Excerpts from Friday’s special Star Trek: Discovery-themed issue of Entertainment Weekly continue to roll out, with more behind-the-scenes interview videos, photos, and discussion with the cast and crew on the new Trek coming in September.

The first video features the cast discussing the diverse nature of the show’s characters – from Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) as a black woman, to Lt. Paul Stamets (Anthony Rapp) as a gay man, to Lt. Saru (Doug Jones) as the alien Kelpian officer.

While there has been much discussion of diversity in interviews and publicity leading up to the series, Jones notes that on-screen, it’s much less front-and-center:

When you’re watching [‘Discovery’], it doesn’t have to be said: we never have to look at each other and say, ‘You’re an alien!’ or ‘You’re a woman of color!’ or whatever.

Anthony Rapp as Lt. Paul Stamets. (EW)

On the shipboard scientist, Lt. Stamets, Rapp and series producer Aaron Harberts divulged some new details on his character and how his romantic life is just one facet of his being.

“We’re at a point in time where people aren’t defined by their sexuality,” says Aaron Harberts. “What’s fascinating about the character is that when we meet him we don’t know who or what he is. He’s so super specific, he’s persnickety and difficult and brilliant, and he isn’t going to give an inch and he has very strong feelings about why he’s on the Discovery. We wanted to roll out that character’s sexuality the way people would roll out their sexuality in life.”

Rapp:

“I’m really excited and happy when a gay character is a part of a story — especially when a gay character is created in a complex and human and non-stereotypical, interesting way, and that has certainly been the case with Stamets.” Rapp tells us.

“And you get to see his relationship. There was a little glimpse in Sulu in Beyond, and it was a nice nod. But in this case, we actually get to see me with my partner in conversation, in our living quarters, you get to see our relationship over time, treated as any other relationship would be treated.”

“He’s a really, really smart guy and as smart guys go, he sometimes can be a little difficult to deal with because not everybody’s as smart as he is,” Rapp says. “So he’s got a little bit of an edge sometimes, which is fun to play.”

In a more lighthearted video, the cast does their best to share their favorite episodes and moments from Star Trek history.

With Sonequa Martin-Green calling out “Journey to Babel” (a natural given her character’s relationship with Sarek), Rapp going for Spock’s mind-meld in “Devil in the Dark,” Jason Isaac (Gabriel Lorca) remembering “Miri,” Shazad Latif (Lt. Tyler) enjoying both The Next Generation and the Kelvin Timeline films, Mary Wiseman (Cadet Tilly) fondly discussing TNG’s “The Offspring,” Doug Jones (Saru) reminiscing about Leonard Nimoy’s appearance in the 2009 Trek film, and Michelle Yeoh recalling her fascination with “Amok Time.”

EW has also released this additional set of images from their photo shoot accompanying the new issue, available Friday:

The cast dancing away on Discovery’s transporter platform. (EW)
Doug Jones as Lt. Saru.
Lorca (Jason Isaacs), Georgiou (Michelle Yeoh), Saru, and Burnham (Sonequa Martin Green).

Star Trek: Discovery debuts September 24.

  • OnlyManWhoCan

    That dancing photo? New facebook cover photo.

    (Also now hoping there’s a dance sequence in every episode!)

    • Donnaghayes

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !aw63d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !aw63d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash353FinderNovaPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!aw63l..,…

    • Mabelmreed

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !ae70d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !ae70d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash350TopArtsPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ae70l..,….

  • Jaro Stun

    When you’re watching [‘Discovery’], it doesn’t have to be said: we never have to look at each other and say, ‘You’re an alien!’ or ‘You’re a woman of color!’ or whatever.

    What is so new about this?
    5 Star Trek shows have done this before.

    For shit’s sake, stop boasting about it so much

    • Eric Cheung

      But isn’t this what the biggest critics of the increasing of diversity wanted? They usually complain that they don’t have a problem with diversity, they just don’t want to see the show focus exclusively on it. Complaining about this sounds like goalpost moving.

      Personally, I think there’s a difference between talking about the importance of representation in the real-world compared to in-universe talk about each others’ differences. The different backgrounds the characters bring guarantee an endless supply of unique interactions, the more diverse the cast, the more opportunities it provides for storytelling.

      In the real-world, Whoopi Goldberg was ecstatic as a child to see Uhura on television because “there’s a black lady on television, and she’s not a maid!” Mae Jemison, who was actually consulted for the series, was inspired to become an astronaut by seeing Uhura. It may seem trivial or superficial to those that enjoy the luxury of saturated representation, but to those who long to see themselves reflected in media, it’s inspiring.

      Jake Sisko’s character, Jimmy talked about the lack of Black people science fiction stories about the future being a message that they’re not welcome in the adventures of space. Star Trek proves otherwise.

      • Jaro Stun

        as I wrote, 5 Star Trek shows have done this before. It is a long lasting tradition of Star Trek.
        In context of Star Trek this should be taken for granted (its an attribute of the brand), not as some new massive achievement we need to celebrate in (almost) every Star Trek DIscovery interview.

        • Eric Cheung

          But that’s exactly what Doug Jones said. He was probably asked a question about it and answered it in a similar way to the way you did just now. He couldn’t not answer it, and I don’t think he was singling Discovery out as being better at it than the other shows, just that he was speaking about his show.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Yet before that everyone kept going on about having a black female lead and a gay character like it was more important than the actual storytelling.

          • Eric Cheung

            Again, it’s important in the real-world to have diverse role-models. And part of the importance of that is that it’s normalized in-universe. In other words, they’re both right. Mae Jemison, who was consulted for the show, was inspired by Star Trek in the real-world by the important act of having a black woman as a communications officer, but in-universe, it was rarely mentioned as exceptional (although her blackness was referenced in TOS, in episodes like The Naked Time with Nichols’ famous “sorry, neither” ad lib, and by a vision of Abraham Lincoln himself).

            The problem with this complaint about diversity somehow being elevated in importance out of all proportion is that it’s always debunked as not being as feared in the show itself. I’ve never seen a Star Trek show, where a character’s race was the sole-defining feature, and every single show has been marketed ahead of its premiere by talking about the firsts a show has in the diversity department (except perhaps ENT and the JJ movies–aside from Beyond).

            This fear that diversity is somehow at cross-purposes with good storytelling is bizarre, and a fear I’ve never ever seen realized. And I think I’ve watched an awful lot of television and movies from all over the world and from throughout the history of both media.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I’ve seen a good number of recent examples of film and TV caving into social justice propaganda. A good example would be Ghostbusters, another would be The Force Awakens or Rogue One although the latter was handled better. The casting of a female Doctor Who is totally OTT PC. Sure it’s a sign of the times but it doesn’t mean that was the right decision to make.

          • Eric Cheung

            Some of the stuff in Ghostbusters was commentary on the ridiculous overreaction to casting women as Ghostbusters. It just so happened that the themes dovetailed nicely with the very real struggles women scientists encounter in the world ( http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/scientists-mock-nobel-prize-winner-tim-hunt-distractinglysexy-twitter/ ). You can argue about the execution, because YMMV; perhaps you feel Contact confronted that issue more effectively. But it would be disingenuous to pretend that women scientists get treated equally to men by ignoring that reality in the film. It added a layer to the underdog nature already present in the original film.

            As for the other films, there wasn’t anything in The Force Awakens or Rogue One that didn’t ring true in their Casting women as leads. I don’t know what possible problem someone could have with women merely being the leads there. Both movies had roles for their leads that would be probably be applauded by the fans that had a problem those characters if they were cast as men, but nothing in the script was different.

            It’s a ridiculous double-standard. If the part deals too much with the reality of sexism in science, and in fandom, then it’s too political. If the role merely exists without commentary, but is cast as a non-straight-white-man, then it’s also somehow political.

            If the motives aren’t questioned when casting a straight white man, then they shouldn’t questioned when a non-straight-white-man finally breaks through the systemic barriers in place that allow men to take two-thirds of the speaking parts, and an even greater majority of lead roles, or when non-white characters regularly speak less than ten minutes in a two-hour film, and are leads even less frequently.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            The reason for Ghostbusters 2016 was only because Amy Pascal wanted an excuse for higher salary for women. As for Feig the man cannot direct a movie with men in the lead roles due to his psychological issues. What you are saying makes absolute nonsense as to what I know about the film. They went one way to promote a political agenda and thankfully they failed.

            The Farce Awakens was a terrible film with an awful lead character, a character pandering to the SJW needs. They tried the same rubbish with Rogue One but that turned out better firstly because Felicity Jones can act, secondly because her character was written well.

            I don’t think you seem to realise that forcing diversity just for diversity’s sake is both pretentious and immoral. The Doctor Who example is a great example of that.

          • Eric Cheung

            Increasing diversity in movies, no matter what the reason, is no less immoral than the institutionalized system that creates underrepresented classes of people in media. The only way to get movies that both feature better representation, and are better quality movies, is to saturate the industry with the untapped talent from underrepresented communities (Stage 8 in the list below).

            When there is that embarrassment of rich representation, the better films and the better actors will rise to the top. When the system is stacked against the underrepresented, because the people in power are straight white men either so oblivious or so self-interested as to be blind to the pools of talent out there, then outside forces need to take action to compensate for that discrepancy.

            Campaigns to get more minorities into films and television are generally not propaganda, nor are they space races. Hopefully I can clarify why they’re not.

            A larger sociological issue is that there are several stages an underrepresented people go through in the media (they’re more or less linear):

            1. Invisibility
            2. Caricatures as played by the dominant people, white people in blackface or yellow face, often as villains or comic relief (the Amos n Andy radio show).
            3. Caricatures as played by representatives of the underrepresented people (the Amos n Andy TV show, Long Duk Dong).
            4. Token characters (what in television would be called extras, with no lines, or co-stars, with lines that render the character someone whose sole purpose is to move the plot forward, i.e. a nameless helmsman on the Enterprise).
            5. Noble characters played by representatives of the underrepresented people (which itself is a problem as it’s a large contributor to creating false idealized portraits. Rightly or wrongly The Cosby Show was criticized for this, and it’s a major factor in the concept of the Model Minority).
            6. Characters that are minority versions of sanitized white sitcoms with recycled plots.
            7. Flawed and complex characters written and performed by the underrepresented people that tell that people’s story.
            8. Saturated proportional representation that allows honest representation, both in numbers and in the diversity of characters within the underrepresented people.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I think you obviously have a huge beef with TV and film in general. You think pushing diversity for the sake of it is better than actually creating decent scripts. This is the problem the reboot Ghostbusters film ran into. This is the same problem other studios are creating for themselves. You seem to be looking for issues where none exist or if they do exist in no way as bad as you make them out to be.

            You blame white males for all your issues when non-white males are just as much to blame for issues with poor TV or film. You need to get over it. The whole world doesn’t revolve around you. White males aren’t the cause of every issue in the world. I welcome diversity but I don’t welcome forced diversity. It takes a rational person to see an overreaction when there shouldn’t be one.

          • Eric Cheung

            LOL. If I thought the world revolved around me, then I’d only advocate for better representation of half-Italian/half-Cantonese males in their mid-30s.

            The only way to combat forced homogenization (which is what happens when a particular demographic has a much greater than proportionate representation) is through what you call “forced diversity.” But as I’ve said countless times, by bringing in different people from a wider range of the human experience, you’ll have not just a more diverse looking bunch of people on screen, but a much much wider array of stories, and better, fresher, more original stories.

            When stories come from a narrower section of the population, then there will doubtless be a narrower range of stories.

            Diversity generally improves storytelling; it does not diminish it. Check out films from around the globe. There’s a lot more out there than what Hollywood gives us.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            You mention Hollywood, an American industry. You’re complaining about diversity from an AMERICAN industry. Of course it lacks diversity by nature it’s American! If you want diversity what you need is more countries film industries represented around the world. Stop seeing Hollywood films, go and support World Cinema if you want better representation. You’re blaming a fairly predominantly white industry for not be global enough when America was built with white people and when you could make the argument there aren’t enough British or German people working in Bollywood or in Chinese cinema.

            It’s a whole redundant topic if you actually examine it.

          • Eric Cheung

            America isn’t nearly as white as Hollywood makes it look, especially the films that take place in major cities.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            America is built on mostly white people since it;s supposed to be white. Over time other cultures have integrated which is great as it creates diversity however you can’t moan and complain that too many ‘white males’ are in charge of Hollywood when Hollywood is part of America. Also anytime anybody complains about ‘white males’ I get suspicious about them since they seem to leave out white women whoa re in power that cause as many problems along with people of other races. I just saw a video yesterday on the fall of the Commodore Amiga due to Mehdi Ali and that guy isn’t American!

          • Eric Cheung

            America is supposed to be white??

            Tell that to the demographers that predict that non-white people will outnumber whites by 2042.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            And I’m sure non-white people will be pleased but again it all comes down to the fact that America has a predominantly white culture because it’s supposed to due to it’s legacy and history. I’m sure North Africa wouldn’t be too happy if it was suddenly made up of mostly ‘white males’ right? Not sure what ‘white males’ have done to you but blaming one race for problems in the world is pretty absurd.

          • Eric Cheung

            No I blame the institutions in place, not specific people. History, legacy, and tradition are invariably the worst reasons to do anything.

            All I want is for the stories of any underrepresented people to be told. I find the suspicion and opposition of mere speech by such people to be absurd.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Come on, I could go to Bollywood and complain there aren’t enough white people working in the industry, it’s a rather redundant thing to over push. I look at TV or film in the past 30 years I never see an under-representation of non-white people so not sure why there’s this big push from the left wing suddenly for more.

          • Eric Cheung

            Even in Bollywood, they skew pretty light-skinned.

            But the demographics turn your analogy to mush.

            http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/30000-hollywood-film-characters-heres-many-werent-white/

            This story from two years ago suggests that the representation roughly matches US demographics, but that’s if you include every fast food clerk with one line, not just characters that have any kind of development as a character.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I worry about those kind of statistics because for them to research that kind of thing they’d have to watch every single movie in the past 30 years to get an accurate estimate which they clearly can’t.

            Bollywood has their own way of making movies and if you feel they’re getting too influenced by Hollywood trends of the past 10 years then that’s Bollywood trying to appeal to a wider audience, that’s their problem, not Hollywood’s fault.

          • Eric Cheung

            I don’t think the world revolves around anyone. But you literally said that “America is supposed to be white.” How does that not mean you think it should revolve around whites?

            And your implication that diverse stories are worse stories sure implies a supremacy of white storytelling.

            I’m for all the folks that are currently in the business of telling stories to continue to do so. I just believe that there’s plenty of room for them, plus a lot more voices from other walks of life, especially in today’s media market.

            The good stories will rise to the top. I’m just saying we don’t even know what we’re missing.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “How does that not mean you think it should revolve around whites?” I’m saying you’re so desperate for diversity you forget the country Hollywood is built on is a white race country. You can’t expect Hollywood not to favour white people to some extent.

            “And your implication that diverse stories are worse stories sure implies a supremacy of white storytelling.” I never said that. I’m implying studios are so obsessed with forcing diversity they miss what the actual story is their telling. Creatively you cannot but diversity first before storytelling, then it becomes political.

            “The good stories will rise to the top. I’m just saying we don’t even know what we’re missing.” I agree, I’m sure there’s a lot of stories told by non-white people that we could be getting but you have to remember Hollywood is part of a white nation. If anything you should be asking other non-white film industries to put their own films out there.

      • M33

        “The different backgrounds the characters bring guarantee an endless supply of unique interactions”

        This is true.
        But does their racial heritage determine this?
        I don’t think very much.
        If you were to take a black person as a baby and raise them by adoptive parents in Japan, do you really think their “race” would inform who they are?
        Or a third-generation Chinese-ancestry person raised in Ireland?
        Their exteriors might change how some people initially react to them, but I guarantee you it is the “culture” they are raised in that make 90-95% percent the person that they are, their behaviors, their speech patterns, their worldviews, NOT their “race”.
        Race is an antiquated concept leftover from the past that continues to haunt us today as something worth meaning or identifying with.
        When terrorists attack America (for example), they don’t see white, black, asian, arabic, etc… they see Americans they want to kill. Our culture is offensive to them… our “ethnicities” are secondary.

        • Eric Cheung

          If nothing else, situations you cite would open up even more story possibilities. An adoptee raised in a different land might either wonder about their own parents, or have an indifference toward them that shows up later. The former is literally the premise of DSC, and is Worf’s, Data’s, and Odo’s story, the latter is similar to Spock and Bashir’s stories. So, yes, racial identity would have an impact as much as cultural identity. That tension between nature and nuture was the premise of stories like Star Trek: Nemesis and Suddenly Human. Race and ethnicity as a handicap will be antiquated by Trek’s 23rd century, but it will not have gone away as a marker of identity.

          • M33

            I agree with your points on stories Trek has done to discuss nature vs. nuture. However, I find this misses the mark because these examples conflate the notions of culture and genetic heritage as something translatable into the human condition. It isn’t.
            While Odo, Worf, Data and others have been raised essentially by a species that is not their own, the difference is they are genetically a different type of animal with inherent behavioral and biochemical distinctions that can never be overcome to make them fit the mold of the different species they were raised in. That culture they were raised in has an impact on everything about them, but there are vast parts of themselves that are permanently fixed by nature. This is completely not the case with human beings as our genetic difference between ethnic backgrounds is very very slight in comparison to the differences between alien species, and it is an unfortunate analogy that Trek has made on occassion.
            Also, having had a long-time friend who was adopted at birth, and being married to a woman who was from different parents than those she was born to, I can tell you clearly that adopted children almost all want to eventually learn who their parents are, including white children who were raised by white adoptive parents. This is not a distinction of race. Nearly all are going to have the same curiousity about their genetic origins, to which ethnicity is natually a part of it as it would be for any child of any ethnicity. It would inform them of their birth-family’s lineage, but certainly not to what they can expect themselves to behave like. That sort of “genetic behavior legacy” thinking is why countless cultures of all “races” have sought ethnic “cleansing” throught history– because of “bad blood”.
            In my opinion, it is a terrible thinking to perpetuate.

          • Eric Cheung

            I didn’t say that the desire to learn more about one’s parent’s wasn’t universal, merely that such curiosity is compounded when an adoptee is of a different race, ethnicity, species, or culture from the adopters. Otherwise, the writers probably wouldn’t have bothered making the stories about adoptees being so different from their adoptive parents.

            There’s nothing terrible in acknowledging those differences. It’s only when those differences are used as a reason not to respect one another that it’s a problem.

            IDIC

          • M33

            Maybe we are sort of saying the same thing.
            Acknowledging differences is perfectly fine, just like height, hair colors, eye colors, nose shapes, etc. Ethnic-genetic differences that create other variations like skin tones, facial shapes, etc, are too.
            These however are superficial traits, a skin on the bounty of the indiviual that is within, which is thd part that truly matters–just like Trek’s vision for humanity.

          • M33

            What concerns me and others the most is when there is demanding special or preferential treatment because of these superficial qualities. It is incongruent with Star Trek’s values and places this “demand” burden on everyone not of that “superficial group trait”.
            There is not one ethnic group that has not been oppressed at one time or another by each other, so this special compensation or preferrential treatment is an endless cycle that will never be solved by catering to or dividing people up institutionally into “groups”.
            Think of what Data said in “Encounter at Farpoint” when they were trying to defend humanity: “In the year 2036, the new United Nations declared that no Earth citizen could be made to answer for the crimes of his race or forbears”
            That is Trek philsophy–just as it was MLKs–people to be judge solely by the content of their character. The key is to treat everyone equally from here on out; we can’t fix the wrongs of the past.
            But to continue to make important superficial differences as division points worthy of demand defeats Treks entire “lead by example” premise. No one talks diversity in Trek’s world- they simply live it, and that is what makes that future one we all want.
            That is what made Star Trek originally work in the 60s and 70s and why it is still timeless today for people all over the world.
            A “post-racial society”, as Preisdent Obama had once said.
            Being proud of heritage is fine, everyone has one, but it only is a small factor in who we are as a person. Using that heritage to want special rights or divisions in society because of it will never ever bring people together.
            Separate but equal never works.

            By the way, how did you like the “Celluloid Closet” documentary?
            I know we talked about it before.

          • Eric Cheung

            I don’t think a post-racial society is possible, or even necessarily desirable. But a post-racist one is. I disagree that there’s no value in assessing, and making up for the relative injustices of one culture over another, because those injustices have consequences that last centuries, a spiraling circle of systemic injustice. Check out Assata Shakur’s autobiography for examples. I guess I disagree with Data, and maybe even Roddenberry, there. Neither is infallible.

            It’s been a long time since I saw the Celluloid Closet. I saw it in college, probably around 2001. So I wouldn’t be qualified in my giving a review, other than to regurgitate its reputation as an important work.

          • M33

            I am curious to know how far back in time do you extend for those groups applicable for restitution.
            Is it only non-white or are all groups applicable?

          • Eric Cheung

            Cool. Check out Ta Nehisi Coates, Octavia Butler, Iris Chang, and George Takei’s “To the Stars” too, if you’d like. Those authors may answer some of your questions better than I could.

          • M33

            Familiar with all those folks, except Chang.
            Will check back with you on it after I’ve looked at them more.
            Thanks.
            Always interested in differing opinions.

          • Eric Cheung
      • Pedro Ferreira

        No one in their right mind hates diversity, it’s when it’s done for political ends that people raise issues with it. They’ve gone so far to make a big thing about diversity that they’ve barely mentioned the plot of the show. That is a bad mentality to go into a show with.

        • Eric Cheung

          I don’t know about you, but I’ve been well-satisfied with the amount of premise and plot information that’s been made public. Here’s what I know about the show so far, based on news from sites like this, none of which has to do with diversity or any obvious political message, and certainly the first twelve bullet points deal directly with the plot:
          SPOILERS
          .
          .
          .
          .
          .
          .
          .
          * It takes place circa 2255, ten years before Kirk’s five-year mission
          * It involves either ancient Klingons, or a sect of disciples to ancient Klingons, either way led by T’Kumva, they intend to resurrect the old ways of Klingon culture to unify an empire in disarray
          * Michael Burnham is a human who was rescued by Sarek in an incident that killed her parents
          * Sarek and Amanda Grayson raised her, and she became the first human to attend the Vulcan Science Academy
          * She is being groomed for command by her captain Phillipa Georgiou, of the USS Shenzhou
          * She does something that starts a war, either an indirect action triggering the Klingon civil war or a war between the Federation and the Klingon Empire
          * Saru is a Kelpian who evolved from a prey species, sensitive to oncoming danger, particularly threats to life
          * Ash Tyler is a Starfleet officer rescued as a POW
          * Paul Stamets is an astromycologist with a long-term partner Hugh Culber (who is Chief Medical Officer of the Discovery), whose research in mushrooms is a project related to work being done in engineering
          * Cadet Sylvia Tilly is a fourth-year student, apprenticing under Stamets, and rooming with a potentially demoted or probationary Burnham
          * Captain Gabriel Lorca, of the USS Discovery, is a “messed up guy” in the words of his actor Jason Isaacs
          * Harry Mudd will be involved
          * Several other characters include: a Starfleet Admiral, Chief Medical Officer of the Shenzhou Nambue, a Klingon Battle Deck Commander, a protege of T’Kumva’s named Kol, a Discovery security officer named Landry, and Klingon leaders Ujilli and Dennas

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Yet none of this has been made clear in interviews posted here. I’ve so far read more about the need for diversity than the actual plot of the show. Now that to me sounds wrong.

          • Eric Cheung

            Wait, what??

            Most of the information above has been relayed through interviews posted here, or on sites like TrekMovie or TrekToday. Certainly, the stuff about Tyler, Stamets, Tilly, and Lorca is directly from Comic Con interviews.

            Maybe you’re just consuming the general entertainment publication interviews such as EW. Those interviews are targeted at the broad TV watching public, not Trek fans. So of course they won’t go into detail about the exact setting and premise. For those news sources, it’s enough that it’s simply Star Trek’s return to television after 12 years.

            Besides, the more spoiler-y information is likely to be in print, on sites like this, in order to preserve the surprise for those that just want to see the new actors without learning too much about the show ahead of time. So talking about the groundbreaking casting for the show is a natural subject matter for interviews that are careful not to spoil too much.

            But it doesn’t matter where the information comes from, and it doesn’t matter how the show is marketed. Just watch the premiere and decide for yourself.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I think then there’s a problem when the mainstream media is making a bigger thing about diversity than the actual plot of the show. The first interview above probably doesn’t help neither does Fuller’s comments about it.

          • Eric Cheung

            Mainstream media never has, and never will, care about the plot of a new Star Trek show. To the mainstream media, the news story is that there’s a new Star Trek show after twelve years off the air, and what this show does differently from any other show. So really those differences amount to: multiple ships, having a black woman first officer as the lead, as opposed to a fourth white male captain, having one of the ships captained by an Asian woman film star, having the first regular gay characters, streaming the show on CBS All Access and in international first run on Netflix, and having a serialized story involving Klingons, told across multiple ships. And the casting of Michelle Yeoh is relevant to the mainstream media, even beyond diversity because this will be the first Trek show to have an international first-run release, much like Doctor Who since it came back on the air. And since Doctor Who came back in 2005, it’s reflected the larger scope of its viewership by slowly starting to have a cast that looks a bit more like its audience.

            Anything beyond that is for niche sites like this. It’s folly to look to mainstream news sites for detailed plot information. They don’t care, and the new fans won’t be drawn by the minutiae, not at first at least.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            What I’m saying is that the actors themselves and going on about it in interviews so this feeds the press.

          • Eric Cheung

            They’re answering the questions they’ve been asked. You can’t expect them to refuse to answer questions on the subject in a huff just because you think the subject matter is offensive.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Yet it’s the focus and why is that?

          • Eric Cheung

            I already offered you an explanation on the mainstream media’s angle. But if that’s not sufficient, then I suppose you’d have to take it up with the interviewer, or the news organization asking the questions. The blame cannot be blamed on the show itself for simply answering questions they’re asked.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            To an extent they’re not to blame but I get suspicious when they go out of their way to make a big thing about it, almost like they want to offend people.

          • Eric Cheung

            First, it’s a false premise, as there’s been plenty of coverage on all aspects of the show, diversity is just one angle, not the primary focus of even the EW stuff.

            Second, I already explained why the mainstream media might focus a bit more on that then Trek-focused sites like this one.

            Third, I also said that it’s not the responsibility of the cast to control the line of questioning of news publications, nor is it my responsibility to psychoanalyze the news media.

            Why don’t you write a letter to the news organizations that ask these questions, if my answers aren’t satisfactory?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            It is kind of their responsibility though isn’t it? If they’re not to blame then it’s the editors who put together the publicity stuff Trekcore posts here that is hammering home the whole thing. I speak for a lot of people I think in saying I’m more interested in hearing the plot of the new series than whether the show has the first orange or blue helmsmen.

    • pittrek

      Welcome to 21st century. If you don’t think that diversity is the greatest and most important thing of all you are automatically a racist sexist misogynist islamophobic homophobic transphobic Trump supporter.

      • Jaro Stun

        seems so. Moreso it seems the so called *diversity* thing is becoming a religion. The sheer amount of replies to my post on the other article just prove it .

        And here I am citing from the EW cover:
        “Inside the 12-year mission to bring pop culture’s most beloved franchise back to TV – and to boldly go where no WOMAN has gone before”

        ..aaaand Voyager’s cpt. Janeway is spinning in her future grave

        • Ace Stephens

          It seems some of a certain mentality are always saying we need to stop trying to erase/omit/etc. people of x type but then those same people are frequently content to do so in order to hype whatever the current iteration/example is. It’s baffling and hypocritical. One need not erase the (good or bad of the) past in order to celebrate the present.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Entertainment has become far too political instead of focusing on storytelling. Today’s political climate with the left has made some awful decisions in media.

      • M33

        Unfortunately, the producers need to beat the diversity drum on an already diverse franchise is basically political posturing in the “Resist Trump” bandwagon.

        For the show, it is basically this:

        http://i.imgur.com/WTDnnwE.gif

        • iMike

          “Unfortunately, the producers continued need to beat the diversity drum…” Really? People probably uttered the same thing in 1966, 1987, 1993, 1995, and 2001.

          • M33

            1966 they didn’t talk “diversity” up.
            They just DID IT and let people deal with it instead of talking it to death like now.
            Same with the other shows. There was maybe some talk, but very little compared to today.
            My point earlier is that 99% percent of TV viewers know we live and work with people of a variety of ethnic backgrounds nowadays.
            When 66 Trek was putting that front in center on TV, it was an important (but handled subtly) statement for the time when white America was 90% of TV shows if not more.
            In today’s time, it’s just called going outside, or turning on the TV, or driving in your car.
            People know and can see America is diverse. To keep beating the drum is really just beating a dead horse for a show that has always had a diversity of ethnic backgrounds in it. This isn’t anything new; it’s just grandstanding that gets annoying when the media hypes it over and over again.
            You know what I want to hear more about?
            Tell me about when the USS Discovery was built!
            And the Shenzou!
            And tell me about the tech!
            Tell me what sorts of stories we can expect!
            You know, the STORY parts, not what we all already know about Trek!

          • iMike

            Of course the show will talk about the things you mention, and those are all things we as Trek fans want to see. However, given what is going on it the world today, at home and abroad, it is very clear we have not moved beyond the point where talk about diversity is irrelevant.

          • M33

            It just feels like preaching to the choir.
            People who are diversity-oriented already are Star Trek’s audience.
            They really couldn’t stand watching the show otherwise, because the inherent premise is “all humans are equal”.
            So, it become kind of overkill and silly and back-slapping feel-good-isms more than anything actually meaningful.
            Maybe others feel different and find this continued commentary insightful, but I know I and many others find nothing new or original in it.

          • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

            No.

  • This all sounds so very promising! Rapp’s character sounds as if he’ll be very interesting.

    And I’m thrilled at the episodes they chose; “Amok Time,” “Journey to Babel,” and “The Devil in the Dark” are my three favorite TOS episodes.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      They’re probably the only ones they researched.

  • Harry Kane

    WTF is that transporter room look wrong, The more I read and see, the more I see a goofy kevlin movie look appearing. They haven’t even tried to blend it inbetween ENT and a upgraded TOS look, Got to remember, TOS is the classic era so it won’t be like TMP and TNG after nemeisis e.t.c Those corridors look cheap and nasty, were are the NX Refits were are the hints back to a late ENT look. ENT is what was before TOS so why do we keep seeing medocre interiors for star trek discovery. Im sure the story will be great but the look is just not even acceptable. And if I hear one more dumbass coment such as “Oh were not go back to the 60’s or its 2017 they have to modernize it” BS. Unlike Discovery, the creators of ENT actually thought hard about what was before TOS and the appearance. And the thing is, it actually works pretty well. Those in charge of Discovery haven’t done a damm thing, Discovery is way too big and advanced to be a TOS era ship, the connie is due to be the ship of the line. Why so big, the could have scaled it down, put on late ENTImproved TOS hybrid cylindrical naccelles on https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e599d3f694b5458b72c9c5b7aec9062d4ad37a818d4e7c89b93f3e57eae48315.jpg

  • Harry Kane

    I only thing true trekkies want is for Star Trek to evolve they way it always has, by moving thru time, Logically that would be post nemesis, catching up with the Titan e.t.c, Wesley Crusher maybe working his way to Captain. Lots of many fab stories still to be told yet the studio has opted for the worst and most boring option ever.

    • Kirksdeadjim

      Nope.What ” true Trekkies ” want is good characters and good storytelling and they dont care what century or timeline the series is set in.Also everybody hated Wesley Crusher ( aka the most annoying character to appear in the franchise )

      • M33

        I could also live without seeing bratty, whiny Wesley again…

  • pittrek

    I will never understand the American obsession with “diversity”

    • M33

      Atonement for past sins.
      The question is when does focus on race stop?

      • jstimson

        Well, the sins are still going on, and not just in the US. So let’s reword that to say atonement for past, current, and future sins. And I guess the focus will stop when the need for it stops, which doesn’t look like it’s going to happen anytime soon.

        • M33

          And it’s not just whites oppressing every color.
          It’s every ethnic group oppressing every other ethnic group.
          Just read Better Angels of Our Nature by Stephen Pinker and you’ll learn real quick that this type of oppression has been human nature regardless.

    • dixonium

      Do you understand Star Trek’s “obsession” with diversity?

      • pittrek

        Star Trek was never obsessed with diversity. Star Trek was simply diverse.

        • Jaro Stun

          best summary of my view point as well

    • Pedro Ferreira

      It’s infected the BBC as well…

  • Fiery Little One

    I found their answers to which episodes/movies they particularly remembered. Both in terms of what they picked and in terms of who could actually name episodes.

  • M33

    “” When you’re watching [‘Discovery’], it doesn’t have to be said:
    we never have to look at each other and say, ‘You’re an alien!’ or
    ‘You’re a woman of color!’ or whatever. “”

    While this is true for human characters in Trek in all series, it is sadly not the viewpoint of the writers or the producers of this show.

    Also, it is incorrect. Think about how “speciesist” everyone was about every alien culture they came across.
    “You Vulcan!”
    “Tholian punctuality”
    “Bloodthirsty Klingons”
    “A Bolian… sigh…”

    Seriously… Star Trek always talked about races but replaced human race with “alien races” to try to comment, which sadly combined fixed characteristics of race with culture. Klingons can inherently be different in behavior because they are genetically very different than humans, but a human of different skin color is not going to be different inherently in behavior–that depends on the culture they are raised in.

    • Newdivide1701

      “A charming Nigress.” – Abraham Lincoln copy.

      That is very true, but even though they recognize that someone is for example Tholian, and noting Tholian punctuality, or recognizing a Tellarite and Sarek saying, “Tellarites don’t argue for reason, they simply argue,” it’s not often we hear someone say, “Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!”

      Stiles is one person who actually projected that sense of xenophobia early on with his clashes with Spock. When Bones and Spock clash with the opposing points of view, especially the distaste Spock has with humans and his human half, they still have respect for each other.

  • Matineer

    Stamets looks like an interesting character with an interesting job. Ironically, after all the diversity talk, this cast looks no more diverse (visually) than previous Trek casts. They were more diverse ethnically (Voyager, DS9 with Worf) and agewise (TOS,TNG– a youngster in each) than this one. Not to mention body types.

    • SpaceCadet

      But the big deal here is not solely that this is another diverse cast but that you have women of color as the lead of the show and one of the captains. Having the first out gay character in a series is also a very big deal.

    • Jaro Stun

      because there is nothing new here, its just today the Diversity religion (see how we are even getting conditioned to write it capitalized lol) is strongly engrained in (especially) US audience. Thats why they must keep banging everyone with it over his/her head in every friggin interview.

      I will reserve my judgement for once the show airs, but for sure i hope this is not a move from “alien of the week” to *x*-sexual / *x*-gender / *x*-race of the week.

      The guy in the interview states something pretty much along those lines, so there is hope this is just marketing/mainstream-media keeping this diversity spam going.

      • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

        Well said.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        I’ve responded to you 3 times on this, but since you prefer to just spout your stuff and not accept any discussion on this, I won’t waste my time again.

        Keep your broad pronouncements coming! You are part of the problem — you bring this up over and over and over, and your sidekick Tom Cruise provides the incessant, never ending stream of “atta-boys” to prop you up. Pretty sad!

  • LEVI TELEBAJSEK

    I dont care because this show look like trash

    • mr joyce

      so why comment if you dont care?

      • SpaceCadet

        There be trolls lurking about craving attention with their doom and gloom!

        • M33

          …space-trolls, maybe?

      • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

        Because people can have different opinions.

        • mr joyce

          no, not really, the guy isn’t contributing anything, just spouting random nonsense. if he doesn’t care, why is he commenting? its got nothing to do with stating an opinion.. but you know, that’s just my opinion LOL ( i’m not being serious, i’m just showing how too many people use ”but its my opinion, you need to value my opinion, you just don’t like my opinion” etc etc etc to justify ridiculous statements, but, you know, that’s just my opinion 😀 )

          • M33

            Yes, the old “I respect everyone’s opinion as long as they agree with me” folks!
            I had a mentor who gave me a great tidbit of wisdom:
            “Opinions are like a-holes; everyone’s got one, and some really stink.”

          • mr joyce

            so true 😀

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          And really, really bad teeth. 😉

    • Pedro Ferreira

      A mishandled comment but direct and to the point.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        That;s an impressive supporter you have there. Congrats!

        • Pedro Ferreira

          I wouldn’t have put it exactly like that but he got the point across, ha, ha!

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      I know of a good dentist, BTW. 😉

  • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

    Ha in that last photo they look like they are at the gym. And Rapp? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • horrid74

    I like it. Looking forward to the premiere and hoping the only thing that will will leave me laughing unintentionally are those awkward looking super hero jammies they have the crew wearing.

  • Pedro Ferreira

    First video: “It doesn’t matter that the show has a black female lead or the first gay character but we’ll make sure to express out delight and go on about it endlessly during the interview.”

    Second video: “I have so many favourites like that one with Amanda and Babel and that alien…”

    Meanwhile through each of these videos before I can see them I have to watch Drew Barrymore plug new glasses for Asda.

    • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

      lol yes.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        No joke, how many times do I need to be reminded to buy Drew Barrymore’s glasses?!

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Maybe she wakes up every morning and forgets she has them, and then buys a new pair every day?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Ha, ha! It’s just the most bizarre celebrity endorsement I’ve seen and so random a commercial to get on a Star Trek website, especially as she’s promoting an Asda product.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      The media asks those questions over and over though.

      I know you aren’t saying this Pedro, but some fans here keep saying it’s CBS that is marketing this diversity thing, but it’s really the media who keeps bringing it up at every interview. It’s not CBS.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        I take it it’s brought up at comic/sci-fi conventions as well to the cast.