way that they treat men.

            As for women watching star trek, I would be interested in seeing an actual gender viewership breakdown; I would bet audiences for Trek (especially, but not only, the 24th century shows) are much more balanced than a lot of other fiction, even given historical trends toward male viewers in science fiction.

        • SpaceCadet

          I was a kid when “Farpoint” first aired and I clearly recognized DeForrest as McCoy in the old age make-up. He was called “the admiral” in dialogue to lead into the next scene so the revelation who it is comes when you actually see the character. James T. Kirk is even referenced in the very next episode, “The Naked Now”. Roddenberry was still alive they made the episode “Sarek” on TNG obviously featuring that character and referencing Spock and Amanda. So what you’re talking about isn’t true. They clearly wanted to bridge the two series together.

          Who cares about seeing “stories based around strong women”? I do and I’m a man. Most of Trek has been from the perspective of a man so it’s nice to get it once again from a woman, depicting the first time both the captain and first officer are women, and having women and people of color as leads actually inspires people, especially kids, that there is a positive future for themselves, whether it be in the sciences, positions of command, or as actors in lead roles depicting these characters. That’s also what Star Trek is about.

          • pittrek

            You probably watched Trek in English, I didn’t see (or actually hear) anybody’s “real” voice until the arrival of the DVDs in early 2000s. The fact that in “our” dubs a different actor dubbed McCoy in TOS, a different one in TNG and a different one in almost every movie didn’t help. So I was left with that weird “hm… I think I know that old guy from somewhere” feeling, but I didn’t know who it was until I’ve seen the closing credits for the first time.

            Regarding the rest – it’s a well known FACT that Roddenberry wanted the TNG show to stand on its own. Again, that’s not an opinion, that’s a fact. Confirmed by the official sources, confirmed in interviews with the writers and producers, on all of the official Blu-ray releases … Have you seen the Blu-ray? There is an interview with the writer of Sarek, where he says how much he had to fight to be allowed to mention Spock, and that after a huge fight he won to use the name ONCE…

            Also you sound like Trek from a perspective of a woman is something new, have you seen Voyager? The “inspiration” and “identification” argument – I heard it so many times, but only from Americans, so that might be some sort of cultural difference, but I have no reason to believe that kids inspirations work that way. At least it haven’t in my way. I personally always liked stories with interesting people and I didn’t care if they were male or female, I cared only if they were “moral”. And until a few years ago I honestly thought that that’s how most of the people think 🙂

            That’s BTW what I always considered to be Star Trek about – stories about people doing MORAL things even if those things were not easy.

          • SpaceCadet

            Yes, I’m an American and as a kid I instantly recognized DeForrest Kelley as the Admiral both from his voice and visually even with the old age make-up.

            And I know that Roddenberry was originally trying to distance TNG from TOS but as TNG started to establish itself it was okay to do crossovers of characters like Spock and Scotty. But what you stated about characters from TOS not being referenced on TNG until Roddenberry died is factually false because even not counting McCoy, as I previously stated, Kirk was referenced in the very next episode, “The Naked Now”, and the episode “Sarek” aired while Roddenberry was still alive, and the “Unification” two-parter had already completed production before Roddenberry died.

            Also, inspiration and identification are important things to American minorities because it is still for the most part a white male dominated society here. Of course I’m aware of Voyager. That’s why I said “most of Trek” has been from the perspective of a male. And that’s why it’s a big deal that this is only the second time we’ve had a female lead, and a very big deal that it’s the first woman of color as the lead of a
            Trek series. Nichelle Nichols playing Uhura was a big inspiration for African-Americans and especially woman of color growing up. Both Whoopi Goldberg, who was already a big movie star when she asked to be on TNG, and Mae Jemison, the first African-American female astronaut, were directly inspired by Nichelle Nichols’ role on TOS in their respective careers. I definitely believe Sonequa, Michelle, Anthony Rapp, etc. will directly inspire many other minorities and especially children to believe in a better future for themselves.

        • TUP

          Wait wait wait. A Trek fan who has seen Farpoint numerous times never recognized Kelley?

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          Come on…. tell us another one.

          • pittrek

            See my comment below 🙂

  • M.Dorian

    As long as we get engaging stories populated with interesting characters, I won’t care about canon, the social promotion fad of the week, and Kurtzman’s long track record of disposable entertainment.

    • Lee O.

      Ultimately, that’s also my verdict. I just think declaring this a reboot or in continuity with the recent films could have made things easier for them from both a storytelling and (hardcore)fan reception perspective.

  • Lee O.

    I honestly don’t know why they are ditching the new “Kelvin Timeline” for this series. I thought the point was to be free from continuity obligations and go into new and potentially awesome directions. What they are doing now seems so complicated because on the one hand, Kurtzman seems to say they value continuity and what has come before (potentially limiting their options), but on the other hand, the look doesn’t match up at all with what they are saying they are doing. Personally, I thought the USS Kelvin in 2009 was a nice take on a modernised version of TOS in terms of technology, design, the uniforms, btw, so it’s not like it’s impossible to emulate and modernise the 1960s look. However, DSC looks like something that should fit between Star Trek: Enterprise and the Kelvin Timeline films.

    As they are doing it now, it looks like they have the worst of both worlds – continuity baggage to adhere to and a new look that will turn off die-hard fans who would appreciate the continuity-ties. And that is so baffling to me.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure the show will be a decent – if not even great – new take on Star Trek and I’m cautiously excited for it and in and of itself I like the aesthetics and the story direction they are taking. But couldn’t they just call it a 2240s prequel to the 2009 film? Or a soft reboot?

    If we are lucky they will actually adress all this in some way. Sounds like it from what Kurtzman is saying…. then again, it is more likely he is talking about adhering to the ideas TOS represented and the cultural role it played.

    • DIGINON

      I don’t know the whole legal specifics but CBS may not have the rights to use the Kelvin Universe. So making it an official prequel of the 2009 movie may not have been possible if they wanted to. On the other hand, CBS owns the rights to the old shows. They can basically do with that universe whatever they want (of course, there may be backlash from some fans). They wanted to make a show that looks futuristic compared to today – which makes perfect sense. At the same, they apparently also wanted to use some canon elements from (before) TOS. So it’s definitely a visual update (or reboot). Whether it fits story-wise we will have to wait till September.

      • Lee O.

        Yeah, that’s basically what I thought (the CBS/Paramount shinanigans). Actually, having to companies competing against each other about who makes the better Star Trek could potentially pushe them both to make the best incarnation possible and possibly appeal to different audiences. But its also mind-boggling. Imganine McDonald’s and McCafé would compete against each other….

  • it’s simply another parallel universe, with many similarities to the Prime Universe and even to the Kelvin Universe, but also obvious differences. the STAR TREK multiverse has long been established, there’s the Mirror Universe, the Antimatter Universe, the Kelvin Universe, and all the countless parallel universes in the TNG episode “PARALLELS”. and if you value canon, then you have to accept two things: 1) STAR TREK is a multiverse, and 2) statements made by producers, directors, writers or showrunners are not canon.

    so it doesn’t matter what Kurtzman or Fuller say about DISCOVERY being set in the Prime Universe. what they say is not canon. only what is on screen is canon. and it’s impossible to prove on screen (in canon) that DISCOVERY is set in the same universe as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT. even if a character on DISCOVERY (for some weird reason) were to say “we’re in the Prime Universe”, that wouldn’t prove anything, because obviously every character in every universe thinks of their own universe as the “Prime Universe”.

    even if we meet characters from the TOS/TNG Prime Universe played by the same actors, it won’t prove anything, because these same characters exist in countless parallel universes, looking exactly the same as in the Prime Universe, as has been established in “PARALLELS”.

    so i can only repeat: it is literally impossible to prove in canon (on screen) that DISCOVERY is set in the Prime Universe. there is simply no way to prove it in canon.

    but it is possible to prove in canon (on screen) that DISCOVERY is NOT set in the Prime Universe. how? simply by looking at things. if things look significantly different, then it’s obviously not the same universe.

    sure, you can try to explain that away by saying “visual update” or something. but that’s not an in-universe explanation. and really, if (for example) the ships on DISCOVERY have touch screens, and a character uses a touch screen, then that is a significant narrative difference to TOS, which cannot be explained away by saying “visual update”.

    i personally don’t think the Klingons we have seen are supposed to be “regular” Klingons. i think (and hope) that these are Klingon ancestors, and that we will see both “regular” (TNG style) Klingons and augment Klingons in the series, hopefully interacting with each other. but, if i’m wrong and all Klingons on DISCOVERY look like the ones in the trailer, then that’s another clear indication to me that this is a parallel universe and not our good old Prime Universe. because the first major design update for the Klingons has been explained in canon on ENTERPRISE. the second design update in the new movies can also be explained by the fact that it’s a parallel universe. so it would be inconsistent to simply make a third design update and expect everyone to believe that this one has no in-universe explanation.

    to me, it’s already clear that i will definitely treat DISCOVERY as being set in one of the countless parallel universes in the STAR TREK multiverse. that way i can simply enjoy the series without having to worry about any “continuity issues” and without wondering why they have technology/design that is lightyears ahead of what we saw on TOS. i can’t wait to see the series!

    • TUP

      How do you know what is possible? Have you seen the series?

      The producer is telling you its canon and yet you’re saying no, he cant prove it.

      How much more ridiculous are we going to get with this silly argument?

      • “The producer is telling you its canon and yet you’re saying no, he cant prove it.”

        i think you need to learn to read. i never said it’s not canon. of course the series is canon.

        what i said was that the series is not set in the Prime Universe. that’s a completely different thing.

    • DS9 is King

      Producer Really Makes ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Sound Like a Reboot https://www.inverse.com/article/33892-star-trek-discovery-reboot-prime-canon-abrams-kurtzman

  • David Lund

    All sounds very positive to me. And he’s sadly right of course, some ‘fans’ could watch an astoundly well acted, scripted, directed and filmed episode and still flood the internet with hate about the sound of a door or the lack of a wobbly set somehow destroying ‘their’ trek.

    • Dan King

      Never discount how powerful nostalgia is

      • DC Forever

        Nostalgia combined with belligerence seems to popular with some on this site who have inexplicably already decided that Discovery stinks.

  • TUP

    Too bad they didnt have someone in the writers room during the making of the JJ films who’s job was to say “no!”.

    • Dan King

      J.J. never takes no for an answer. After they said no to his Star Trek ideas he bailed to Star Wars for total control

      • DS9 is King

        It’s sad he bailed because he had a Great Idea for a new Star Trek TV series that would of brought together Both Universes Prime and Kelvin. Do you Remember the Hobus Super Nova well someone caused that to happen and we would of seen both Enterprises Both Enterprise E and Kelvin Enterprise working to solve this, of course with JJ Abrams at the Helm it would of been more of an Action TV series then anything else but it would of given everyone what they wanted.

      • Kirksdeadjim

        He didnt bail.JJ was instrumental in hiring Justin Lin for Beyond and he was one of the producers of the film.

        • DC Forever

          Agreed. And if they make a fourth, don’t be surprised if he directs again.

  • Bob Littlepage

    As far as “respecting canon” goes, explain to me how in the name of Kahless the ships, uniforms, and technology can possibly exist in the same fleet at the same time as Christopher Pike and the Enterprise. Especially in light of how previous canon has firmly established the look and tech level of TOS, thus by association, the pre-TOS era of “The Cage”.

    • Dan King

      Supposedly these are “ancient” Klingons and not real Klingons. I guess the all die though as they don’t appear in any of the future shows.

      • Bob Littlepage

        I’m not talking about the Klingons, I’m talking about the Shenzhou and those marching band uniforms.

        • Dan King

          Shenzhou looks like it could have easily evolved from the NX class

          • Bob Littlepage

            A post-Voyager descendant, not a contemporary of Pike’s Enterprise.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Good to see you online. Writing on those small notepads for years gets tiring

          • Dan King

            I think the ship was not designed by Starfleet

  • Fiery Little One

    I’ll reserve judgement until I see the pilot at least.

  • Dan King

    Kurtzman wokrking on this project worries me very much. Never liked any of his work and I think he really does not get what fans want.

    • Roger Birks

      What the fans want? The fans never really know what they want!

      • Snap

        That’s actually cliche by this point, but I would never want “fans” to be the ones in charge of actually putting the show together. When that happens you get something similar to season four of Enterprise which, while the episodes were often enjoyable, included more than their fair share of eye-rolling moments trying to shoehorn as many future references as they can. I think I even heard someone wanted to explain the Romulan Commander in “Balance of Terror” and the Klingon captain in TMP as being alternate versions of Sarek..

        When it comes to Discovery, all I really want is a good Star Trek show. If it takes place in the prime timeline like they claim, my only expectation is they actually respect it. If they can be honest and admit it is its own beast which shares some similarities with the original incarnation, then it pretty much has a blank canvas to tell its story.

        The fans generally do know what they want, the thing is “what the fans want” isn’t a blanket idea which represents the desires of the entire fandom. When a producer says “fans don’t know what they want” it is an oversimplification which can only come out as insulting and condescending when the fans are clearly telling them what they want, just those millions of fans want millions of different things.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          “That’s actually cliche by this point, but I would never want “fans” to be the ones in charge of actually putting the show together. When that happens you get something similar to season four of Enterprise which, while the episodes were often enjoyable, included more than their fair share of eye-rolling moments”

          THANK YOU — the corny Klingon race episode, “Affliction” appears in Season 4, and suffers from exactly this issue of pandering to the fans that you now admit you. I AGREE 100%

          • Dan King

            Affliction was awesome what are you talking about

          • iMike

            I actually really liked the explanation in “Affliction,” however I wonder if they came up with it because of DS9.

            TNG, DS9, and VOY never felt the need to “explain” why 24th century Klingons look different than 23rd century (TOS-era) Klingons. Clearly, with “Trials and Tribble-ations” they had to say something because Worf, O’Brien, and Odo are sitting in room full of Klingons that look nothing like Worf. I always enjoyed Worf’s very succinct answer that it isn’t to be talked about. When ENT did “Affliction” I do feel like it made sense.

            As for DSC, maybe they will explain it maybe they won’t. Maybe the Klingons we see in the trailer are a special type of Klingon, maybe they are just everyday, ordinary Klingons. I’m okay with it either way, it won’t take away my enjoyment of the series just because the Klingons are different.

      • Dan King

        Many fans did not want a prequel to TOS that’s very clear!

        • TUP

          That’s a Trump-like remark to make it seem like a popular opinion, which it isnt. Some fans wanted all sorts of different eras to be explored so you werent going to please everyone.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      Not a fan of Fuller so…

  • Dan King

    Is Pedro finally banned Trek Core? He causes a lot of fights here

    • Pedro Ferreira

      Shut up and stop causing trouble.

      • Dan King

        You are the one who causes trouble. Every time you participate, TrekCore has to lock the comments eventually because of you

        • Pedro Ferreira

          Maybe it’s not because of me? Maybe it’s because people here have to make their views the ‘correct’ ones? Have you ever thought about that? I’m a realist with new media so I’m cautious of this. I’m not causing any trouble, I’m simply offering a point of view that’s different. Don’t like my views? Then go speak to Oracle or that DC fan instead.

          • Dan King

            I’m still trying to figure out why you are so disliked here.

          • DC Forever

            It certainly can’t be because of his charming personality and legendary civility towards others.

          • All three of you: either leave each other alone or learn to use the ‘block user’ button or be civil. This is the last warning.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            No idea. According to some members here I’m not allowed to have a differing opinion. Also I’m not totally disliked, some agree with my views.

          • DC Forever

            Sorry if my posts threaten you, clown.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            And Dan King accused me of insults. (slow clap)

          • TUP

            To be fair, you are very rude and derail discussions on a regular basis.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            To be fair, you’re rude and no one is allowed to have an opinion different to you.

          • TUP

            That’s a completely false statement. You simply refuse to engage in discussion with people with differing views unless you can insult and bully them. And when people refuse to take that behavior from you, you get increasingly rude.

            You also mistake your prejudice with “opinion”. You’ve repeatedly made statements you consider fact about things you simply have no idea about and have been critical of a series in which we know very little and you’ve never seen.

            Please try to be more mature. its a nice a community here and you should try to mold your behavior to suit the environment. This isnt your rec room.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            See, you’ve just proven my point. Your opinion is the correct one, no one else is allowed an opinion. I call that rude.

          • TUP

            You’ve once again deflected the point and attacked a different one that wasn’t even presented.

            I never said my opinion is the only one allowed. But you’re confusing “opinion” with “fact”.

            You can give your opinion that Discovery sucks but you end up looking illegitimate, foolish and incredible because you’ve never seen an episode and we know very little about it.

            I don’t have an opinion on the quality of the show because I have never seen it. But its a FACT that you havent either but that doesn’t stop you from presenting false information as facts and then using those false facts as a basis for criticism.

            I know your President does that often but you’re not even very good at it. Its transparent. I only point it out because its silly. I bet you have a lot more to provide this forum than that silliness.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “I never said my opinion is the only one allowed.” Of course you wouldn’t but you mean it.

            “You can give your opinion that Discovery sucks but you end up looking illegitimate, foolish and incredible because you’ve never seen an episode and we know very little about it.” And the trailer doesn’t bode well does it?

            “I know your President does that often” I have a President? I thought we were going with facts?

          • TUP

            Again, as I said this is what you do. You make up false facts as if they are real and then argue them. So, no I do not mean only my opinion is allowed but you will not get to lie and make up false facts without being challenged. Try to be more sensible and you wont be challenged.

            If you disliked the trailer, by all means, share that opinion with specifics that are about the trailer. Don’t extrapolate the trailer to the full series and insist facts that are simply not in evidence yet.

            Personally, I did not dislike the trailer because the things that I’d be concerned about, I’d give the series an opportunity first. The positives from the trailer relate to a clearly large budget, good SFX, good set designs and decent cast.

            Are you not from the United States? If so President Trump is your President. Im Canadian, so he isn’t mine. But to be fair, my Prime Minister isnt much of an improvement.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “So, no I do not mean only my opinion is allowed but you will not get to lie and make up false facts without being challenged. Try to be more sensible and you wont be challenged.” What false facts?!

            “Don’t extrapolate the trailer to the full series and insist facts that are simply not in evidence yet.” The trailer tells you what the show will look and sound like. Yes I can judge what the series will be based on that so?

            “The positives from the trailer relate to a clearly large budget, good SFX, good set designs and decent cast.” Good for you. I just feel it’s the exact opposite.

            “Are you not from the United States? If so President Trump is your President.” Trump is my President? Really? Again what were you saying about false facts?

          • TUP

            You’re making up facts in reagrds to the show by saying it is not good. You haven’t seen the show. So you have no idea.

            And you’re being particularly anal now because you know you have no defense to your silliness.

            Again, if you’re American, Trump is your President whether you like it or not. You only have one President, or do you not understand that?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “You’re making up facts in reagrds to the show by saying it is not good. ” I’m saying what I see on screen. It doesn’t look good. Seems very unlikely at this stage it will be all changed so no I’m not making up facts, the proof is in the trailer.

            “And you’re being particularly anal now because you know you have no defense to your silliness.” What defense do I need? You’re going on about me not seeing one bit of footage from the new Star Trek series when the trailer shows that! You’re complaining because I don’t agree with you because I don’t like the trailer.

            “You only have one President, or do you not understand that?” Trump is my President in what reality you exist in?

          • TUP

            That’s an opinion, not a fact.

            Are you not American? If you are, Trump is your President whether you like it or not. Justin Trudeau is my Prime Minister and I dont like it. But opinion isnt fact. So grow up or stop acting so ridiculous.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “That’s an opinion, not a fact.” Well depending on whether you agree yes or no. If I group of people like something they’re not going to say that thing is rubbish.

            “But opinion isnt fact.” Yes like your opinion that my President is Trump…

          • TUP

            How you feel about the visuals of the trailer is an opinion. Are you being argumentative for fun or are you really this stupid?

            Again, are you avoiding admitting you’re American for a reason? Please tell me you’re not an adult because you’re really acting like a very stupid child. If Trump isnt your President, who is? Did I miss the memo about more than one US President? HAHAHA

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “How you feel about the visuals of the trailer is an opinion.” Not being stupid, some would say the effects in the trailer look terrible. That is an opinion but it might also be seen as right. It’s an opinion like anything.

            “Again, are you avoiding admitting you’re American for a reason? Please tell me you’re not an adult because you’re really acting like a very stupid child. If Trump isnt your President, who is? Did I miss the memo about more than one US President? HAHAHA” You’ve dug a hole and now you keep digging that hole deeper. I’m just sitting back and laughing at your version of “the facts”. Assuming is fun only if you have a trailer in front of you.

          • TUP

            Not at all. I’ve asked you several times if you’re American and you refuse to say so. So that’s on you, not me. I was very clear when I said that Trump was the US President and thus, your President if you were American. Because you’re not very smart I even explained it by admitting I am Canadian and thus Trump is not my nation’s leader.

            So if being American or not is some sort of secret, that’s odd, but thats on you.

            Again, you’re being incredibly immature and still do not understand the difference between fact and opinion. For example, it is my opinion that you’re immature. But it is fact that you’re remarks here are immature.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “Because you’re not very smart I even explained it by admitting I am Canadian and thus Trump is not my nation’s leader.” Well thank you for telling me who my leader is. What else can you assume without proof?

            “For example, it is my opinion that you’re immature. But it is fact that you’re remarks here are immature.” That is your opinion. Some here have agreed with me and think users like you are being immature. Depends which side you take.

          • TUP

            Stop being such a child. I asked, repeatedly and you refuse to answer.

            If you’re so ashamed of your country, thats your problem.

            Also, my only reference to leader was in saying who was the leader of MY nation. You wont reveal yours. So thats your problem.

            You do this all the time here, you argue and argue and argue and its always about your own immature nonsense. You really come across like a nasty child. Please grow up.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “Stop being such a child. I asked, repeatedly and you refuse to answer.” Let me ask you something, why does it matter what country I come from? Is this a test to see if I’m a true fan? Who cares about the country?

            “You really come across like a nasty child. Please grow up.” But why are you asking pointless questions or assuming you know me and where I’m from? I could be from the US, I could be from Canada. Who cares? I really don’t see the point of that and it makes you look immature because you sit on your high horse and tell me how to behave yet you assume so much about me that might be all totally wrong. So shouldn’t you be the one to grow up?

          • TUP

            I made the assumption you were American and you were so strangely reluctant to admit it, I simply pointed out how hilarious that is. And that you keep arguing my point that Trump is the President of the US which, again, is also so odd that it is clear you simply want to argue because you’re a jerk.

            Anyway, back to Star Trek (now that I have taught you the difference between “fact” & “opinion”).

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            See my post above — isn’t it ironic how Pedro behaves so much like Trump? LOL

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “I made the assumption you were American and you were so strangely reluctant to admit it, I simply pointed out how hilarious that is.” You pointed out Trump is my President and how hilarious that is? See none of that makes sense.

            “And that you keep arguing my point that Trump is the President of the US” But I am not arguing Trump is not the President of the US.

            “Anyway, back to Star Trek (now that I have taught you the difference between “fact” & “opinion”).” What you have taught me is you like to assume things that aren’t true. Your ‘facts’ aren’t facts at all but opinions, therefore they’re not worth listening to. But I do love seeing you dig a hole for yourself in regards to my president being Trump. It just proves my point here.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            The funny thing here to me is the your behavior is so much like Trump…you two could be separated at birth given you both just constantly make up shit, communicate mainly through one-line quips, and condescend to everyone who has a different opinion to you.

            Your are just so much like him, dude!

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I have a different opinion so I’m exactly like Trump. Listen to yourself, do you know how ridiculous you sound? No wonder Star Trek fans are seen by non fans as weird when you’re coming out with rubbish like that.

          • DC Forever

            Your behavior here in posting is very much the same type of behavior Trump does on Twitter. Different content, but similar behavior.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Compared to who else? You guys troll this place more. In fact you guys seem to have an almost dictatorship rule here. Every correct opinion has to be yours. This TUP embarrassed himself in trying to insult anyway.

          • Please see the featured comment pinned up at the top of this thread.

    • DC Forever

      That would be like Christmas in July for all of us here!

  • Darkthunder

    “Sticks to canon” while also violating everything that is canon of that era:

    – Bridge design
    – Uniforms
    – Ships
    – Enterprise Delta
    – Klingons

    Yeah, not buying it. Kurtzman says they try to stick with what is canon (and he’s one of the architects of the canon violation known as the JJverse). While another CBS Executive says that Discovery will “look and feel different”

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      You must have absolutely hated the TMP when it came out. Taking place in the canon timeline only 3.5 years after TOS 5 year mission ended — to see the bridge design, uniforms, ships and Klingons change so much…you must have been yelling at the screen, right? Furious with Gene Rodenberry, right?

      • Darkthunder

        I was born in the year 1984 (TMP was released in 1979), so no I did not see see it “when it came out”. I saw it years later, after becoming a fan and growing up watching TNG and DS9. I still hate TMP with a passion, because the movie is so incredibly “slow” paced. Especially the 3-minute external tour of the Enterprise.

        Your argument falls flat, when you consider the following:

        TOS: Trek is NEW, operating on a tv budget, forced to cut corners where possible.
        TMP: Inspired by the likes of Star Wars which came out 2 years earlier, Paramount’s attempt to rake in the “Star Wars money”.

        There’s also the fact that TOS and TMP were made 10 years apart from each other. And yes, while TOS is now over 50 years old, and one cannot expect things to “look and feel” like TOS did, the latest trip to the TOS-era took place in 2005’s “In a Mirror Darkly”, where things actually DID “look and feel” like the 1960s, and is also one of the highest regarded episodes of ENT.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          No, actually, that entirely proves my argument. Those major productions differences across the years is exactly why we see all the changes, and we need to accept them rather then needing sillly forced canon explanations (like the Enterprise Klingon race episode that pandered to fans) like we are all mentally taxed and can separate fact from fiction.

          That is my point — thanks!

      • Snap

        “any person this whetted to such an orthodox, uncompromising view of canon”

        You keep using this type of argument (or a generic “it’s fiction”) to browbeat anybody who dares wish for any kind of visual continuity which, it seems, you take to mean “slavishly aping the style of the 60s” yet you fail to see that you, yourself, are uncompromising in your own particular view.

        The only aspect of the style introduced in TMP which is a significant departure from the TV show is the look of the Klingons. The look of the Enterprise? Scotty specifically mentions they have spent a deal of time redesigning and refitting the ship and it is purely speculative that it was only 3.5 years since the end of the 5 year mission as TOS stardates were never consistent, nor is there any specific date given for the events of the film, the aforementioned line by Scotty as well as Decker mentioning how long it has been since Kirk logged a “star hour.” At this point, it’s merely an assumption that it takes place so soon after the 5 year mission, even Memory Alpha can only say “2270s” and doesn’t even try to nail it down to a specific year.

        The Kelvin universe movies illustrates that it is incredibly easy to update the TOS look for the uniforms, at the very least, so whether it is the “prime” or “Kelvin” settings we know what the uniforms look like in that era and what we see on Discovery is not even close. I will say this, however, at least what we have seen of Discovery doesn’t make the ships appear like a glorified brewery.

        You don’t care about maintaining continuity or, rather, you prefer to pick and choose what bits of continuity deserve to be respected, we get it. In the spirit of IDIC, I also respect it even though I don’t share that opinion. The difference here is you don’t respect opinions which differ from your own view.

        Let me put it this way, should Disney set a live action Star Wars show between “A New Hope” and “Empire Strikes Back” and have all of the Stormtroopers wearing navy blue uniforms while the Imperial officers wear uniforms similar to the US Navy? How about make the interior of the Millennium Falcon look like the ships from the original Battlestar Galactica? Maybe the lightsabers have energy blades which resemble a cutlass, don’t hum and sound like typical swords clashing when they come into contact with another blade? Hey, it’s just fiction, so who cares if it maintains continuity, right?

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          “You keep using this type of argument (or a generic “it’s fiction”) to browbeat anybody”

          That’s hilarious. I come on this site every day, and there are multiple posters showing this group-think about canon being violated by Discovery down my throat. I feel browbeaten! 🙂

          “The look of the Enterprise? Scotty specifically mentions they have spent a deal of time redesigning and refitting the ship and it is purely speculative that it was only 3.5 years since the end of the 5 year mission”

          Wrong — it was in the official novelization of TMP that the short timeframe between TOS and TMP is covered, and this is reinforced by a line in the movie by Kirk:

          ….KIRK: Two and a half years as Chief of Starfleet Operations may have made me a stale but I wouldn’t exactly consider myself untried…..

          So again, if you really want to tie yourself literally you canon positions, TMP Enterprise is incredibly modernized for just a few years after TOS to the point of being hard to accept as consistent with TOS canon.

          “The Kelvin universe movies illustrates that it is incredibly easy to update the TOS look for the uniforms, at the very least, so whether it is the “prime” or “Kelvin” settings we know what the uniforms look like in that era and what we see on Discovery is not even close.”

          Again, my point predominates — look at the uniforms in TMP — those uniforms are a complete outlier as compared to TOS, and all of the Trek movies that came after, and every other series. Gene’s TMP went with radically different uniforms from any other incarnation of Star Trek…FACT!

          “Let me put it this way, should Disney set a live action Star Wars show between “A New Hope” and “Empire Strikes Back” and have all of the Stormtroopers wearing navy blue uniforms while the Imperial officers wear uniforms similar to the US Navy?”

          Actually, The Clone Wars animated series do just that — significant departures from both the look of ships, battle scenes and even some characters as compared to the two movies it is suppose to happen between — Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope. So yea, Star Wars is guilty of the same issue.

          • Lee O.

            Spot on.
            However, I’d like to add that The Clone Wars does actually add up quite well to the movies it takes place in between: Episodes II and III.
            There are minor design tweaks to fit into the shows art-style (more angular clone trooper armor and character designs) and they changed the first Jedi Starfighter slightly (the one from Episode II). The old EU with its multible printed and other stories – while trying to be fairly constistent within itself and with the films and TV series – was never truly canon, which is why it was labeled “Legends” a few years back and they made up a new canon for expanded fiction. As it is at the moment, all works the fall within Star Wars canon are overseen by the Story Group and from what I’ve seen are fairly consistent with each other and there are only minor contradictions.

            As far as TMP is concerned: after that film failed to live up to the audience and also wasn’t considered successful because it had also to account for all the preproduction costs of Star Trek: Phase II and Planet of the TItans (I think), the franchise was actually rebooted again. Star Trek II completely ignored TMP and just reused the sets and the TMP uniforms (after heavy modification) for the background extras (or “midshipmen”). In that film, Starfleet is clearly a military organisation rather than a follow up to NASA as TMP and to some degree TOS billed it to be.

          • TUP

            Truly the worst type of poster is the kind that is close minded and ripping on a show they know nothing about and havent seen. Im not sure why so many people would create a scenario where they could very well look so foolish once the series airs.

            I suspect its more to do with creating an internet gimmick for themselves as a contrarian.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Good point!

        • Pedro Ferreira

          Oracle does come across like a hypocrite. It’s very frustrating.

    • TUP

      None of those things are true actually. Some of them could be true but we havent seen it yet.

      • Darkthunder

        Bull… and shit?

        We’ve seen the Discovery Klingons: Looks nothing like either TOS, TMP or TNG-era, and ENT gave a plausible explanation for their evolving/de-evolving appearance from 2151 to 2378.

        We’ve seen the Discovery uniforms, which look like nothing that matches the time in which this show is set, supposedly in the “Prime” universe. This is 10 years before Kirk and TOS, so naturally it should fit the style of “The Cage”. Hint: IT DOESN’T.

        Enterprise Delta: Discovery uses the same (or similar) insignia that was unique to the USS Enterprise during TOS.

        Bridge design looks either far too advanced even for TNG-era, or too similar to things from the JJverse timeline, considering this show is supposedly “Prime” timeline.

        Same comment regarding the ships we’ve seen so far.

        So yeah… We’ve seen enough to know enough that Discovery is blatantly violating existing canon already, without having seen a single episode. If the producers came out and said this is the “Discovery timeline”, any differences would be 100% okay. If they said it was the “Kelvin timeline”, things would make perfect sense.

        BUT NO… They specifically said that this is the PRIME TIMELINE, and nothing we’ve seen so far matches up with established canon for the PRIME TIMELINE.

        • TUP

          There has been no explanation for the look of the Klingons. They could provide an in-universe explanation but we haven’t seen the show yet so we dont know. So complaining about it is way premature.

          The uniforms are the same. We dont know if there is an in-universe explanation.

          The Delta has been explained numerous times and people saying its an error are wrong.

          We havent seen the Discovery bridge. And besides which, the designs we’ve seen fit the canon that came before it as far as Enterprise and kelvin go. If it looked like 60’s TOS then it still wouldnt fit since it would render Ent and Kelvin “wrong”.

          • Darkthunder

            Guess you never saw the ENT 2-parter “In a Mirror Darkly”, which established that the TOS bridge is still very much part of historical continuity between 2151 and 2270.

            Bottomline is… What we’ve seen so far, invalidates their claim that this is “Prime” timeline. No explanation given in the show will change that fact. But keep living under your rock, invalidating any other opinion than your own.

  • Dan King

    They should dump Kurtzman and hire Manny Coto. He rocked season 4 of Enterprise.

  • CBS should just call Discovery a reboot and be done with it.

  • Pedro Ferreira

    They’re going to keep continuity? They sure have one hell of a task judging by everything in the trailer!

    • Dan King

      Well, they have 10 years before Kirk to do whatever the hell they want

      • Pedro Ferreira

        Yeah like a Harry Mudd origin story, great.

        • Dan King

          Sounds like fun to me

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Like most prequels some things are best not explained.

          • TUP

            Oh so you have seen the episode?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Which episode?

          • TUP

            To make it easier for you, Ill provide two options for clarification:

            1) the Mudd origin story episode you mentioned
            2) any episode of Discovery

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Why would anyone want to watch a Mudd origin story. I mean a sane person.

          • TUP

            That’s not an answer to the question I asked. You’re assuming there is a Mudd origin story and then criticizing the show for it when none of us have seen a particular Mudd episode.

            Thats why you come under criticism. Because you’re presenting false facts and then criticizing them.

          • Dan King

            His insanity drags us all through the Mudd…

          • Pedro Ferreira

            No I’m asking why would anyone in their right mind want a Mudd origin story? Are fans really desperate for that? Are fans really desperate for more prequels generally? I’m not presenting false facts, just common sense.

          • TUP

            Again you’re avoiding answering the original question. You made a sarcastic remark insinuating a Mudd origin story when you have no idea if they will present the origin of Mudd. All we know is he’s going to appear in a couple of episodes.

            Stop it.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            He’s going to appear in a couple of episodes as a young version of himself. Call it a prequel version of himself, call it an origin, we are going to be introduced to him in Discovery so yeah back to my original question.

            And no you stop it!

          • TUP

            And again, you now admit you were completely wrong but are back to reiterating your original wrong statement.

            You have no idea what they plan to do with Mudd. I wasn’t a fan of Mudd in TOS. But I cant say Mudd in Discovery sucks because I havent seen it yet. Have you? No, so knock it off.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “And again, you now admit you were completely wrong but are back to reiterating your original wrong statement.” How?!

            “You have no idea what they plan to do with Mudd.” They hired a younger actor to play Mudd therefore this is going to be his early years, an origin story basically to TOS. Not sure why this is difficult for you to grasp. These aren’t false facts, what else do you think Mudd is there for?

            Getting back to what I originally argued was that we don’t need a prequel with Mudd, no one is asking for it. I agree with one of the users here that this show is just trying to appeal to TOS fans who want yet another prequel.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            TUP exposed you.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            The only thing TUP exposed was his incompetence (wink).

          • TUP

            Actually, I led you to a conclusion which I intended from the very beginning. It wasn’t even difficult. Thank you.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Lead me to what conclusion?! That you’re winding me up asking me silly questions and acting arrogant?! Yeah well done, you succeeded…

          • TUP

            Was asking you simple questions winding you up? That’s on you then. You should relax.

            Being correct isnt arrogance. You wound yourself up. Maybe try going for a walk or something, take some deep breaths. Dont get so worked up about a Star Trek forum. lol

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “Was asking you simple questions winding you up?” Why in God’s name are you asking me what President I have? What does that have to do with this rubbish Star Trek show?!

            “Being correct isnt arrogance.” You weren’t correct, you just keep digging that hole and I just find it hilarious.

          • TUP

            That is not what happened. I made a general remark about President Trump and you then questioned my intent. I explained it and you continued to express confusion.

            As a result of your odd questions, I attempted to clarify if you were American which you refuse to answer for some reason. It IS odd that you are so evasive about whether you are American or not. Most American’s I know are proud to say they are.

            Oh well.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            But what the hell does President Trump have to do with anything?! And why would you assume that he’s my president. You don’t make any sense then you accuse me of making stuff up!

          • TUP

            Im not sure why you’re having trouble understanding this unless you have a deficiency of some sort. Ill explain again.

            I made a generalization about your style being similar to Trump’s. You questioned me and I made the assumption you were American but since it was an assumption, I asked for clarification and you refused to answer for some reason.

            Instead of simply answering or declining the topic, you kept going on and on about Trump. Again, this is your MO. You present the false narrative that Trump is not the American President when you could simply express whether you’re American or not. But answering a simple question would have ended the discussion and you’d rather whine and complain and distract from all your other issues.

            Its very simple. Stop whining about Trump or contribute the simple fact to the discussion – are you American? If you dont want to answer, that’s fine (and weird) but then stop talking about it.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “I made a generalization about your style being similar to Trump’s.” See you think I’m here to cause trouble so you associate me rather badly with Trump making you look like a complete idiot as a result. Then you assume he’s my president further adding to the hilarity. Again I ask what the hell does Trump have to do with Star Trek?!

          • TUP

            Are you being anal on purpose or are you really having this much difficulty with comprehension.

            I just explained it to you numerous times.

            Again, you refuse to admit whether you are American or not. And my point that if you are American, Trump is your President still stands. Its a fact. You can’t make a fact untrue just because you dont like it.

            Grow up. If you’re so embarrassed about your nationality, then maybe you should talk to a professional about it. I dont know. Has nothing to do with me.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Yeah I’m being anal because all that Kool-Aid has gone to your head!

            I’m not disputing Trump is the President however I’m not sure what Trump has to do with Star Trek or my views. You tried to insult me but you failed because you assume too much and that’s what makes you worse than me. Grow up yourself and don’t assume anything. As they say assuming is the mother of all fuckups.

          • TUP

            Ill explain this to you again because you clearly dont get it.

            I was not insulting you. How do I know who you voted for? If you voted for Trump then comparing you to him would likely be a compliment, no?

            Also, I was not comparing you and Trump. I was illustrating that your method of discussion is similar to what he does. My intent was to hopefully provide insight for you in an effort to correct your behavior.

            I see it went over your head. Come to think of it, it seems a lot of things go over Mr Trump’s head too. Go figure.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Don’t try to get out of this, I can see clearly through your insult but it doesn’t work because you ‘assume’ my President is Trump. Go figure indeed.

          • TUP

            I assume nothing. I asked you. You are ashamed of your nationality and wont answer and yet keep pretending that Trump is not the President of the United States, which is weird.

            Why are you so reluctant to share your nationality? What are you ashamed of?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “I assume nothing.” I think you need to reexamine that.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Why are you afraid to tell TUP who your country’s President is?

          • TUP

            Its odd. I assume he is either American and thus, this whole debate about whether Trump is President is even more ridiculous or he is intimidated by me and concerned that if he says where he’s from, I will have some sort of intelligent criticism.

            Which would be a silly fear. I have no intention of insulting the poor guy. He doesnt need any ones help to look bad.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Exactly! And with my president being Trump, the last thing I would want to do this year is make fun of some other country’s president. 🙂

          • TUP

            hahaha I hear ya! As I said, my Prime Minister is Justin Trudeau and I am not particularly proud of that fact either!

          • Please see the pinned comment at the top of this thread.

          • Please see the featured comment at the top of this thread.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Why does it matter exactly? What does that have to do with Star Trek troll?

          • Please see the featured comment pinned at the top of this thread.

          • TUP

            I do know that “Pedro Ferreira” is a Portuguese name. If you’re from Portugal its also very strange you wouldn’t admit that. Everyone I’ve met from there are wonderful people (you’d be the first one I’ve interacted with who isnt).

            That would make your President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            You keep assuming what you want. You seem very good at it and you’re always wrong. Keep up the good work or should that be bad work?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You need a “time out” to cool down, dude. Way too emotional and silly.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Keep talking and insulting me.

          • TUP

            And by the way, you’re method of presenting false facts is very similar to how Trump operates, hence the relevancy of my original point.

            I was trying to do you a favour. Perhaps you should examine your own behavior instead of continuing to be a jerk.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Good go and cry about it. NOBODY CARES!!!

          • TUP

            Thats very true, no one cares. Thats the point so many have tried to make to you. But instead of improving your contributions here, you continue to flip out and stomp your feet like an angry little child.

            Stop addressing me if you wish to end the discussion. And by the way, “yelling” on a message board is lame. Are you wound up again? lol

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “Thats very true, no one cares.” Good then stop relying to my thread you muppet!

          • TUP

            If you were more mature, there would be no need for insults at all. Im not sure how long you will be permitted to post here but “idiots, slaves, muppet” and all your other rude behavior is tiresome.

            I assume you will not reply now. Thankfully.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            If my posts bother you then don’t reply in the first place! You are trolling!!!

          • TUP

            Im simply replying to posts you direct towards me. Ive given no indication Im bothered by you whatsoever. You, however, have admitted to being very upset and your words have demonstrated that.

            Perhaps you should take a break and cool off.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            No, you started relying to my posts! Now stop trolling!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Ah, so he just completely backed off what he said originally now that you pinned him down. Well done.

          • TUP

            Yup.I know these exchanges can sometimes be tiresome for others but there is method to it. When people are routinely as negative, nasty, rude and arrogant as Pedro, it can sometimes help to lead them to a conclusion and hopefully provide them some insight into their behavior.

            We can only hope he has now learned and will be a more productive contributor here.

          • DC Forever

            Why are you claiming there is a Mudd origin episode? Have you seen it?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I’m claiming there’s a Mudd prequel because it has been announced!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            What the hell are you talking about? A prequel episode? Really? What do you base this on?

            It’s seems pretty clear that he will be a side character, and that they are not going to take a whole episode to do a Mudd Prequel? That’s silly.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            You don’t seem to understand an early version of Mudd is going to appear right? It’s the early days of Mudd hence a prequel.

          • TUP

            Can you not be man enough to simply admit you were incorrect?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Can you not be man enough to admit to be a total numpty?

          • TUP

            Oh I see, so the answer is no, you cannot admit you were wrong. Okay then. That’s too bad. Says a lot about your character, or lack thereof.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Wrong about what exactly?! That it’s possible to have intelligent conversation with someone like you on this forum? Yeah I was wrong, you show arrogance and complete nonsense in what you say.

          • TUP

            For starters wrong when you stated with certainty there was a “Mudd Origin story”. You back tracked and tried to change the words you used to alter the meaning. You were too gutless to simply admit you made a false statement.

            In general, you are always wrong, repeatedly being critical of Discovery without any knowledge as to the quality of the show since no one has seen it yet.

            Rather then be logical, relevant or reasonable, you present inflammatory false facts to support your narrative. Read a book or something.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “You back tracked and tried to change the words you used to alter the meaning. You were too gutless to simply admit you made a false statement.” It’s a Mudd origin story, it’s a prequel. What the hell did I change? I didn’t make anything up, you are rubbish that’s not correct because that’s how people like you work on these forums.

            “you are always wrong, repeatedly being critical of Discovery without any knowledge as to the quality of the show since no one has seen it yet.” “Whine whine whine, I can’t get my own way. Everybody else is wrong except me, whine whine”.

            “you present inflammatory false facts to support your narrative.” You really sound like you live in your own little world.

          • TUP

            Im simply pointing out your behavior. if you choose to pretend it’s not happening, thats your business. But then dont get so snippy with people who react negatively to your nonsense.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            What behaviour?! This is what I don’t get. You can criticise me for absolutely anything but I could just launch all that right back at you.

          • TUP

            No, the only thing I’ve done negatively is continue to engage in a discussion with you that, no doubt, has aggravated many people here (although several have shown support for my posts).

            As I explained already, you are trashing a show you have not seen. You do that repeatedly. The Mudd remark was a perfect (but hardly isolated) example of stating a false fact to be critical of the show. You simply have no idea.

            If the show sucks when I watch it, I will come here and say so. And I will say so logically and reasonably. And I wont have to say “oh I was wrong” because I havent made any silly remarks about the quality of something I have never seen.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “the only thing I’ve done negatively is continue to engage in a discussion with you that,” That’s absolute BS, you’re trolling!

            “(although several have shown support for my posts).” Yeah all the idiot fan slaves like you!

            “The Mudd remark was a perfect (but hardly isolated) example of stating a false fact to be critical of the show. You simply have no idea.” Dude, you have no idea about life it seems. Let people have an opinion. Don’t cry or rant about people saying something differently. You come across like a troll, the three of you!

          • TUP

            Did you just call people here “idiots” and “slaves”?

            wow.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            No, only people like you who can’t think for themselves!

          • TUP

            You need a vacation from here. The use of “slaves” is particularly disturbing. Very shameful, Pedro. You’re a disgusting human being.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Agreed — the dude is losing it.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            You’re the disgusting human being! You and your friends are a bunch of trolls that harass people that have a different opinion. Get a life!

          • TUP

            You really are over the top now. You get so worked up and angry when people have a different opinion.

            Perhaps if you weren’t so negative, insulting and rude people wouldn’t feel the need to point it out to you.

            You dish it out but you cannot take it.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You do realize how silly and disturbing you sound here, don’t you? What a horse’s ass. Grow up!

          • Pedro Ferreira

            You know what’s actually disturbing? Star Trek fans like you!

          • TUP

            There is nothing to indicate its a Mudd origin story at all. Mudd being in an episode does not make it an origin story.

            You made a stupid remark that was simply not true because you wanted to be critical of the show without knowing anything about it.

            Admit you were wrong or shut up. Its really rather simple for people without mental deficiencies.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            For heavens sake it’s a Mudd prequel story therefore it’s an origin story because we’re seeing his early years! We’re not seeing the Mudd of TOS, no we’re seeing the Mudd or Discovery…which…is…a…prequel! Therefore since it’ll be about his early years it’s his origin to TOS. You can throw around mental handicaps as much as you like but it just goes to show how deluded you act when you fail to understand what I’m saying!

          • TUP

            You’re playing semantics now. This was the silliest thing. Had you simply replied initially and said “You guys are correct, we dont know what the Mudd appearances are about so I was wrong to state it was an origin story but I never liked the Mudd character so I am not looking forward to it in Discovery”, then most of us would have shrugged.

            You also seem to be missing that this is a different actor on a different show, written by different writers etc etc. So even if you hated the original Mudd, you have no idea whether this version will be good & interesting or not.

            You simply dont know. And the problem is, you pretend to know.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            No man I’m not playing semantics. You’re being a troll by being pedantic. None of what you have said makes logical sense to what I’m saying because it’s just poor excuses. You guys it seems are very good at doing that.

          • TUP

            if what I say is not logical to you, that is not my fault. Its you who has failed to comprehend pretty clear statements.

            And I’ve explained them numerous times. So I see no point in continuing.

            I did you the favour of trying to save you the hassle (and everyone else here) of the constant snipping because of your nonsense.

            I’ve educated you. You can do with that what you want.

            You’re welcome.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “if what I say is not logical to you, that is not my fault.” It is your fault because you’re trolling!

            “I’ve educated you.” This is why you come across like a total dickhead. You act all high and mighty and act like you’ve done me a favour but you haven’t. You’ve just acted like a complete buffoon. And I hate people like you!

          • TUP

            I’ve tried dumbing down my posts for you but I simply can’t dumb them down any further. If that comes across “high and mighty” to you, Im sorry. I cant pretend to be less intelligent than I am just because you pretend to be more intelligent than you are.

            You shouldn’t be so emotional. Many people have objected to your behavior here. Take a hint, kid.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            You can’t even handle the truth of what I said. You can’t even admit how arrogant and self righteous you are. You’re not doing yourself any favours troll.

          • TUP

            I’m not trying to do myself favours. What an odd thing to wrote.

            You’re really flipping out. You’re calling everyone names and insulting and being rude because people disagree with you.

            Be a more appropriate contributor and we won’t have to school you. Grow up kid.

          • TUP

            No, you claimed there was a Mudd origin story and implied it sucked. Unfortunately, you have no clue if there is a Mudd origin story or if the Mudd episode(s) will suck.

            You made up false facts and were called out on it and are now trying to alter your original intent. Just admit you were wrong and needlessly negative.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “Unfortunately, you have no clue if there is a Mudd origin story or if the Mudd episode(s) will suck.” Listen to me…they are bringing back Harry Mudd and showing his early years before TOS. It’s a prequel and shows him younger therefore it’s just as well as origin story! I mean how do you fail to understand this stuff?

            “You made up false facts and were called out on it and are now trying to alter your original intent.” False facts? Alter my original intent? What are going on about?!

            “Just admit you were wrong and needlessly negative.” I bet you and others here love drinking the Kool-Aid.

          • TUP

            Kool-Aid? Are you implying a conspiracy now? Just stop. You keep doing this and its tiresome. Please grow up and stop acting like a child.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Keep drinking your Kool-Aid man. You guys seem to love it.

          • TUP

            What are you referring to, those of us who are even-keeled, fair and dont run off at the mouth presenting false facts and being critical of something we have not seen?

            You should try some of that Kool-Aid. Perhaps it would chill you out so you don’t get so wound up. lol

          • Pedro Ferreira
  • Dan King

    Big trailer dropping in mid-aug.

  • To the following users: “Pedro Ferreira,” “The Science Fiction Oracle,” “TUP,” and “DC Forever” – this is the last thread that will be closed due to the four of you cycling this repeated pattern of insults and slap-fight arguments.

    This is the final warning for each of you: if another comment thread gets to this point bans will be handed out to those involved.