Well, it’s Tuesday again – time for another catch-up on Star Trek: Discovery news from around the web this past week!

First up, just announced today, is a Prizeo contest from Discovery guest star Rainn Wilson, where two lucky fan will win a trip to a Hollywood premiere of the new series, through donating to the LIDE Haiti foundation.

You and a friend can attend the Star Trek: Discovery premiere and cast party on September 19, 2017 as the guest of an interstellar con man—me! We’ll beam you out and put you up in a hotel. You’ll see CBS’ hit new show before anyone else and hobnob with the stars. All it takes is a donation of $10 to LIDÈ Haiti.

My wife, Holiday, and I started LIDÈ Haiti to help provide education to girls in rural Haiti. We use the arts to empower the girls in this community, and the results have been spectacular.

Other prizes are also available as donation perks, including Discovery shirts, pins, and puzzles.

*   *   *

Retailer Popfunk has launched two lines of Discovery T-shirt designs, including both logo wear and a series of Discovery-themed uniform prints from all four assignment divisions.

*   *   *

Writer/producer Ted Sullivan has continued to reveal Discovery production photos from the set of the show up in Toronto, revealing some more neat looks at the series’ sets.

First up is Captain Georgiou’s command chair from the USS Shenzhou:

Next is a look at a Starfleet medal awarded to the Shenzhou‘s commander: the Star Cross, also awarded to both Jonathan Archer in the 22nd Century, and Data in the 24th.

Finally, confirmation from Sullivan that the odd-looking honeycomb-like chamber glimpsed briefly in the May teaser trailer is in fact part of the Shenzhou sickbay set.

As seen on camera, doing… something.

*   *   *

Over at the CBS All Access Star Trek: Discovery page, this new artwork cropped up featuring a thruster-suit-wearing Burnham standing on the edge of the USS Discovery saucer.

*   *   *

Lastly this evening, another series of promotional videos released by CBS: a final character promo focusing on the Klingon Voq — played by an actor we still are unable to confirm…

…another stylized look at the Starfleet gear worn by the new crews – along with a tiny, brief glimpse of the Discovery interior…

Warp speed ahead! #StarTrekDiscovery

A post shared by Star Trek Discovery (@startrekcbs) on

…and a new promo released today, where Captain Lorca (Jason Isaacs) welcomes Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) to the Discovery, speaking the character’s name aloud for the first time.

While much of this newest trailer is familiar, a few shots of our lead show her in what seems like pretty severe emotional distress, including one view of Burnham on her knees, screaming on the Shenzhou transporter platform.

Perhaps her away mission to the Klingon vessel with Georgiou (seen in the Comic Con trailer) doesn’t go so well.

Keep checking back to TrekCore for more Star Trek: Discovery news as it breaks!

  • TUPwood

    I’m leaning less and less towards watching the premiere on CBS as I’m predicting that DISC will be the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot of the Star Trek franchise.

    Once again, can someone please tell me why CBS even bothered to set DISC in the prime timeline if they aren’t going to make any effort whatsoever to make it look so?

    • Victorinox
    • Victorinox
      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Better stick to Indycar, as Trek fan comedy just ain’t working for you, dude. LOL

    • GeorgiaCarolina

      You really need to get out from under the bridge sometime.

      • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN


        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Unlike your cutting edge, creative posts of course. LOL

          • M33

            Hey, a good cop-out if it is too different is that this is AlternaTrek 2.0
            Works for me.
            If not to others, who cares!?

      • MichaelMeir-Wright

        That’s never going to happen, unfortunately. I doubt that TUPwood even knows where his front door is. All they do is spew bile and tripe about a show they haven’t even seen.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        You’re confusing him with TUP right because TUPwood is making sense.

    • MichaelMeir-Wright

      Because if they did recreate the aesthetic of The Original Series, then fans would complain about that as well.

      CBS is not making Star Trek for you. Instead of endlessly whining about something you can’t control, might I suggest you do something much more productive?

      • TUPwood

        You mean like create a Trek Against Discovery Facebook page? I agree.

        • MichaelMeir-Wright

          I feel very sorry for you, little troll.

          • Tone

            he is entitled to his opinion, just like you are, except that you are much more aggressive in telling him that he cannot speak, then go on to call him names, just because what he is saying is not what you think, that makes you much worse than he is.

          • TUP

            Yeah but he admitted to being previously banned and returning with a new handle specifically chosen to troll another poster. So the description is apt.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            But I have so far agreed with more TUPwood has said compared to anything you have.

          • TUP

            Good! It means Im on the right side of the discussion 😉

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Or the wrong side… (looks left and right).

          • Pedro Ferreira

            It’s funny in the sense that all people who can’t handle criticism levelled at the new show are having a go at these people. I guess it’s kind of like the GB reboot.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Stop spamming, troll.

          • TUP

            Yeah, he’s sullying the good name of TUP’s everywhere!

          • M33

            I thought TUPwood was you at first!

          • Same, It did not take long to untangle them.

          • TUP

            When I first saw it I thought it was me too! Hahaha

          • Eric Cheung
          • TUP

            he admitted he used to post here as someone else but got himself banned and for some reason blames me (I wish I had that kind of power). In fact, blaming me is sort of an insult to the moderators, no? He also admitted to choosing that handle as an effort to troll me. Weird!

            Imagine being that bothered by someone on the internet posting in a Star Trek fan forum! lol I have no idea who he used to be because I actually don’t pay that much attention to the identity of posters, just the content of their posts. This is a discussion forum, not a personal playground.

          • M33

            Some folks unfortunately don’t have much else that interesting going for them.
            Sad, really.
            The world is a vast and interesting place, much more so than the internet!

          • Pedro Ferreira

            He makes actual sense compared to TUP.

      • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN


      • Karl

        Don’t make it a prime timeline prequel then, idiot.

        • mr joyce

          why do people like you come on here and whine about no one respecting your opinion, then you start the name calling? no need for it

      • M33

        I must be in the ultra minority that would love for the show to be in the correct established aesthetic.

        • TUPwood

          Me too, but I’d also prefer that the already established alien species keep their Michael Westmore makeup/prosthetics as I strongly dislike the look of the TOS Andorians, Klingons, Romulans, and Tellarites.

          • M33

            You can blend them, however, since ENT did set precedent for that.
            You can have your cake and eat it too.

        • Pedro Ferreira

          You’re not in the minority, only on this website you are.

    • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

      I think it is a new timeline

      • TUPwood

        I agree but I wonder why CBS won’t just come out and say it. I also believe that the Kelvin Timeline was already a pre-existing parallel universe due to Pike’s age difference.

        • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

          Good points.

        • omg, finally someone who understands that the so-called “Kelvin Timeline” was simply a parallel universe, just like the Mirror Universe! nice to meet you! 😀

          • TUP

            Except its not true. The writers/producers said it was Prime until the moment Nero appeared. The age difference was simply because of the wildly strange occurrence of casting an actor they liked.

            Good Lord…

          • “The writers/producers said it was Prime until the moment Nero appeared.”

            no, they didn’t say that. and even if they had said it, that wouldn’t make it canon. only what we see and hear in the actual movie is canon.

            and your stupid “time split” theory doesn’t work at all for the movie. i guess you’ve never paid attention when you watched the film. if Nero had “split off” in a new parallel universe from 2233, then Spock would also have “split off” in another parallel universe from 2258. and then Nero and Spock would have been in two different parallel universes and they wouldn’t have met in 2258.

            also, time travel in STAR TREK never “splits off” parallel universes. it always alters the universe you’re in, as can be seen in countless episodes and the movie FIRST CONTACT.

            but neither of those things happens in the movie STAR TREK. so the only explanation that works with what we see in canon is that the black hole took Nero and Spock into a parallel universe.

          • TUP

            Listen kid, you insult my facts as stupid while presenting the argument that what the friggen creators of the series say isnt true? Grow up. You’re embarrassing yourself.

            They DID say that. It was well established that the 2009 film opened in the PRIME Universe. The Kelvin? PRIME. George Kirk? PRIME. Everything was prime until Nero’s arrival caused a split. That is the basis of the writer’s subscription to the Multiple Universe Theory.

            Spock entered through the same rift and thus appeared in the same alternate universe. Yes, its goofy. Take that up with the writers, not me.

          • your “time split” theory is stupid, that’s a fact. because it doesn’t even work within the movie itself, as i have explained.

            and it’s another fact that statements made in interviews don’t make canon.

            “It was well established that the 2009 film opened in the PRIME Universe.”

            how was that established in canon? did someone say “hello, we’re in the Prime Universe”? you simply have no factual basis for your claims.

            “Everything was prime until Nero’s arrival caused a split.”

            why did Spock not cause a split when he arrived in 2258? he should have split off from the Prime Universe 2258, according to your “theory”. but there’s no Nero in Prime 2258, so there wouldn’t be any Nero in the parallel universe into which Spock splits off either.

            but you conveniently ignore all these facts so that you can hold on to your belief about a “split”. like a religious person.

          • “Spock entered through the same rift and thus appeared in the same alternate universe. Yes, its goofy.”

            so you’re willing to accept something that is completely “goofy” and makes no sense whatsoever, but you’re unwilling to accept a very simple explanation that works perfectly and fits right into STAR TREK canon: the black hole took them both into a parallel universe.

            at this point, i really have to conclude that you’re something like a religious fanatic when it comes to your faith in the “split theory”.

            you actually believe that Nero went back in time to 2233, then he “split off” from there in a parallel universe where he waited for 25 years, and then Spock “somehow” appeared in that parallel universe 25 years later. that makes NO SENSE. how can you even believe in such a stupid explanation? especially when you have a completely logical explanation right in front of your face: the black hole took them both into a parallel universe.

          • TUP

            I didnt say Spock’s arrival didnt make any sense. The majority of the JJ films were “goofy” in the sense they were poorly written.

            Once we accept that something called red matter opened a rift in space/time connected to an alternate universe, its really not much of a stretch to accept that two different ships entering the rift at different times would end up in the same place but at different times.

          • TUPwood

            Absolutely. And as you apparently already know, Gene Roddenberry himself once said something to the effect of nothing is canon unless you see/hear it on screen. So you’re correct in saying that DISC is canon, but what others on here don’t seem to understand is that just because DISC’s creators say it’s set in the prime timeline doesn’t make it so.

            On a related note to the Klingon discussion below, I really hated how DS9 handled the TOS Klingon issue. As you and I have said, what the creators say isn’t canon unless it’s seen/heard on screen but I like Gene Roddenberry’s explanation about it (That Klingons always appeared as they did during the Michael Westmore era.) and I think they should’ve just retconned it by replacing the TOS Klingons with Westmore klingons in TOS uniforms. Heck, since William Campbell had already reprised his role of Koloth in “Blood Oath,” he could’ve refilmed his Tribbles scene (Similar to how Michael Ansara played a younger Westmore version of Kang in “Flashback.”) as could’ve Michael Pataki as Korax.

          • well, i love the Klingon explanation they did on ENTERPRISE, so we simply have different tastes about that one 🙂

            but you’re absolutely right about what is canon and what isn’t.

            it’s weird, this guy TUP here on the talkback keeps insisting that interview statements can create canon. and your name is TUPwood, is he your evil twin or something? 😀

          • TUPwood

            I chose this name as combination of his (Due to two reasons:
            A.) He’s a snowflake who couldn’t disprove a statement that I made here on TrekCore and resorted to ad hominem attacks, flagging my posts, and getting my previous email address banned.
            B.) He reeks of being a CBS-funded troll.) and a very unpleasant commenter named Torchwood who was apparently banned from another Star Trek site.

            When I explained this to another common sense poster on this site named Pedro Ferreira he also told me that this TUP guy is always trying to get him banned and is always patronising.

          • haha, what a snowflake indeed 😀

          • TUP

            I wish I was a CBS-funded troll.

            But I would suspect admitting that you got banned for violating content rules and thus returned with a new email and handle that was specifically chosen to troll someone else will also violate content rules. But Im not a moderator, so i dont know.

            Maybe try to be a mature grown up and engage in reasonable discussion and you wont get yourself banned! 🙂

        • Marc Henson

          Age difference? That was never established. If you wanna talk age difference then it might surprise you that Zefram Cochrane was in his thirties when he invented warp drive…thait’s to say that in everything except Star Trek First Contact, which makes him look in his fifties.

          • TUPwood

            I believe there was a fan theory that radiation prematurely aged Cochrane.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Let’s just say that Mensa isn’t exactly ready to send you an invite based on that thought.

      • We have been told about 17 times now it is prime, the very same timeline as the 1966 TOS. It has just been made to look modern, not old.

        • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

          Nope , it is another timeline

          • Lying to yourself is still lying man

          • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

            Nope, I’ve seen that stated.

            Guess you’ll realize that once it happens in the show….

          • Tone

            Hasn’t it been established that DISC starts in one timeline, then something causes it to shift to another?

          • Nope. That is a fan theroy based off the look alone. We have been told a dozen times this is prime, the same reality as the 1966 TOS

        • pittrek

          “It has just been made to look modern, not old.” – and that’s exactly the reason why so many people complain

          • And the reason it even got a shot. Only a small group would have watched a fan film looking retro trek. That is just a fact. Changing the look also does not effect canon, also a fact. If you dislike it cool, looks are subjective. But you guys have not even seen the show yet.

          • pittrek

            The fan films are not a good comparison. I have tried to watch most or almost all of existing fan films, but I hated most of them. Not because of its look, but because of the horrible acting. I’m able to watch Continues and New Voyages/Phase II, and the main reason is the “correct” look. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that the new show should have cardboard walls or anything like that, you can have a look that is consistent with the time period and modern at the same time. A good example is for example the Discovery phasers and tricorders (which are things I like on Discovery BTW), their designs are based on the TOS designs, but “modernized”, they are a good blend of modern and retro.

            “If you dislike it cool, looks are subjective. But you guys have not even seen the show yet.” – well I don’t belong to the “you guys” group. I complain about the looks (maybe sometimes TOO MUCH, I know), but nothing else, I have never complained about the actors, characters, story or anything else, simply because I haven’t seen it yet. As I wrote here many times before, I dislike the looks, but I still hope that at least the story will be good, I believe that we need a new Star Trek show.

          • M33

            We seem to share the same mindset on this.
            Cautiously optimistic.

          • Fan films are a good comparison as that is what they are wanting. They want it to look like some old or cheap fan film. Acting aside they want it to look old and fan filmy. DSC was never gonna do that. It was never gonna look old. Yeah they went crazy with detail on this like the props, but they were never gonna go the Kelvin route because of backlash on Kelvin.

            sorry if you got lumped into the “you guys” group. But you where defending them coming to crap on DSC again in a post that really was about a charity. I mean even if you hate DSC you would think they could go “Ah good on that actor”

            I do not have an issue with someone not liking the look. You like what you like, looks are subjective. I do have an issue with people lying, and screaming “This is not prime” after they have been told a dozen times by the people who own and get to decide what cannon and prime even are, that it is prime.

            I have an issue with folks bashing to be bashing, with folks calling it STD in a mocking way. The ones who will hate watch even single episode to come online and whine about it. I mean that is pure trolling, get a life guys and don’t waste time on something you hate

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “They want it to look like some old or cheap fan film.” Did you just diss Star Trek Continues and every other fan film by calling it cheap? Oh the comments section is not going to be pretty…

          • I stated the truth, if you took it as a dis, then yes. You make something look like a campy 60’s TV show and that is what you get.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I really hope you don’t say that type of thing at a convention. You’re essentially dissing not only a huge amount of fans but also lots of industry professionals who worked on that stuff. Anyway so what if it looks like the original series? Got something against it? Those fan films sure look better than Discovery does by a long shot.

          • Old looks old

          • Pedro Ferreira

            You’ll look old in ten years. You want people to remember you based on your looks or based on your presentation and personality? See Star Trek TOS.

          • And I will look 10 years older. No one is gonna buy I am a 17 year old or that Old me is “Younger” than the current me. This is the issue. TOS looks dated and 50 years old, no one is gonna buy it as 2250 when it looks like 1966

          • Pedro Ferreira

            My point is looks are part of continuity. You just need to see past that otherwise you disrupt the visual continuity of the whole thing. Taking pot shots at TOS when Enterprise used the same visual continuity back in 2005 doesn’t do your argument any favours.

          • But it is not. Fans have taken that to be the cause, but looks change all the time. TMP totally altered the look of eventhing, including klingons in a mere 3 years. DS9 remade trills, races get rebooted and changed all the time.

            TOS is a 1960’s TV show its creator abandoned. You guys have a single anniversary episode that was a homage to TOS. Not even set in the canon timeline. ENT itself looks nothing like TOS and more or less rebooted TOS

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “TMP totally altered the look of eventhing, including klingons in a mere 3 years.” Oh please don’t start that rubbish again. Post images to convince me.

            “TOS is a 1960’s TV show its creator abandoned. You guys have a single anniversary episode that was a homage to TOS. Not even set in the canon timeline. ENT itself looks nothing like TOS and more or less rebooted TOS” Oh right so that must mean TOS is rubbish just like all those fan films. Seriously you’re having me on aren’t you? You’re winding me up?

          • 1: Dude, have you never seen TMP? Everyone knows they redesigned klingons.
            Here are the Klingons Kirk though looked like TOS Klingons, he had zero confusion at all

            2: I never said TOS was rubbish, but it is dated and looks like what it is. A campy 1960’s TV show. Roddenberry himself redesigned the look. In 3 years ( in canon) near every aspect of the universe changed. The ships all got remade, the stations, the uniforms, even alien make up got a total revamp. All because he know that in 1979 the look of 1966 was not going to work any more.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            1) Yep, those are TNG, DS9, Enterprise and Voyager Klingons. So what’s your point?

            2) Every show back in the 60s will look camp. You can’t just reject something because of when it was made, it makes you look shallow.

          • 1: Nope. Totally diff make up. At lest be honest.

            2: updating a look is not rejecting the events

          • Pedro Ferreira

            1) I am being honest, you’re being blind.

            2) Keeping visual continuity is important.

          • 1: No, the had a single ridge in TMP, a bone mohawk. This is not what they later used.

            2: yet they switched it all the time

          • Pedro Ferreira

            1) It is not a significant change. They still look the same.

            2) When?

          • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

            It’s lazy

          • TUP

            Its not that so many people complain. Its that a very few people complain really really loudly and incessantly.

        • there’s no proof IN CANON that it’s the Prime Universe. statements made in interviews are not canon. so, unless it’s ever established in the actual series ON SCREEN that this is the Prime Universe, we can assume that it’s clearly a parallel universe, due to the fact that (for example) Klingons look different.

          • They have stated it is prime. Anything that airs is prime, it is CANON . Its already listed as canon so your objection is pointless. The look is not canon, TMP changed how klingons looks with zero issue for 30+ years.

            You are simply incorrect here. By canon DSC is prime. Like it or not

          • you seem to misunderstand what i’m saying.

            of course DISCOVERY is CANON.

            but the claim that DISCOVERY is set in the Prime Universe, is NOT canon (so far), because this claim has only been stated in interviews. interviews are not canon.

            and the look of Klingons is canon. the physical appearance of Klingons was the central point of the ENTERPRISE episodes that dealth with the augment virus. so the Klingon look has been established as canon.

            “By canon DSC is prime.”

            please point to the DISCOVERY episode that states on-screen that it’s set in the Prime Universe.

          • Yes, it is in fact Canon. The people who own it have stated it is canon, in the same universe as the 1966 TOs. So you claiming its not been proven is simply false.

            canon changes, its called a retcon. Klingons changed many times, zero explanation. Until a joke in DS9 got out of hand and some fool made a really stupid ENT storyline

            Any and everything can be retconned and it still be prime. This happens all the time in trek. You can gash your teeth and lie to yourself, but DSC is prime.

          • from what you write, i think you don’t understand the difference between “canon” and “Prime Universe” at all.

            again: of course DISCOVERY is canon. everything that happens in any live-action STAR TREK series or movie is canon.

            but “canon” is not the same as “Prime Universe”. i think that’s the point you don’t understand. let me explain:

            there are countless parallel universes in the STAR TREK canon. one of them is the Prime Universe. another is the Mirror Universe. another is the Kelvin Universe. all these universes are part of the canon. the STAR TREK world is a multiverse, made of countless parallel universes, as you can see in the TNG episode “PARALLELS”.

            so, again: all those parallel universes are canon. what happens in the Mirror Universe is canon. what happens in the Kelvin Universe is canon. and what happens in DISCOVERY is also canon.

            but DISCOVERY is obviously set in another parallel universe. not the Prime, not the Mirror, not the Kelvin universe.

          • Man, it is prime canon. This is a done deal, you have been told this by the people who get to decide what both canon and prime are. This is no room for arguments or trying to twist things. DSC is prime.

            Nothing we have seen says its not in prime, not a single thing. And we have been told, point blank its the very same universe and reality of the 1966 TOS, the same place Kirk and spock lived and adventured in. Its the same reality

          • “you have been told this by the people who get to decide what both canon and prime are.”

            that is incorrect. canon is ONLY made by what happens in the episodes and movies. statements made in interviews do not make canon.

            “Nothing we have seen says its not in prime, not a single thing.”

            yes it does, the Klingons look completely different. as i have explained to you, the physical appearance of Klingons has been established in canon.

          • NO. Everything in DSC is prime, you have been told this. As soon as it airs, its prime and none of your whining will every change that fact.

            Please explain TMP Klingon without using ENT. Go ahead explain what version of reality they are in. A look is not canon. You choose to ignore look changes for 30+ years. You are not complaining on the trill or the half dozen other races that got wild redesigns.

          • “Everything in DSC is prime, you have been told this.”

            things stated in interviews do not make canon. canon is ONLY made by what happens in the episodes and movies.

            “As soon as it airs, its prime”

            only if it’s established on-screen in the episodes that it’s Prime. things stated in interviews do not make canon. canon is ONLY made by what happens in the episodes and movies.

            “Please explain TMP Klingon without using ENT.”

            i don’t have to, because ENTERPRISE exists and it explains them.

            “Go ahead explain what version of reality they are in.”

            do you have difficulty comprehending the fact that TMP takes place after ENTERPRISE?

            “A look is not canon.”

            yes it is, because those ENTERPRISE episodes are all about how the physical appearance of Klingons was altered by the augment virus.

            “You choose to ignore look changes for 30+ years.”

            no, i did not ignore them. i always wondered why their physical appearance changed, and then i was happy when it was explained on ENTERPRISE.

          • Son, yes it makes it canon. As soon as it airs it is canon. You have been told this. As soon as the very first ep airs, its prime.

            Ent can be reconnected, In reality ENT WAS a retconn for a joke no one felt a need to explain for 30+ years. Notice you could not explain the make up change for over 30 years and had no issue with this. So clearly TNG, ENT and DS( are all three not the same universe as TOS

            A look is not canon. You guys are gonna have to accept this fact. You guys said the same thing About ENT. claimed it was not canon. You were wrong then as well.

            It changed because it was not 1966 and make up changed.

          • “Son, yes it makes it canon. As soon as it airs it is canon.”

            you clearly have great difficulty with logical thought.

            again: anything that happens on DISCOVERY becomes canon.

            anything stated by people in interviews is not canon just because they said it.

            CANON is defined as: what happens on screen in the movies and series.

            show me a definition that says “if a person says something in an interview, then that is STAR TREK canon”


          • Thomas W.


            Give up. He will not understand what you mean.

            Maybe we will know after a few episodes if it’s Prime. If yes, it will canon and prime, prime and canon. If no, it will be canon but not prime. Maybe we will never know.

            We can even not be shure if ENT was Prime, because no other show could refer to ENT (exept Scotty in ST:11 who mentioned Archer’s dog) and ENT couldn’t refer to the future.

            But bevor ST11 (2009) nobody ever thought about the question if an official Star Trek series oder movie could play in an alternative reality. As long as we don’t get a hint we have to assume it is (or should be) prime.

          • TUP

            We know. They said it.

          • “Notice you could not explain the make up change for over 30 years and had no issue with this.”

            apparently you have reading problems. i have already told you that i did indeed always wonder why the Klingons suddenly looked different.

          • Dude I am just done, You know its prime, lie all you want. But its prime

          • “its prime”

            you can believe that if you want. but it hasn’t been established in CANON that it’s set in the Prime Universe.

          • “A look is not canon.”

            yes it is, when there are entire episodes dealing with the look.

          • “You guys said the same thing About ENT. claimed it was not canon.”

            i don’t know what you’re talking about, but i never said ENTERPRISE was not canon. i don’t know what stupid people would say that.

          • People like you claiming DSC is not canon based off the look.

          • “People like you claiming DSC is not canon”

            wow, you really have some serious reading problems. i have told you at least 5 times now that DSC is canon.

          • Stop spamming me. DSC is prime, just as ENT is prime and TOS is prime and TNG, DS9 and VOY are prime. Lie elsewhere.

          • “DSC is prime”

            that has not been established in canon.

          • TUP

            Actually you’re making a really silly argument. You keep insisting its canon but then making up your own rules about which universe it takes place in.

            If you have to lie to yourself to enjoy the show, thats great. You can pretend anything you want. You can pretend Burnham is an undercover orion slave working for Section 31 sent from the future by Tiberius for all anyone cares. If you need to twist reality to enjoy it, go for it.

            But if you dont want people to point out that you’re wrong, dont keep pushing this silliness here.

            The producers and writers and creators have said its prime. So it is. Game over.

          • are you another one of those people who don’t understand the difference between “canon” and “universe”? i explained it above, i’m not gonna explain it again.

            “The producers and writers and creators have said its prime. So it is.”

            statements made outside of the episodes and movies do not make canon. the producers and writers are free to believe whatever they want. but if they wanted to cement the claim that it’s set in the Prime Universe in CANON, then they would have to put that claim into the actual episodes. if they don’t, then it’s just the personal opinion of writers and producers.

          • TUP

            No one is arguing canon, not even you. But you’re absolutely ridiculous if you’;re trying to say that the statements of the creators are not “canon” because they arent on screen. Like…huh? That’s ludicrous.

            But really, dont argue with me. You pick fights with everyone because you have chosen to dig your heels in on something that is demonstrably false.

            Discovery takes place in the Prime Universe. Period. It does so as much as virtually every episode of Enterprise, TOS, TNG, Voyager & DS9. None of those series needed a pop up on screen of the lead actor saying “hey for all you people with cognitive issues, just so you know, these episode takes place in the PRIME universe”. None of the episodes explicitly stated that. It doesnt change truth or reality or common sense or logic.

            The only reason this is even a thing is because of JJ’s ill-conceived idea to create a new universe for his films in an effort to own and control the derivative rights.

            So knock it off. Again, no one is saying you can’t subscribe to whatever goofy premise you need to enjoy the series. But stop telling everyone that you’re weird opinion is fact or supported by fact when it simply isn’t.

          • “you’re absolutely ridiculous if you’;re trying to say that the statements of the creators are not “canon” because they arent on screen. Like…huh? That’s ludicrous.”

            no, it’s a fact. only what is in the actual episodes (and movies) is canon.

          • TUP

            Where in any episode of TOS, TNG, DS9 or Voy did they explicitly say they were in the Prime Universe?

          • “Discovery takes place in the Prime Universe. Period.”

            you’re free to believe that, but it’s not established in canon.

          • TUP

            Has nothing to do with canon. Creators say so, so it is.

          • “Creators say so, so it is.”

            not in canon.

          • TUP

            Yup. You can ignore reality. It doesnt change reality though.

          • robjoh

            And yet creators lie. lol

          • TUP

            Yup. The stid guys lied. And they could certainly be the case here as well. But that’s the thing – we will know when we see it.

            But barring sharing on screen that tells us it’s not prime, then it is. The default position of Star Trek is prime. When it’s not, they make a point of telling us

          • “But stop telling everyone that you’re weird opinion is fact or supported by fact when it simply isn’t.”

            all i’m saying is that my views aren’t contradicted by any facts. and that’s a fact.

          • TUP

            Yes they are. Its a fact the creators have said its Prime. Period. Canon and creative decisions are not the same.

            Unless you think Star Trek is real and dont understand that its a TV show. And if thats the case, we need to have a different discussion.

          • “Its a fact the creators have said its Prime. Period.”

            that doesn’t make it canon.

          • TUP

            There is a difference between canon and fact. On screen and production. You are trying to make a silly argument because you know you’re wrong but have dug your heels in now and are too gutless to simply admit it.

            The creators are the deciders. What happens on screen is canon. They say its prime. ie. what is happening on screen is Prime. Thus its canon. Period. End of discussion. Try to keep up.

          • “The creators are the deciders. What happens on screen is canon. They say its prime. ie. what is happening on screen is Prime. Thus its canon.”

            so first you say “what happens on screen is canon”, and 2 sentences later you claim that what the deciders say is canon.

            you’re a moron.

          • TUP

            Possibly the same ones who claim Discovery isnt in the Prime Universe when the people responsible for the creative decision making on which universe it takes place in say it does.

            Stupid is as stupid does.

          • things said in interviews do not make canon.

          • TUP

            Has nothing to do with canon. Its a fact about the TV show, not a discussion about the fictional world that TV show takes place in.

            Im sorry that this is all going over your head. As I keep saying, if it helps you enjoy it, tell yourself anything you want. But dont rail against people who are correctly pointing out you’re wrong.

          • “Has nothing to do with canon. Its a fact about the TV show, not a discussion about the fictional world that TV show takes place in.”

            wrong. it has everything to do with the fictional world. because the parallel universes (Prime, Mirror, Kelvin, and so on) are part of the fictional multiverse of STAR TREK.

            i’m not sure what’s wrong with you that you don’t understand that fact. people in the series and movies even travel between those parallel universes. they go to the Mirror Universe and back many times. Nero and Spock go to the Kelvin Universe. but somehow you don’t understand that those parallel universes are all part of the same fictional world? are you mentally handicapped or something?

          • TUP

            Sure, and in the case of Mirror and Kelvin, the creators explained it. And thus its canon.

            Just like Discovery. Accept it and move on. People like you are whats wrong with forums like this. Trying to be a hero for your own BS and aggravating people with constant arguing and nonsense. Get lost.

          • at the end of the day, you’re still wrong when you claim that interview statements can create canon.

          • TUP

            Nope, you’re wrong. Canon is what is on screen. You are the only one unable to grasp what is happening. Fortunately, the creators have helpfully explained it. Thus, you’re wrong.

          • “Nope, you’re wrong. Canon is what is on screen.”

            hahahahaha, i have literally been saying that the whole time, you moron.

            you’re the one claiming that canon can be created by interview statements, which is false.

            post the definition of STAR TREK CANON that says that interview statements can create canon.

          • TUP

            Im concerned about the mental well being of people this determined to twist reality in an attempt to convince themselves that the producers, writers etc are all lying about this show.

            If it impacts a fan’s life that much, they have way more important issues that require attention than this show.

          • Its odd. I mean why would they lie about this? Its just a visual style update, nothing more.

          • TUP

            This guy is choosing a hill to die on where he wants everyone to prove a negative using logic that doesnt even support his own argument. Never in the history of Star Trek have they had a character on screen wink at the camera and say “this is prime universe”.

            Even in the JJ film, the producers made the distinction off-screen that it was Prime until Nero arrived.

            We should ignore this guy unless he can prove it isnt Prime. Where on screen does it say it isnt Prime? Then it must be prime. lol

        • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

          Nah, I’ve heard that it is third New timeline, different from TOS and JJTrek.

        • Tone

          Except that they don’t have the rights to use any TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT.

          They can mention certain things that they have licenced, but all they can really reference freely is anything from the Kelvin movies.

          • Where do you get that crazy theory? CBS owns all those, you have it backward. Paramount can not, CBS can and has.

          • TUP

            Not true. The opposite is true. CBS owns Star Trek but not the derivatives created in the JJ films.

        • Pedro Ferreira

          Made to look more crap you mean?

          • You can think it looks like crap. Looks are subjective. However your opinion of the look does not change the facts I have stated.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Fair enough.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        Midnight Edge seem to think so.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      We heard you the first 10 times.

      • robjoh

        Maybe he was just using the Other News part of the article. lol. But seriously,they should’ve had just the charity thing,which sounds like a good one,in an article all by itself,maybe then avoiding turning this into all this negative nonsense.

    • prometheus59650

      Because 1966 lite brite consoles and communication screens sticking out of the chair that look like old-timey desk lamps because they were was never going to work or happen.

      • Karl

        He asked the question why it was set in the prime timeline, not a critique of the TOS episodes.

        • prometheus59650

          Quote: why CBS even bothered to set DISC in the prime timeline if they aren’t going to make any effort whatsoever to make it lookso?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            There is no visual continuity. Even the warp stretch effect which I’m a fan of is from TNG, not TOS.

          • prometheus59650

            The displays…ships. They are all closer to Archer’s vessel. It’s as plain as the nose on one’s face.

            TOS never had a warp “star smear” effect to begin with because they couldn’t afford it.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Enterprise could afford a warp stretch effect so that’s wrong. As I said there is no visual continuity in Discovery.

          • prometheus59650

            Enterprise isn’t TOS. Enterprise wasn’t on a shoestring budget in 1966.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            So? Enterprise had a budget and didn’t do the warp stretch effect. Same with Nemesis.

          • prometheus59650

            Directorial choices are not continuity errors unless you need them to be.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            You know I could reverse that comment but hey we have different opinions on that and we’re just going around in circles.

    • pittrek

      Marketability? Kelvin Timeline merch doesn’t sell as well as the original merch

      • Andros the Omni King

        And Star Wars merchandise outsells both of them Combined, this show that Star Wars is Vastly popular then Star Trek and always has been.

    • M33

      Did you used to be TUP?

      • TUP


      • Pedro Ferreira

        He can’t be because I agree with TUPwood.

    • M33

      Remember, it is $$$ that drives every decision the networks make.
      If they think TOS can’t sell, they’ll change it.
      In the end, that’s all they really care about.
      So, hopefully we will get something good out of it, despite corporate politicking.

    • there’s no CANON proof that it’s set in the Prime Universe, so you can set it in any parallel universe you want.

      • TUPwood


      • prometheus59650

        The Primeline with Shatner-Kirk and go-go boots is dead and it’s been dead for better than 20 years.

        The moment the crew of VOY beamed onto the beach in the 1990s and not into the middle of the Eugenics Wars? What Spock called the last world war where 37M people died.

        Beach looked pretty normal to me.

        Between Shatner-Kirk and the Borg going back in time and a million other temporal transgressions, that future past never happened.

      • TUP

        No you cant set it in any universe you want. Unless you have sufficient creative power at CBS to do so. They say it’s Prime, so it’s Prime.

  • Charles Baxter

    If people don’t wan’t to watch, then there is no need for them to say so all day long on every site they can. Just don’t watch it.

    I tend to find those that complain the most are most likely to watch it (just how the brain works).

    I’m gonna watch it, maybe love it, maybe hate it. Yet what ever I decide is my choice & if anyone doesn’t like it they know what they can go do.

    • prometheus59650

      I absolutely guarantee these people will hate watch every episode.

      • How else can they come online to whine and point out how awful it is?

      • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

        At least they will some viewers then…

        • prometheus59650

          They’ll have enough as it is.

          Including you.

          • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

            Yah, the first CBS episode will likely have decent ratings , but I don’t know if I can see anybody, beyond the families of the cast , saying “I gotta get CBS access for Discovery”

          • prometheus59650

            And it’s not the only program they offer and not the only program they’re going to.

            I say that knowing that DSC’s premiere ratings will suck. Not because it’s bad because no one knows the answer to that yet one way or the other. But because Sci-fi dies on Network TV. It always has and will. Hell, NBC aired the BSG mini and its ratings were terrible, too.

            Went on for four years to a natural conclusion and is widely considered one of the best sci-fi shows ever.

          • I have!

          • dixonium

            Signed up for CBS All Access yesterday, just to watch Discovery.

          • They have stated All access numbers have heavily climbed

          • mr joyce

            i think you guys in the US (im assuming your in the US), have got a little screwed over with how to view the show. here in england, you only have to have netflix to watch the whole thing, which i have already thankfully, so i will be watching the whole thing.

            the creators of the show probably should have thought a bit more about their home audience though. i dont see tons of people signing up for cbs just to see a pilot episode, and then also sign up for netflix after that ( if they dont already have it ). this is something i see damaging the viewing figures more than anything else, but, i hope im wrong. i want this show to do well, but its a bit sh*t the way its been distributed

          • DIGINON

            The show won’t run on Netflix in the US. The whole show (incl. the pilot) will be on CBS All Access while the pilot will also air on CBS regular TV. So you don’t need Netflix to watch Discovery in the US.

          • mr joyce

            oh i see, i dont know why i thought that then, lol. thanks for clarifying that for me. either way, theres always torrents

          • Pedro Ferreira

            It’s too much exclusivity. MGM are doing the same thing with Stargate.

          • mr joyce

            i heard about that too

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I think these studios are stretching themselves too thin in asking for people to pay money for them.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            For one show?

          • Eric Cheung

            I have a week ago, though I’ll be honest that I think it’ll make it easier to watch some CBS programs that I sometimes miss and aren’t on On Demand, like CBS Sunday Morning.

            I still can’t figure out how to access Live TV, or any of the buttons on the blue panel on the left, though that might be simply because my brand new BlackBerry KEYone made me download version 2.1.5, rather than 2.2.2.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            LOL — like the Nielsens and CBS shareholders are paying attention to your whining negativity projections of viewership.

            Ha Ha Ha

          • Pedro Ferreira

            The first season will get good ratings because of the interest but considering they’re selling the show on diversity alone people will eventually get bored and what you’ll be left with is a rather generic sci-fi series.

      • M33
        • They did ENT, just like that lol.

          • M33

            Truthfully, I did too. I tried to appreciate it. I actually like the designs of the ship and the interiors and the uniforms. However the stories were weak and often violated or revised canon on the spot.
            I gave up after season 3 cliffhanger, considering I found that whole arc to be very uninteresting.
            Lizard-Nazis? Give me a break…
            I only wish I had stayed on to see Enterprise FINALLY deliver on its promise in season 4.

          • They rarely touched canon. They nuked fancanon left and right though.

            I feel season 3 was the best and season 4 was totally lost.

          • Nowhereman10

            Bingo! The old Trekkies from the 60s and 70s who wanted their bad fanfics they wrote for mimeographed fanzines to stay “canon” couldn’t get around having it all wiped out by someone else. Look at the insane loopholes people like James Dixon jumped through to justify keeping their fanfic alive in their minds.

          • I mean it retconned a few tiny, tiny minor things from a single episode from a 50 year old show no one would think would ever become what it has. Most of the things they scream about are, like you said simply long held fan canon.

            I for one am glad it killed that stupid four gender andorian thing.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Rarely touched canon? Season 4 would like a word with you!

          • Please explain in what ways season 4 changed canon. I will agree the silly Klingon thing was a total rewrite of canon, but over all they rarely touched it

          • Pedro Ferreira

            It didn’t change canon, it kept continuity or added to it.

          • It did in fact change canon.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            It added to it. Every episode or nearly every one added or explained something. See the episode list for that season, there’s tons of continuity based episodes, that’s why the fans loved Season 4.

          • No, it changed it. This is a retcon. And some fans love season 4, but season 4 killed ENT as it threw away all the greatness of season three to pander to a tiny subgroup

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Strange because people in retrospect love Season 4 and think it’s the best season. And no Season 4 didn’t change anything, it added to it hence the term ‘continuity’.

          • Yeah it did in fact change things, it rewrote history totally. Funny how Kirk and the gang did not get really confused at seeing “new” klingons only three yeas after last seeing them and not need an explanation. Or how it was never taught in starfleet, or how Dax never brought it up after seeing someone who would have been smooth headed when last they saw them not being.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Why would they bring it up. Kirk was used to it by that point. Over time it was forgotten about by non-Klingons.

          • 3 years, all three of which he was out in the black away from Klingons. So yeah him or someone should have been confused. Please explain why no one was confused.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            No one was confused because by that point they were used to it. Why would we have needed a reference. Enterprise didn’t contradict anything, it added to continuity. I know you don’t like Season 4 of Enterprise but you’re having trouble understanding this stuff because you don’t want to.

          • Lol, gods thst is desprate. You will not admit the truth so I am done feeding you

          • Pedro Ferreira

            It’s obvious you want to run in circles over this than admit I’m right. But you know what? Opinions are opinions so let’s leave it there.

          • Heidibolson


            Google is paying 97$ per hour! work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!
            On tuesday I got a Smart 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
            ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobs363CashFinderSource/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ao73l..,..

          • Angelawweitzman

            Google is paying 97$ per hour! work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!
            On tuesday I got a Smart 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
            ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobs384CashMarketPlace/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ap94l..,…..

          • Virginiatpontiff


            Google is paying 97$ per hour! work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!
            On tuesday I got a Smart 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
            ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash366HomeAlert/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!sq76l..,….

        • Pedro Ferreira

          I watch all ten seasons of Smallville. I only watched it because it was Superman based, it was a terrible show although I took satisfaction from making fun of the whole thing. It was car crash TV.

      • Charles Baxter

        See you make guesses about why people will watch. I really don’t care why others watch. None of my business, none of yours either honestly. Just got no more f**** to give …..

        • prometheus59650

          It is when they post on their hate-watching.

          If someone doesn’t want something to be my business, don’t post it.

          • Charles Baxter

            Well when one replies to the post of another, they are making assumptions that they have no way of proving one way or the other. What I posted was an observation. YOU made it out as “hate watching” (even though I was reading and not watching). Oh and what in my post was hate watching? This was about negative comments before the show’s even out.I gather you feel you have the right, privilege or some other form of authority over me.

            So telling me what I cant say is BS at best.

          • prometheus59650

            If someone’s going to watch it with the sole purpose of thrashing it with no interest in doing anything else, that’s hate-watching.

            Where did I say YOU were hate-watching? Show me.

            I don’t have any authority over anyone, I just find it a little silly for someone to say that someone’s motivations are none of anyone’s business when they make them public in a forum that invites feedback.

          • Charles Baxter

            I just figure even in the “here and now” we don’t need or want everyones negative input, so when some can’t stop expressing them more than once,as that’s all we need to hear. I guess that was a reminder in basic manner.

            I do apologize about the YOU part

    • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

      People also have the choice to post their opinions

      • Pedro Ferreira

        They certainly do. I got kicked out of a Ghostbusters fan site because I couldn’t dislike the reboot movie.

    • Sandrajbailey

      my co worker’s mom makes $61 per hour on the internet. she’s been unemployed for 2 months. the previous month her payoff was $12907 just working at home a few hours each day. ➤check

      • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

        Good for her, nice work if you can get it

      • M33

        And I bet that is your real photo, too!

      • Jus_Wonderin

        Is your coworker’s Mom a _____?

    • Karl

      People are as entitled to an opinion as you are. Don’t try to subdue free speech because you don’t like what you’re reading. It’s painful reading you lot lap this rubbish up every day.

      • mr joyce

        i think someone like you who is in the minority here should be prepared to have your poorly put together arguments challenged, especially since you never seem to say anything that doesnt encourage an argument. no one is saying your not entitled to your opinion, but you just dont put it across very well, and you keep saying the same thing over and over and over again. thats why no one wants to hear what you want to say, because they know you just repeat yourself, every single time

        • Pedro Ferreira

          Minority? Most people I hear from hate the new show.

          • mr joyce

            most people i hear from are neither way because all theyve seen is a trailer or two

          • Pedro Ferreira

            That’s interesting. We can only wait and see.

          • Charles Baxter

            I have heard both good and bad. I want to decide for myself with my own eyes. (Presuming this is a pro-Discovery reply would not be correct)

          • Pedro Ferreira

            It’s good to keep an open mind but also not be afraid to be critical. Just because something is new doesn’t mean it’s better. Unfortunately there’s a lot of people who think that way.

  • This is a good charity and a net contest. It is said the trolls must come bash any and everything DSC related.

    • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

      Like people still bash Voyager, yes?

      So let me get this straight: Voyager bashing is allowed , but valid criticism of Discovery is not? Hmmmm…

      • People have actually watched VOY. I do not agree with the bashing, but you guys have not even seen this thing and come on something about contest for a good cause and bash.

        • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

          Ah I see, thanks for explaining. Just to be clear that was a general question , not directed at you specifically.

          Personally, I really like Voyager.

          • I do not hate, it. I find it to be one of the weaker treks with one of the strongest ideas behind it. I think it had the same issue as ENT. Weak scripts that did not lay to its strong suit but tried to rework TOS and TNG

          • TUP

            I agree. Voyager was a great concept. And they touted it as the return to TOS values of exploring the final frontier, being alone and dangerous in space. And then they made it a pale imitation of TNG.

            Unfortunately, they then let those same people (more or less) develop Enterprise which touted itself as a return to TOS values of the final frontier and being alone and dangerous in space. And was just a pale imitation of TNG.

            Enterprise was also an amazing concept on paper. Lousy execution.

      • TUP

        Yes, Voyager and Discovery are the same. No one has ever seen Voyager either.

    • pittrek

      Why are people with legitimate criticism labelled as trolls?

      • They are trolling this thread, so yes. This was about an actor in a TV show trying to do a good thing and raise money for a Charity. It was not the place to come whine about the same issues they have had or refuse to accept for the 1000th time.

      • M33

        Unfortunately, that is the time we live in.
        This kind of wholesale demonizing has become rampant in all fields of discourse.
        As someone who often sees and understands both sides of every discussion, I find this black/white thinking frustrating.

      • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

        Exactly, and the same people who call critics of Discovery “trolls” are still bashing Voyager…

    • Pedro Ferreira

      I’m personally not bashing the charity but it could be a better Star Trek show to raise money for.

      • Have you watched this show yet?

        • Pedro Ferreira

          No. Not sure if I want to.

          • Then you can not say if its better or worse

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Based on what I’ve seen so far have to disagree there.

          • You can say you think it will be, but without viewing you can not say it is

  • DS9 is King

    Star Trek Discovery has a TV MA Rating for excessive Violence https://redshirtsalwaysdie.com/2017/08/19/star-trek-discovery-tv-ma-rating/

    • TUP

      Good. Hopefully some salty language and reasonable sex/nudity too. Actually, as a straight man, I definitely appreciate the beauty of a woman but I would love for them to have an extended scene of two men rolling around in bed naked having sex just to watch the collective minds of the less advanced fans explode.

      • M33

        I hope you are kidding.
        I really don’t want to watch anyone having sex, whatever their genders.
        Really uncomfortable and does nothing to advance a plot.
        Must be wank material for folks I guess…

        • TUP

          Nah. It’s like saying I don’t want to see fighting or blood. I want a realistic portrayal of drama. And whether we like it or not people have sex. Most of us anyway!

          • M33

            Sure we do, but if I want sexual activity, I’ll go to my wife, not the tv screen.
            I’d much rather do it than watch it.

          • TUP

            I think you misunderstand. Unless you’re saying everyone gets off on it. I’m saying I want realistic portrayal of drama. Including sex of the story calls for it

          • M33

            It would be unrealistic to think that people don’t feel arousal watching sexual activity. That’s just biology. But often times story is sacrificed in order to shoehorn in sex scenes because it gets attention and viewship. Why do think all the women were dressed they way they were in TOS and followups?
            What in story improves from watchingpeople have sex?
            What plot moves forward?
            What do you gain about their affections?
            It often feels like it is used a copout rather than anything else.
            But thats me, I guess.
            I am often in the minority of thoughts.

          • TUP

            Im not understanding your concern. Are you saying you want realistic portrayals of drama when it comes to interactions, language, conflict etc but not sex? Like, if they have characters where the story naturally leads to a sexual encounter, you want them to avoid it? Or nudity?

            People have emotional responses to many things. Violence. Language. Suspense. Drama. And yes, sex. But unless sex and the natural emotional response bothers you in an unreasonable way, there is no reason to hope they avoid something if it fits the story.

          • Husnock

            I don’t think the problem is sex itself. The problem is, it’s almost never advancing the story. For example, if someone uses language to emphasize his feelings it’s advancing the story, but to watch someone curse for two minutes, just to hear language, is extremely annoying. With sex it’s the same.

          • TUP

            I disagree. To use language to convey a sudden emotion takes seconds so two minutes of swearing would certainly be odd. Sex takes longer. Well, for most of us. Also, most shows wont have a full two minute sex scene. It would be much shorter anyway and let you use your imagination to fill in the rest.

          • M33

            Sex can be shown without having to “show” it. Same with violence.
            However, drama, suspense, etc are different storytelling mechanisms that require beat by beat descriptions to further a story. A minute by minute account of gore and violence after a while becomes gratutious to the point of becoming pornographic. And same with sex.
            We don’t have to see it to know it happened. In fact, some if the most horrific violent moments in drama are seen off-screen–because our minds then picture the worst things possible. That is the power of it.
            Just my opinion.
            I also hope DSC can remain accessible to many age groups, but an MA rating certainly limits that.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I don’t think it will to be honest.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Sex in current TV sells, unfortunately the less intelligent viewers think sex in a TV show automatically means it’s adult. It’s stupid really.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Most of you want Star Trek to be Game of Thrones…

      • Pedro Ferreira

        “Hopefully some salty language and reasonable sex/nudity too. Actually, as a straight man,” Yeah just what a family audience needs right?! I mean WTF?!

        • TUP

          If you’re going to do silly drive by criticisms, at least pay attention. This is a discussion about Discovery possibly being rated TV-MA. What part of TVMA do you think is meant for a “family audience”? lol

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I don’t know man. I thought maybe Star Trek was for everyone of any age to watch, not just you?

          • TUP

            That’s true however, you chose to interject for your usual reasons…. The topic being discussed was Discovery being rated TVMA which is decidedly not “family audience”.

            So as far as your sarcasm goes, I dont set the ratings or decide the content so whine to CBS if you dont like it. If you want to engage in discussion why dont you actually try?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I’m not saying you’re in charge of the ratings, what I am saying is that I thought you would know that Star Trek is a series for the family. It’s not meant to have heavy violence and sex. There’s a difference between whining about this because I’m acting like a prude and actually defending the content a Star Trek should have.

          • TUP

            What are yu even going on about? This was a discussion about the show being rated TVMA. Do you know what means?

            You replied to me about family audience as if I was saying “gee I hope the G-Rated Star Trek show has full frontal nudity”.

            Just stop. Your attacks are transparent and silly.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Once again you’ve taken my quote from you and went off in another direction to what I meant. Typically if I’m quoting something you say my response next to it will be about that quote right?

          • TUP

            No, what you did was cherry pick a remark from me which was about a specific topic and you reply as if its about something else so you can sneak in a snide remark.

            I assume you do it on purpose and would hate to think its your instinctive, subconscious fall back position.

            So to wrap this all up, the topic of discussion was about Discovery being rated TVMA to which I expressed contentment with that and wondered if it meant more sex, violence etc, you know *mature* themes. Your sarcastic reply was completely moot to the specific discussion since TVMA would preclude the traditional understanding of a “family audience”.

            If you wish to discuss what you think Star Trek should be, ratings-wise, go right ahead. But dont cherry pick one remark from me as if its a response not in keeping with the topic being discussed.

            I have zero issue if Discovery is rated G. But as an adult, I’d be happy with a more mature, adult oriented Trek as well. Seeing violence, sex etc certainly doesnt offend me if the story calls for it.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I did not make just a sarcastic comment, my point was you seem keen for there to be an increase in violence and sex when Star Trek is for a family show. Stop trying to make out I’m misquoting you. “Hopefully some salty language and reasonable sex/nudity too.” I mean seriously, you think I’m misquoting you when you come out with stuff like that???

          • TUP

            How do you figure it’s a family show if it’s rated TVMA? You have a different view on family show than I do. To each his own but most people don’t want shows rated MA with their young children. You do you, though.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “Good. Hopefully some salty language and reasonable sex/nudity too. Actually, as a straight man, I definitely appreciate the beauty of a woman but I would love for them to have an extended scene of two men rolling around in bed naked having sex just to watch the collective minds of the less advanced fans explode.” This proves my point.

          • TUP

            What point? You bristled at the suggestion of adult themes in a TVMA rated show (or the possibility of such) because it was “family audience”. So you must not have known what TVMA meant or you simply saw a statement and decided to attack without reading it through.

            Or you’re one of the less advanced people I was referring to. Does seeing same sex relationships bother you, Pedro?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            What bothers me is Star Trek turning into Game of Thrones which is what you are after looking at your post.

          • TUP

            I don’t think anyone thinks Star Trek will turn into game of thrones. But feel free to complain about that very very unlikely possibility.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I hope I’m wrong about that then TUP.

  • robjoh

    I wouldn’t mind if STD was actually set in the new movie timeline,since I’m one of the very few,apparently,who enjoyed those Trek movies as well. But I look forward to watching STD. If I like it,that’s great. If I don’t like it,that’s great too. And life goes on. lol

    • i agree with you. in fact, i think DSC is set in another parallel universe altogether.

      • robjoh

        Guess we’ll just have to wait and see. Seems a lot of people here believe what they are TOLD. I wait till I SEE what I’m supposed to believe. Actors and directors have lied before,but seems that is forgotten pretty fast,lol!

        • exactly. and the thing is: it can’t be proven on-screen that it’s set in the Prime Universe anyway 🙂 at least i can’t think of any way to prove it. even if (for some reason) a character were to say “we’re in the Prime Universe”, then that wouldn’t prove anything, because most people in most parallel universes would think of their own universe as the “Prime Universe”. no-one thinks “i’m living in a parallel universe” 😀

          so, logically, there isn’t really any way for them to establish in canon that DISCOVERY is set in the Prime Universe at all. and statements made in interviews or other materials outside the actual episodes and movies, are simply not canon. that leaves it completely open to anyone to think whatever you want: you can believe that DISCOVERY is set in the Prime Universe, or you can believe that it’s set in one of the countless parallel universes of the STAR TREK canon (see TNG episode “PARALLELS”).

          • robjoh

            As long as everyone involved with STD doesn’t pull a STID,I don’t care where or when it’s set,lol!

          • Marc Henson

            The thing is, some people can’t get passed their own “personal canon.”

            What I mean by that is that some people choose to believe as they wish based on what they’ve seen even though they have very little information to go by.

            For example, in the episode “Balance of Terror,” it was established that prior to that episode, no human had met a Romulan face-to-face. Because of that, many fans concluded that during the Romulan Wars it the shop to ship video communication tech wasn’t invented yet.

            That doesn’t even make sense if you think about it especially since here in the real world that tech has existed for years…also Star Trek Enterprise contradicts this. We see that the tech existed, but Romulans kept themselves anonymous.

            The problem was that people just assumed based on one misunderstood line that Spock said that ships of the 22nd century didn’t have viewscreens. In other words, they made their own “personal canon.”

            This wasn’t just fans, non-canon reference works also made this inaccurate statement regarding the issue. Even the Okudas put it in the first volume of the Chronology if I remember correctly.

            The point is, it all turned out to be bullcrap. You might think it can’t fit into canon but there’s no reason to think it can’t. Who knows, maybe there’ll even be an episode with a Constitution class ship and somebody will go aboard the ship and make a comment about how retro it looks for being such a new ship.

            Staff members like the producers and writers may lie sometimes, but I doubt they would lie about this…once again, if you think it can’t fit into canon it’s only because you haven’t yet allowed yourself to see beyond your own personal canon.

          • what “personal canon” do you think i have? i never made any statements that are assumptions drawn from actual canon. i literally said:

            “that leaves it completely open to anyone to think whatever you want: you can believe that DISCOVERY is set in the Prime Universe, or you can believe that it’s set in one of the countless parallel universes of the STAR TREK canon”

            so the only statement i’m making about the canon is that there is no canonical proof either way. and that’s a fact.

            even if they walk onto a Constitution class ship in the series and comment on its retro look, that won’t prove it either way. because with a near-infinite number of parallel universes, clearly there are countless universes that have Constitution class ships in them.

            the point you seem to be ignoring is the Klingons. first of all, if DISCOVERY never shows us any augment Klingons (or their human-looking descendants), then it becomes questionable whether this is the Prime Universe. after all, 10 years later, on TOS, all we ever saw were augment Klingons. so clearly they were around and quite numerous during that time period. so, if we suddenly see only un-augmented Klingons on DISCOVERY, then that is at best very weird.

            and secondly, the DSC Klingons we have already seen simply look different. and there is canonical information in designs like that. for example, canon from before DSC tells us that Klingons have 2 nostrils. now the canon from DSC tells us they have 4 nostrils.

            it would be the same if Starfleet ships suddenly had 4 warp nacelles. clearly that would just be a “design change” too, but it would also violate canon, because they usually have 2 warp nacelles.

            and given that they made it so very clear on ENTERPRISE that the “design” of the Klingons is actually a canonical fact, it would definitely not be canonical to say that these DSC Klingons are simply the same Klingons with a “design change”.

            then there’s the Starfleet insignia, which i’m sure you know used to be only the Enterprise’s insignia, but now, 10 years earlier, it’s all over Starfleet. that’s another difference in canon.

            then of course we see touch screens on the bridge. a touch screen is a canonical element. if you describe what you’re seeing on screen, you’d say “Lt. Saru touched the screen to bring up the shields” or something. you couldn’t say the same on TOS, because they didn’t have touch screens.

            so, what i’m saying is: “design” is also canonical when it takes very specific shapes. 2 nostrils vs. 4 nostrils is not simply “different make-up”, it actually tells a different story.

          • Marc Henson

            I wasn’t ignoring their design…I cannot deny that they look different then any Klingons we’ve seen before, but we truly haven’t seen enough to say otherwise.

            There are a number of possible explanations for the look of the Klingons, so many I don’t even think it needs an explanation. The Klingon Empire is vast, almost as big as the Federation. There is no reason to not assume that some may have crossbred with other humanoid species.

            And don’t misunderstand what I’m saying; I’m not a fan of the new look, but I’m sure it’ll grow on me…

            The truth is, the Klingons were redesigned when the first movie came out and for years the design change went unexplained.

            Seriously, we didn’t know what the deal was with the Klingons until the last season of Enterprise.

            And another thing, we may see the genetically engineered Klingons in this show. Maybe they’ll be portrayed as a minority and somewhat repressed…they may even present themselves as allies to the Federation in an attempt to deceive them and give the Empire the upper hand…I just made all that up…I’m sure they could come up with an explanation.

            But the stories are more important to me, I’d like something good, and hopefully those questions could be answered somewhere down the line.

            And as for what happened in TOS, that’s not a fair argument when makeup effects and the tech in general was quite lacking then.

          • TUP

            Yes, I agree with much of that. People do need to get past their personal canon issues. Realistically, as I said many times, if someone wants to convince themselves of all manner of things to enjoy a fictional TV show, then good for them.

            But the screaming from every rooftop in an effort to seem smarter then everyone is silly. Especially since the opposite is the result. The creators say it’s Prime. If they change their minds along the way or if its a swerve (like Khan), then great! That’s their prerogative as the creative powers that be.

            We can dislike it. But we can’t alter reality to fit our own desires because we have zero control over it. They say it’s Prime, so it is.

      • TUP

        Except it’s not.

        Imagine people being so confused and upset about a TV show that they twist themselves in knots over this. Who cares.

        • “Except it’s not.”

          where in canon does it say that it’s set in the Prime Universe?

          • TUP

            Where in Canon does it say it isnt?

            Where in Canon does it say any episode or film is set in the Prime Universe? How do you know you’re in the Prime Universe right now? How do you know you even exist?

            Grow up.

  • what i love about DISCOVERY is: it can’t be proven on-screen that it’s set in the Prime Universe 🙂 at least i can’t think of any way to prove it. even if (for some reason) a character were to say “we’re in the Prime Universe”, then that wouldn’t prove anything, because most people in most parallel universes would think of their own universe as the “Prime Universe”. no-one thinks “i’m living in a parallel universe” 😀

    so, logically, there isn’t really any way for them to establish in canon that DISCOVERY is set in the Prime Universe at all. and statements made in interviews or other materials outside the actual episodes and movies, are simply not canon. that leaves it completely open to anyone to think whatever you want: you can believe that DISCOVERY is set in the Prime Universe, or you can believe that it’s set in one of the countless parallel universes of the STAR TREK canon (see TNG episode “PARALLELS”).

    • Thomas W.

      Same problem with ENT. The few references in ST:11 and ST:13 didn’t prove that Archer belongs to the same timeline and reality as TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY. But is there any doubt?

      • i’ve always had my doubt, simply because some of the technology on ENT seems to be far ahead of TOS, with things like flat screens. of course that could be explained by changes to the timeline. some people think the events in FIRST CONTACT caused it, but that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, because we can see that everything’s pretty much the same in INSURRECTION and NEMESIS. if FIRST CONTACT had altered the timeline so significantly, then it would be unlikely that we wouldn’t see any significant changes after the Enterprise returns to the future at the end of FIRST CONTACT.

        • Thomas W.

          Even though interviews are not part of the canon it is not unimportant what the producers think about the show. If they say it is the prime universe we have to accept it.

          We have to accept that ENT looked more advanced than TOS and so will DSC. We have to accept that modern smartphones and laptops are more advanced than the computers of the 24th century in TNG oder VOY.

          James Bond, for example,had many different actors but he is meant to be always the same person. “Casino royale” was a complete reboot. But “M” was still played by Judi Dench. Daniel Craig drives an Aston Martin DB5 although this car was driven by Sean Connery 50 years before. The whole storyline of James Bond is absolute nonsens. Same thing with Spiderman oder Batman. Nevertheless people accept this artistic freedom.

          So they may change the Klingons and the design of the ships and SAY it all takes place in the prime uniververse, 10 years before Kirk. Why not? As long as it is a good series and still identifiable as Star Trek…

          • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN


          • “If they say it is the prime universe we have to accept it.”

            i accept the fact that that’s what they believe. but that doesn’t make it canon.

            “Why not? As long as it is a good series and still identifiable as Star Trek.”

            sure, but no-one should hate on people who prefer to think that it’s set in another parallel universe. because the canon fully allows that interpretation.

          • TUP

            Exactly. Canon refers to the fictional universe. The fall back position is that Star Trek takes place in the Prime Universe, which was never an issue until the JJ films made a distinction. We never needed someone on screen to tell us every episode and film was “Prime”.

            The fact that 2009 and the Mirror episodes make a point of telling us its a different universe supports this point – they tell us its different because the standard is Prime.

            Unless Discovery has a character telling us its a different universe, it’s Prime. The fact the creators confirm this just cements it, though it’s not even required.

            If you look at Franklin, Enterprise (NX), Kelvin – all Prime ships – and look at the design and visual continuity to TMP and beyond, it all looks reasonable. it works. If you include TOS in that, it’s TOS that sticks out as not looking right, not everything else.

            50 years from now when they make a Trek series or film, it will likely look “off” as well as advances and whatnot change.

            We simply have to accept it. I’d rather have great stories with this look then a 60’s inspired TOS series with bad stories. And in fact, even if it was good, its too hard to buy the TOS visuals. Especially now with Kelvin, Enterprise and Franklin. Discovery fits. Or at least what we have seen.

        • TUP

          “i’ve always had my doubt”

          That sums it all up. End of discussion. You wont listen to reason or accept fact. Again, by all means, tell yourself whatever helps you enjoy the series. But stop whining to everyone here who doesnt need to create a false reality in their minds to enjoy a TV show.

          • He cliamed last night he never said ENT was not prime. Mostly as he needed ENT for his silly argument

          • TUP

            I dont recall ever seeing it stated on screen in Enterprise that it was NOT Prime, which by his standards means it must be. lol

          • He goes back and forth. It needs to state it IS, wait np that it is NOT. No wait that it IS

    • TUP

      Whjy on earth would you be so determined to convince yourself it doesnt take place in the time and universe that the creators say it has?

      Can’t we say the same for any episode or film? The Wrath of Khan didnt take place in the prime universe. There. I said it. I feel so much better. *fart*

      • why on earth would YOU be so determined to convince ME that it does take place in the Prime Universe? it’s simply a fact that statements made in interviews do not make canon. and the canon allows the interpretation that it’s set in a parallel universe. and that interpretation makes more sense to me, because visual things matter to me. if they don’t matter to you, then good for you, i’m not gonna hate on your for believing it’s the Prime Universe. but i expect the same tolerance from you.

        • TUP

          Im not trying to convince you of anything that isnt fact. Actually Im not trying to convince you of anything.

          You are the one repeatedly posting something that is completely untrue and arguing with people who rightly correct you.

          Everyone associated with the series has said its Prime. it IS Prime.

          You’re answer is always “yeah but….” and you dont want to accept it. You’re lack of acceptance doesnt change facts or truth.

          So embrace your own lack of reality if it helps you enjoy the series. But dont whine that people point out the fallacy of your position when you refuse to accept the truth.

          • i’m not posting anything that is untrue. it’s a fact that CANON is not made by statements from interviews. if you don’t believe that fact, then i can’t help you.

            it’s also a fact that we haven’t seen a single episode of DISCOVERY, and there is no basis for the claim that the canon places it in the Prime Universe. and, as i expained, it can’t be proven on-screen that it’s set in the Prime Universe anyway.

            feel free to falsify any of my points with actual facts, not just with baseless claims that i’m wrong.

          • TUP

            You’re clearly a very angry person. Just stop.

            Canon is the fictional world. The statements by creators are not subject to “canon” since its reality not fiction. What they say is true. That doesnt preclude them changing their minds later and altering canon with new information. Canon is not written in stone. It can be altered.

            Again, you can create all the wild scenarios in your head that you want to. If it helps you enjoy the series, then great! Im happy for you. But you’re pushing a false scenario and then getting angry when people point out you’re wrong.

          • hahahaha, wow, you have re-defined STAR TREK CANON. please go on Wikipedia and Memory Alpha and replace the current definition with your new one, LOL

          • Rychu Rod

            Gentlemen – all Star Trek on film is canon – all series, movies, jj-movies, Discovery. I believe you both got confused, and mixed up “prime reality” and canon… If you’re gonna argue – get the details right, or Trekkies will loose their “attention to detail” patch in the eye of non-nerd audience!

          • TUP

            No, I am perfectly on board with what you’re saying. This guy might be confused. Well, he IS confused.

            Everything that is seen is canon. But canon can be changed by more recent information. Usually, when it is changed, either “they” or “we” come up with some reason for it. For example, Kirk’s middle initial changing. I was “R”. That was canon. Then it was changed to “T”. Still canon. Both are canon. Only one is factual.

            This guy is trying to argue a false narrative and daring people to prove it.

          • “Everything that is seen is canon. But canon can be changed by more recent information.”

            but canon can’t be made by statements in interviews.

          • TUP

            if you want to argue that, it actually can. Because the people creating the on screen canon can tell us, especially in the absence of actual on screen information.

            Never in Star Trek has the lead turned to the camera, winked and said “hey morons, this is all Prime”. What we see IS Prime because 1) common sense 2) for those with trouble handling reality, they can ask the creators to explain the canon and those creators have explained it…its Prime.

          • “if you want to argue that, it actually can. Because the people creating the on screen canon can tell us, especially in the absence of actual on screen information.”

            that does not create canon.

          • TUP


            Its such a stupid argument. I’d be embarrassed if I was you. Its really really quite idiotic.

          • post the definition of STAR TREK CANON that says that canon is created by interview statements.

          • TUP

            Canon is what appears on screen. Since Discovery takes place in the Prime Universe, it goes without saying that that which appears on screen takes place in Prime. Thus, the fact it is Prime is canon.

            Why is that so hard for you?

          • “Canon is what appears on screen. Since Discovery takes place in the Prime Universe, it goes without saying that that which appears on screen takes place in Prime.”

            do you honestly believe you just made a logical statement?? LOLOLOL

            anyone who isn’t a complete idiot can see that you tried to “sneak in” the claim that DSC takes place in the Prime Universe. that claim isn’t canon. so your chain of reasoning is flawed, because it contains a non-canonical claim.

          • TUP

            ummmm, Discovery DOES take place in the Prime Universe. That much is accepted fact. To pretend otherwise is to simply defy logic and common sense.

          • “Discovery DOES take place in the Prime Universe. That much is accepted fact.”

            it’s not a canonical fact.

          • TUP

            That doesnt even make any sense. If the series takes place in the Prime Universe, of course its canon. Just stop.

          • you really are mentally retarded, aren’t you? i have been saying all day long that it’s canon.

            but your claim that it’s set in the Prime Universe is not a canonical fact.

            you really need professional help.

          • TUP

            Are you for real with they comment? Wow. disagreeinf is one thing. But you’ve now exposed yourself as a gross immature distasteful human being. Shame on you.

          • after hours of me telling you that DISCOVERY is of course canon, because every series and movie is canon… you tell me “of course it’s canon” as if i had ever said anything to the contrary… so the only conclusion that makes sense is that you are mentally retarded.

          • mr joyce

            no need for name calling

          • Marc Henson

            Ok, so here is what I got…what is Star Trek canon?

            That which is shown on screen…not counting the video games.

            BTW, since 2006 this also includes TAS.

            That said, what you say might have had some weight, because at any given moment some writer could swoop down from above and retcon the whole damn thing with a story.

            I choose to believe you are wrong about the show being in another universe though, because not only would that be stupid, but the creators say otherwise.

            Where did the rules of canon come from?

            The came from the creators in interviews. You said what creators say isn’t canon…but that’s not entirely true is it?

            So no, your idea has very little weight, and it’s just your personal canon.

          • “For example, Kirk’s middle initial changing. I was “R”. That was canon. Then it was changed to “T”. Still canon. Both are canon. Only one is factual.”

            when the mistake over the middle initial was discovered, Gene Roddenberry decided that if pressed for an answer on the discrepancy, the response was to be “Gary Mitchell had godlike powers, but at base he was Human. He made a mistake.”

            so there’s your explanation that works in canon.

          • TUP

            Exactly,. Just like I said. Thank you. Now you finally understand. Whew, we can stop trying to explain this to you now!

          • Rychu Rod

            Well – the letter thing always had fallen in the same category to me as microphones seen from time to time in a frame (for TNG remaster they were removed) – errors. We could just live without it, agree the proper letter is T, just because it was used from then on. Interestingly this could be also looked at as a very “in-episode” thing od we consider that it maybe was a error made by the candidate to demi-god title, and we can interpret it as a subtle sign saying to the viewer – ‘see – even on his state this guy still isn’t god – he doesn’t know all. Now think what are the consequences of having an all-powerfull creature who makes mistakes as a human!’

            This is of course not what happened ‘in real life’ but there’s no harm in coming up with this idea.

          • TUP

            Certainly, its fun to come up with scenarios to explain away the canon issues and what not. Someone trying to explain away production statements from creators is akin to arguing the canon validity of real life. This guy is nuts. lol

          • “all Star Trek on film is canon – all series, movies, jj-movies, Discovery.”

            hahaha, you don’t need to tell me that, it’s exactly what i’ve been saying the whole time on this talkback. here are some quotes from me on this talkback:

            “of course DISCOVERY is CANON. everything that happens in any live-action STAR TREK series or movie is canon.”

            “canon is ONLY made by what happens in the episodes and movies.”

            “anything that happens on DISCOVERY becomes canon.”

            so no, i’m not confused, only this TUP guy is.

          • TUP

            You’re less confused, more anal and possibly ill. And I dont mean that as an insult. Im legitimately concerned. You’re taking all this far too seriously.

            The creators have spoken. it is now fact. You can grow up to be a big boy and maybe work on Star Trek and then you can create anything you want.

          • “The creators have spoken. it is now fact.”

            not in canon.

          • TUP


          • thanks for agreeing.

          • TUP

            Again, you’re hold on reality is failing. Sorry, pal. Prime Universe. Nothing on screen has said it isnt. Therefore it is.

            I feel like that episode where Kirk has to convince a stupid computer to destroy itself through its own obvious but moronic logic. Something like that hahaha

          • “Nothing on screen has said it isnt. Therefore it is.”

            the Klingons we see on screen are telling us that it isn’t.

          • TUP

            Incorrect. Unless there is a scene where a Klingon looks at the screen and says “this isnt the Prime Universe”, and I really doubt there is, you are wrong. You cannot have different standards for your own perspective and a different one for the opposing view.

            You’re just being difficult. And Obtuse.

          • when Klingons suddenly have 4 nostrils, then that makes them different Klingons. so, unless that is actually explain in DISCOVERY, we have to assume that it’s a parallel universe where Klingons have 4 nostrils.

          • Rychu Rod

            LOL – now that you both confirmed that you’re not confused, I’m relieved. My job here is done! 😉

          • except that i actually proved that i know exactly what canon is 😀 the other guy keeps claiming that interview statements create canon. so make up your own mind about who’s confused and who isn’t 😀

          • TUP

            We agree on canon. We disagree about reality. You dont understand that, unfortunately.

          • what you don’t understand is that a statement about which universe a story is set in, is a statement about canon. it’s exactly like saying “it’s set on Vulcan” or “it’s set on Romulus”. parallel universes are simply places in the STAR TREK multiverse. there’s no difference between going to a planet and going to a parallel universe. it’s just a location.

            so when you say “this is in the Prime Universe”, you’re making a claim about the location where the story is set. and that is a statement about canon.

          • TUP

            You’re simply wrong. Continuing to push a false narrative wont change reality.

          • so parallel universes in STAR TREK are not locations that the characters can go to? have you seen “MIRROR, MIRROR”? “THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS”? any of the DS9 Mirror Universe episodes? LOL

          • TUP

            Typically, you insult rather then actually make a point. Which us your fall back position to when you’re wrong.

            Of course Canon can be changed. It is altered by more recent information.

            Try to form some complete sentences if you wish to discuss.

          • He foes not understand what a retcon is

          • TUP

            He really doesn’t.

            And actually, even if he did, he’s one of these people that simply cannot admit to being wrong. There are a few of them. Those people who have decided Discovery sucks and will simply never admit it even if they love it.

          • True. He could not and would not even try to explian the klingon TMp change without EN. I mean it was 30 years before that joke was made on DS9

          • i told you: i always wondered about the change, until it was explained. there’s nothing else to explain, that’s the truth. you’re just an idiot like TUP. you two should get a room.

          • TUP

            More insults from the stereotypical internet tough guy who wouldn’t have the guts to say half this stuff in person. Sad.

  • The Discovery is definitely a much better ship design that the utterly anachronistic Shenzhou, despite the gaps in the saucer. In the side view, the saucer looks good. Diameter: about 120m (if the promo image is to scale) and hence in a reasonable range.

    • TUP

      I really like the Shenzhou and do NOT like the Discovery. But Ill reserve judgement since we havent had a very good look at the ship. They seem to be holding it back.

      • I like the Shenzhou too. But it is not a 24th century series. I like aircraft carriers but don’t want to see them in a movie about the Battle of Trafalgar.

        • TUP

          It aint the 60s anymore. Its a perfectly reasonable development from the NX Enterprise.

          • TUP simply doesn’t understand the concept of visual continuity. if it were up to him, they could use Star Destroyers and Battlestars on STAR TREK, and he would simply explain it away as “design changes”.

          • TUP

            Actually, once again you resort to cheap insults. You weren’t even in this particular discussion. But because you’re panties are well bunched from me previously schooling you, you chose to attack me for no reason.

            Truly the desperate act of a defeated man.

            I, like the vast majority of people, do understand visual continuity. And we also understand that continuity to 60’s TOS simply would not work today.

            We also understand visual continuity from Franklin to Enterprise to Kelvin to Discovery. That seems to have gone over your head.

            But please, insult some people to prove my point.

          • hahahaha, “schooling” me? lol

            you still haven’t presented the definition of “canon” that confirms your claim that canon can be made in interview statements. so that claim of yours is still completely pulled out of your ass.

          • TUP

            Ive actually answered it numerous times. You’re just making up a false statement to try and win an argument that only you’re having.

            You are now trolling and bullying. Please grow up.

          • no, you haven’t presented the definition anywhere. you can’t just make up a definition and then expect people to accept it. i use the official definition that you can find anywhere. yours is made up.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            1. Get a clue.

            2. Grow up.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Don’t feed this troll.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Yikes, almost liked, I thought you were Tupwood.

          • “I, like the vast majority of people, do understand visual continuity”

            if that is so, then why don’t you understand that Klingons with 2 nostrils aren’t visual continuity with Klingons with 4 nostrils?

          • TUP

            Pal, using the look of the Klingons to try and argue anything is the height of ignorance. Their look has changed multiple times. Again, tell yourself whatever you want if it helps you enjoy the show.

            But stop attacking everyone that correctly points out you’re wrong.

          • “Their look has changed multiple times.”

            it has changed once, and that was explained in canon.

          • TUP

            Nope, its changed several times. TOS to TMP, to TOS films to TNG, several times during TNG (Worf, the same character, had his make up and prosthetic change from season to season), as well as JJ films where, since it was Prime until Nero showed up, those Klingons look the same as Prime Klingons.

            They are all mostly variations on the same general idea (the biggest change being TOS to TMP and TMP to the rest of the films). And Discovery Klingons are also a variation on a similar theme.

            Maybe you think all Klingons should look alike. Maybe there are certain human ethnicities that you think all look alike too. I dont know.

          • TUPwood

            More like:

            TOS Films III – VI

            The DISC Klingons (Which I like very much but cannot see as being in the prime timeline.) and STID Klingons look very similar. I think I read they were designed by the same artist.

          • TUP

            Yes, same designer. Which explains their similarity. But the JJ Klingons were prime Klingons because we know the time line split when Nero appeared. Since that would only effect the timeline moving forward, not backwards, then those Klingons in STID were meant to be the same Klingons we’ve seen in Enterprise and TOS.

            We overlook this because the Klingons have been designed and altered a few times. And we allow for some creative freedom, especially with new creative regimes.

            In a perfect world, everything would be the same. But there will always be an effort on new people to create new looks. As fans, we can hope its relatable and “close enough” that we can over look it.

            I think in the case of the Klingons, it IS close enough and as far as accepting it, I have to reserve judgement until I see the show. We still dont know if there is an in-Universe explanation like a different off shoot or something that explains the difference.

            For all we know, these Klingons, JJ Klingons, TNG Klingons are all the same species – KLingons, and just different ethnic groups within the species.

          • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN


          • TUPwood

            Yes, that was one of the first things that came to mind when I saw them in that Twitter pic a few months back.

          • They do not look much like the final STID klingons. They do have many things in common with the unused design.

            Klingons also changed a few times between TNG and DS9 as they altered to look. Worfs make up changed five or six times

            Make up changes all the time. So yeah, they can be and are prime klingons.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Well the one obvious difference is they’re purple so yeah that’s one difference I guess. And no there have been no significant changes from TNG to DS9.

          • no, in the Prime Universe it changed only once, when the Klingons got ridges in TMP. everything after that were just different ridges. all Klingons have different ridges. that’s not a design change of Klingons, it’s simply the fact that different Klingons have different ridges.

            but it’s clear to me by this point that you must be mentally retarded or simply have an IQ of 50.

          • TUP

            Someone wants to get banned. Wow. So gross. This is how low you sink when losing an argument? Awful shameful behaviour.

          • hahaha, here comes the snowflake.

          • TUP

            You’re not smart enough to use that term effectively. And it doesn’t excuse you’re disgusting behaviour. Very sad, pal.

          • “not smart enough”

            coming from the guy who can’t use the correct spelling of “your”.

          • TUP

            I believe whining about typos is #27 on the Internets list of things you do when YOU’RE losing an argument.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Shame on you.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Tupwood makes more sense.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            You bringing out that poor excuse again how the make up was altered ever so slightly in TNG from actor to actor? Seriously that sounds desperate man.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle


            Just no, no, no. Get real.

          • Pedro Ferreira


          • Incorrect, worfs make up alone changed 5 times.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Really? Show me pictures please.

          • There are a lot of little changes, but here is a side to side. This is not the same make up

            And another by DS9

          • Pedro Ferreira

            They slightly adjusted the make up after Season 1 so what’s the significant change you guys keep telling me about? It’s the same thing!

          • That is a make up change. Yes, In universe he always looked the same, but according to you we need an explanation for each and every redesign,

            Also why are you guys not upset over no explanation for the trill or a dozen other races they redesigned?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            But was it a significant change? No. It was the first season, everybody looked a little different so you’re using a bad example.

            The Trill were redesigned but within the same era of Star Trek. It was one episode of TNG that most people had forgot about by the time DS9 came along. Yeah it’s a massive change but it’s not like they spent twenty years with Jadzia Dax’s Trill design and changed it immediately after is it?

          • 1 : You must explian the change. If a human had his face changed you eould want to know why.

            2: It does not matter if its one time or 50. Its the same scale of change

          • Pedro Ferreira

            1) No it doesn’t need explaining. It’s a tiny change. People grow older, their faces change, big deal.

            2) No it doesn’t because it was once, meanwhile we saw Dax with a proper established history for seven years!

          • 1: Its like a new actor every make up change. We are talking about nose and forhead redesigns
            2: Yes, its the same level of change

          • Pedro Ferreira

            1) Yeah but every actor playing a Klingon doesn’t look the same. The Klingon make up is applied in different small ways therefore they all look different. Not every actor donning Klingon make up can look like Worf.

            2) No it is not.

          • Yes, this is the same.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Okay we’re just going back on forth no this, believe whatever makes you feel better.

          • Perplexum

            I never thought I would say that, but the JJ movies, at least the first and third, were way more in line with the original esthetics than Discovery is. It’s simply not true that a similiar but modernized look would not work when the simplistic and colorful TOS uniforms still work today in a multi million dollar movie.

          • i agree. but just to make this clear: i love everything i’ve seen of DISCOVERY. i just think it’s not the same universe but a parallel universe. that doesn’t mean i don’t like it.

          • TUP

            They werent going to use those uniforms after the films did, is my opinion. I would have liked them too though. But they didnt.

          • The new movies killed any TOS style uniform updates.

          • Wait till he starts spamming you. He did that to me last night. Like 8 to 10 one line responses to a single comment. At that point, I stopped responding

          • TUP

            I wish people like that were booted. I never like to see anyone banned. But its sort of subtle trolling. Its the right subject (Trek) but the same behavior over and over. Some weird fetish for pushing opinions and getting replies, I assume. Makes taking part in discussions a chore. And there are some wonderful discussions (and insightful disagreements) here. Its a great community other then a few people.

          • He is name calling now. He attacks when he can not defend his ever changing, desperate fan theory

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            That’s how brightgeist rolls here.

          • Yeah, I figed that much. He got cornered in something he could not defend and started spamming. He also fell back on personal attacks and naming calling very fast. All the removed comments are his.

          • TUP

            Maybe he was removed. Don’t see any recent comments. Though I haven’t looked (don’t care either way). But there is no need for the trolling, spamming and nastiness. We can all disagree and still be mature and engage in wonderful discussions.

          • I hope he got removed honesty. There is no need or reason to get nasty, vile and go on a spamming spree. Everytime he got trapped he got nasty

          • TUP

            Yeah I can’t disagree with your sentiment. I hate to see anyone get booted. We’re all Star Trek fans. But some people cannot handle intelligent discussion. So what can ya do. Not losing sleep over it.

            I can only hope Discovery is good. I’m cautiously optimistic. I don’t love everything I’ve seen and heard but I accept that they aren’t making the series just for me. So I’m open minded.

          • I love the look, the casting seems solid. However scripts will make or break it. ENT had a great look with a soild cast as well, but no direction.

            I am hoping thos does not make the mistakes of VOY and ENT. I am waiting to see a modern show, with long connected arcs.

            I do worry about the all access thing though

          • Pedro Ferreira

            TUP spams everybody. I prefer Tupwood. That guy makes actual sense.

          • Nah TUP is fine, it was another guy, brightsomething that spammed me. He also went off calling folks names.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Considering I dislike TUP not sure what to think here.

          • TuPwood admitted he was a troll account, soooooo

          • Pedro Ferreira

            We need a balance of opinions otherwise it just becomes my opinion is correct blah blah blah. Like I said I agree with TUPwood’s arguments.

          • You can agree with em. I am just telling you what he stated. He name is name to troll TUP and confuse people into thinking he is TUP.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            He’s told me that already although he says TUP is the troll.

          • I have no dig in this fight, but if one poster made a name just to troll the other, they are the troll

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Yet they manage to make better points than the supposed non-troll. I was on a Ghostbusters fan site and let me tell you, there were a lot of trolls on there but because they agreed with the mod I got banned. Just pointing that out.

          • Trolls are everyone, I mod a religion channel, trust me I know. As a Mod of four channels, I am gonna tell you anyone who makes a name, based off another poster is trolling. Full stop.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Yikes well I hope you don’t get any atheists or people questioning religion visiting your channel otherwise what happened with me and Ghostbusters will happen to them.

          • We have to ban alot of creationests and christians mostly. The far right nuts have no chill.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Cool but people can act great with other people and still be trolls. This is coming from experience.

            By the way not sure what site you mod but I haven’t heard from one rational atheist.

          • Its just called Religion, its a disqus channel.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            So it’s a Disqus channel? That’s not a site is it? Are Disqus channels websites?

          • They are just stand alone channels, not all have websites attached

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I see.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            brightgeist just spams all the time.

          • The Walker class to me is clearly derived from the NX. So I agree with you.

          • Thomas Elkins

            I do believe the Shenzhou is the better looking of the two ships, but I still think it’s wrong to say “it’s not the 60s anymore” while simultaneously saying this is a reasonable development from the NX. While I agree the Shenzhou looks like it progressed from the NX style, the ENT series still acknowledged that the 60s style was where the future was going. The TOS Constitution is very 60s but it was still canon even next to the NX-class.

            It will be interesting to see if they ever introduce a Constitution-class on Discovery.


          • TUP

            I dont disagree with you. But in a sense we have to accept both. And its better for them to take the Enterprise, Kelvin, Franklin designs and extrapolate that to the TOS era then to really ignore those and use 60’s visuals.

            And yes, DS9 and Enterprise both made those 60’s visuals canon (TNG did too, actually) but so be it. We have to accept that its the same object with better visuals. Sort of like looking at the same image in bad SD vs high quality 4K.

    • TUPwood

      I just wanted to say that I absolutely love Ex Astris Scientia and would love to know your opinion on Romulan Ambassador Nanclus’ lack of ridge brows and lack of greenish-tinged skin (Like the Michael Westmore Romulans.).

      • Thanks! In my view the Romulan varieties make sense since the Romulans likely have alien DNA, unlike Vulcans. The flat foreheads may be a recessive trait, like red hair. The statistics between TOS and TNG don’t work very well, but the difference is small enough to accept it.

    • Perplexum

      Visual continuity aside, the overly long nacelles and the holes in on the ship makes it lose by default. Change the nacelles of the Shenzou into something more akin to the NX 01 or Connie and it would fit perfectly as a design of the early 23rd century.

      • The Shenzhou nacelles are the biggest problem but not the only one. Odd angles everywhere are exactly like on many other 24th century designs.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      I agree completely.

      I will look forward to seeing the Shenzhou blow up at the end of the premiere!

  • Your Worst Nightmare

    So, interesting note here: The Midnight’s Edge videos which claim that this TV show is an absolute failure because a shrinking, dying fanbase just isn’t interested in it (Yawn!) suggests that Discovery is actually run by Bad Robot, because well, Alex Kurtzman worked for Bad Robot and can’t go out on his own and do his own thing (double yawn) and MUST be tied to the riches of JJ Abrams forever (and ever. Amen. Also yawn). (Nevermind the fact that its done by his company Secret Hideout which has been in existence since 2014 and has been the production company on several films and TV shows, but yeah… fake news, right?)

    Anywho, point is: Bad Robot and Paramount has traditionally used Omaze for its work with charities. CBS and Secret Hideout seem to be using Prizeo. Minor thing, but I would imagine that if Abrams was connected to Discovery, and he wanted to do the charity thing (which, why would he? Isn’t he a crazy Hollywood megalomaniac who only wants to destroy our childhoods by usurping all of the franchises we loved as children? Nevermind the fact that he’s connected with ten different charities in areas including AIDS & HIV, Cancer, Children, Civil Rights, Education, Poverty, and Veteran/Service Member Support. Oh right, its all a vicious scheme. I forgot.)

    I apologize for the snark here, but really, some of these theories I read and watch videos about are just absolutely ludicrous. Maybe the charities aren’t a smoking gun, but I think it is an indicator, I believe.

    And I think, just like the Omaze campaigns for Star Trek Beyond, this Prizeo thing is pretty great.

    • TUP

      Those videos were debunked the moment they got a simple fact wrong, like which production house is making it.

      • Your Worst Nightmare

        No question. But it doesn’t stop them from continuing to make the videos and people eating them up.

        • TUP

          Its a testament to the smartness of the people making them and to the gullibility of the people believing them. There is a sucker born every minute and in the case of a franchise like Star Trek, its wise to create videos like that to make money. Good for them. Im just saddened by the intelligent people who want to dislike the series sight unseen who push it as anything more than the ramblings of people that dont know anything.

          I like Star Trek so it never occurred to me to make videos like that. But I like money so I guess I should have!

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            Midnight’s Edge took the time to dig into the Sony leaks and got REALLY lucky on all of the stuff from there. Everything else from them has been supposition and rumors (likely from people who have absolutely no contacts in Hollywood, but instead like to spread gloom and doom on sites about Star Trek. And they call themselves “fans.” We believe in sensationalism these days. Not facts.

            But yeah, would have been a good money-making scheme for sure. lol

          • Pedro Ferreira

            To be fair they do say which are rumours and which aren’t.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            Point taken. But it doesn’t stop from being sensationalized “journalism.”

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Well that’s what brings in the YT views although I admire them for bringing this info to people’s attention. I totally disagree with them on Sonic though, like completely 100%.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            It’s sad that we as a culture would prefer to have sensaltional tabloid crap as opposed to real journalism.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            So called real journalism is also fabricated either due to biased politics or because they need something to talk about. For instance we all seem to live in a world where only left wing views are tolerated by the press. As someone who isn’t left wing but central can see this imbalance.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            This is a non sequitor. We’re not discussing politics. We’re not discussing “real journalism.” We’re discussing an entertainment VLOG which is designed to be controversial.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            All entertainment sites are designed to be controversial, even the ones you like. There’s no difference apart from politics so what I say does have some meaning here.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            I’m not here to get into a discussion of politics online. I find it to be a fruitless endeavor. No one ends up being happy and blood pressure typically ends up raised.

            I am here to discuss Trek. If every entertainment site was designed to be controversial, they’d be spouting the same crap Midnight’s Edge does. TrekCore certainly does not.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            TrekCore doesn’t but then TrekCore isn’t in the same category as Midnight’s Edge with YT subscribers, video of talking people etc. This is a fan site so yeah of course it wants to report just proper info. Both are different because this site is catering to one thing and doesn’t go for a YT presence.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            So what you’re suggesting is that just because TC is a “fan site,” it doesn’t sensationalize journalism. But TC also reports Star Trek news. The Hollywood Reporter, which is an entertainment site, reports Star Trek news, amongst other things. They haven’t picked up on the sensationalist reports from ME. You said not too long ago that “all entertainment sites are designed to be controversial.” So with that logic, shouldn’t THR be reporting on the same thing ME does? Or are we just talking about YT videos now? Because you’re kinda moving the goalposts.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I wasn’t talking about fan sites, I’m talking about general entertainment sites, the stuff that is known as clickbait sites. ME is an Internet site designed to post news stories from across the website. Every site has been guilty of posting fake news at some point and I’m sure that includes The Hollywood Reporter.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            I think if we’re going to continue this conversation, we need to define “news sites.” I take news sites as legitimate sources that use citations in order to present the information. Clickbait sites I see as having headlines such as; “Your Fifteen Crushes from the 1990: and What They Look Like Now” or “When Movies Go Bad: How Josh Trank Screwed Up Fant4stic!” Then we have blogs which are maybe a nicer way in some cases of saying clickbait.

            I personally don’t like clickbait and do my best to avoid it (with varying levels of success). I wouldn’t lump THR in with them as they have verifiable industry sources for their breaking news and rumors. The ME YouTube channel, with headlines like “Star Trek: Discovery in trouble?” and “How Sony Hijacked Ghostbusters 3,” I can’t help but lump them in as clickbait.

            But again, that’s my opinion.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Not saying they aren’t but they can be a valuable source of info. As I said any entertainment outlet can report fake news, even Hollywood Reporter.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            Any source can report fake news. Often times its inadvertent. But typically there is a source they can speak of. Whether that source is correct or not, well, that’s a different story. As I said very early on in this conversation, I can only accept “My sources say…” or “Anonymous sources say…” so many times before I suggest your anonymous source is some random troll on the internet who doesn’t want something to succeed. (And before anyone says a word trying to bring political reporting into this, I am not, nor have I denied the fact that MSM can be biased and create sensationalist news.)

            THAT is the key to my problem with Midnight’s Edge. There is absolutely no way to verify a thing they say. And if I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times: I find it to be sensationalist, questionable AND HIGHLY careless reporting.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Well the actual reported info Midnight Edge give out can be verified, the rumours which they state are rumours can not.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      Midnight’s Edge’s videos provide a lot of useful information.

      • Your Worst Nightmare

        I think it’s fair to say much of it is unfounded gossip.

        • Pedro Ferreira

          They do say which are rumours and which are reported info.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            You said that already. Doesn’t change the amount that is unfounded. Where do the rumors come from? I respect “anonymous sources say…” but you can’t have whole videos around that point.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            From what I’ve seen so far half the videos are reported info, half are rumours. That’s not a bad ratio.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            It’s not a particularly good ratio either.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Considering they group the info and the rumours into groups it’s not a bad ratio I feel.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            That’s your right to feel that way. It’s mine to disagree.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Okay, be unreasonable.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            Pedro, the nice thing about the internet is that we don’t have to agree on everything all the time. How the heck is me having my own opinion on Midnight’s Edge, which just doesn’t conflate with yours unreasonable?

            I don’t like their style of journalism. Even if they do separate their facts from rumor on their regular videos, their live videos they sure don’t. I think it’s sensationalist “journalism.” It’s focusing on negative things, and presented in such a negative fashion which. Much of this cannot be confirmed or denied, in order to try to sway people to agree with them. In some ways, yes, there are similarities to “real news.” I’ve admitted the videos are slick and well produced. Doesn’t mean I have to like their content.

            That’s my opinion. You have every right to disagree with it. Just like I have every right to disagree with yours. Maybe they’ll be right at the end of the day. I don’t know.

            I mean, in one of their live videos, they were still discussing Ghostbusters and their info from the Sony leak and bragging on that. I will admit I don’t follow them all that regularly but If they’ve had no credible evidence that they can point to since then? I have a hard time believing their schtick. But that’s just me.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Fair enough, apologies.

        • If you mean “much of it” as to read all of it, yes 😀

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            I was being polite. :p

          • Fair enough. I see folks running with this stuff and so much info on it is just plain incorrect, yet they take it as some holy insider source.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            When I was in college in the late 90s and early 2000s, I thought that reading entertainment websites was “inside info.”

            I grew up. It’s time for some of these people to do the same. About 30% of what you see in those slickly produced videos with ridiculous amounts of innuendo and supposition end up being true.

          • I think 30% is being kind

  • dixonium

    The attention to detail is impressive. I can’t wait for the premiere!

    • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN


      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        The size of this ship completely disproves your Kelvin universe spamming. This ship size is in the ballpark with ships of TOS era, not an “over-sized” Kelvin design.

        • Pedro Ferreira

          I don’t have a problem with the size of the ship but if it’s as underpowered as the reboot Enterprise it can add to my list of problems with Discovery.

    • Like them or not, the props and sets are top notch

  • Karl

    They are getting a bit despirate now.

  • SpaceCadet

    Can’t wait for the premiere! And the Emmy’s on CBS air a week before the premiere, a significant ratings grabber that will ensure Discovery gets even more of a promotional push!

  • Tone

    Oh my god, please tell be that the picture of someone standing on the saucer sections is fan made?

    The scale is completely wrong, that would make the whole saucer edge only just taller than 1 deck!

    • Not fan made and it looks 1 deck tall on the edge to me

      • Tone

        Thought so, not very well thought out at all… Do we know how big this ship is supposed to be?

        • No clue, a guy below put the saucer at 120 meters..

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Saucer edge is about 3.8 meters high, saucer diameter is about 140 meters.

          • Interesting, so a mid sized craft for the era. Likely long though. likely 200 to 220 without nacells?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Agreed! See my other response to you other post — “It might actually be longer than a Constitution, but I don’t thinks it is nearly as massive…I’d guess it is about 75% as massive as the Constitution”

            So in naval parlance, if the Constitution is at “battleship” class, then the Discovery would be at “heavy cruiser” class.

          • LOl, I just responded to it with one of those final images of the ship. I am unsure how long those nacelles are but the ships likely 240 to 280 without it

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Nope, your thought process is off.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Yea, and that is correct, and their is now issue???

        • Some folks think it looks too thin. IDK, it seem 12 or mote feet tall to me, not what I could call thin.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Were you expecting Kelvin dimension starships? Given the smaller saucer versus Constitution Class, his is completely consistent with the size of starships in TOS era.

      Not sure what your issue is?

  • Fiery Little One

    Interesting little tidbits.

  • Heidibolson


    Google is paying 97$ per hour! work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!
    On tuesday I got a Smart 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
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobs363CashFinderSource/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ao73l..,…

  • Eric Cheung

    One space suit for Sonequa Martin-Green is roughly 60% of the thickness of the saucer at its edge (on my screen, 3/4″ vs. a 1 1/4″ hull).

    Google lists her height as 5′ 4 1/2″. I’ve been trying to find out how much extra height a space suit gives someone. Apparently in the real world, early space suits were tailored for the astronaut, but now they have a standardized suit which is adjustable. Regardless, looking at the DSC space suits from the displays, it looks like the helmets add about a half a headlength to the actor wearing them, let’s call that 5″. The boots look almost like standard shoes on the heel. So, maybe another inch or two? Let’s round it up to 6′?

    I’d say the thickness of the hull is around 10′, maybe 11′?

    It’s probably one deck thick?

    • TUP

      Im thinking its just an image created for promo. Because she looks way too big.

      • Eric Cheung

        Could be, but if it’s two decks, then it sucks to be on the lower deck, with no windows!

        • DIGINON

          From the image I’m pretty sure it’s just 1 deck.

  • The Science Fiction Oracle

    The Enterprise refit barely had two decks at the saucer edge, as this cutaway shows (and the below deck looked like a undersized auxiliary deck at best). Given this saucer is smaller is size, one deck at the edge makes a lot of sense.

    I don’t get the uproar over this, other than the usual negative spammers. What is wrong with this? If anything, for those bitching that this is really the Kelvin universe, this would seem to prove the opposite, and the this shows that that starships in this universe are not the enlarged Kelvin versions.


    • They just need something else to complain on. The ships too big, the ships too small. The edge is too thick, the edge is too thin. Personally I am not sure this is smaller than a constitution. But it well could be.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        It might actually be longer than a Constitution, but I don’t thinks it is nearly as massive…I’d guess it is about 75% as massive as the Constitution.

    • TUP

      There is no uproar and it doesn’t matter. Either its legitimate or its not scale for PR purposes. No issue either way.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        What it does do though is shit-can those spamming views of “Tom Cruise” and others here in insisting that DSC is in the Kelvin timeline. This ship sizing reinforces that it is in the Prime Timeline.

        • TUP

          Thats a good point. The massive ships of the KT do not seem to be shared by the designers of Discovery which is good.

  • Angelawweitzman

    Google is paying 97$ per hour! work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!
    On tuesday I got a Smart 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
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobs384CashMarketPlace/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ap94l..,……

  • jurassicbond

    I’m just going to stay positive. I mean…I don’t get why it’s so hard for the studios to just stay faithful to Gene.